Ignorance as an excuse

Via Greg Mankiw I read a response to the argument by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez that the top marginal tax rate in the US should be raised to about 73%. I do not want to enter into the substance of the debate but instead discuss the logic used by the criticism of Diamond and Saez work.

The authors of the response present a contrast between the willingness of Peter Diamond to offer a concrete policy recommendation with the answers that two other Nobel Prize winners (Tom Sargent and Chris Sims) gave after receiving their prize. When asked in 2011 what should the government do to help growth, Sims answered:

"I think part of the point of this prize in the area that we work in is that answers to questions like that require careful thinking, a lot of data analysis, and that the answers are not likely to be simple. So that asking Tom [Sargent] and me for answers off the top of our heads to these questions — you shouldn’t expect much from us."

And when asked for a specific policy conclusion he added:



"If I had a simple answer, I would have been spreading it around the world."

The authors praised Sims' answers as the "model of how academic economists should behave when facing questions about specific policy." I find this to be an odd and depressing conclusion as it portrays a very pessimistic view on what academic economists should (can) do. I understand that some of what we do as academics is not useful enough for policy makers, and in these circumstances is better to be honest and stay out of the debate. But as Sims points out in his statement, one can find answers to those questions after careful thinking and a lot of data analysis. That's what Diamond and Saez have done. One can disagree with their analysis but one cannot simply disregard it because they are academic economists.

The authors of the response then go into the details of the analysis and they present their arguments on why the calculations of Diamond and Saez are wrong. But when presenting their arguments they protect themselves from criticism by saying that they do not have an answer to this policy question: "if we had a simple answer we would be spreading it around the world". Although "they can be pretty sure that the answer if significantly lower than 73%". Isn't this a simple answer? Or maybe the fact that they are not willing to provide a number but a range ("significantly lower than 73%") makes it a complex answer?

There is no simple answer to the question of what should be the top marginal tax rate. But policy makers need to chose a number, not a range. Diamond and Saez presents their arguments and data analysis in a way that is at least as competent as any other analysis on the same subject. They can be criticized on their assumptions or calculations but not on their willingness to advance the knowledge on an issue of great policy relevance. If any, they should be praised as academics who want to go beyond writing great papers to make those papers useful for policy makers or society at large.

Antonio Fatás

Semantics and the Debt Burden

Does government debt impose a burden on future generations? A relevant question given the high current government debt levels to which most people will answer with a clear "yes": we are spending today and passing the bill to the next generation. But this answer is incorrect (or to be more precise it might be incorrect).  The link between debt and burden on future generations is much more complex than what many think.

Recently, a debate has populated the economics blogosphere as some argue that that debt only imposes a burden when it is held externally, others coming up with counterexamples where this is not true (borrowing from Noah Smith a list of links to the debate: here, here, here, here, here or here.)

The debate becomes even more complex as the issue of desirability of another round of fiscal stimulus is mixed with the notion of intergeneration transfers associated to increasing government debt.

Unfortunately, economists tend to go in circles and debate the same subjects over and over again without reaching consensus, so when I went back a few months (January this year) I found a very similar debate with practically identical arguments being put forward by both sides.

The lack of consensus in this particular debate is much more about semantics that about disagreements on how the economy works. My reading of the debate is summarized well by Noah Smith long list of updates to his blog entry. In particular the following question: is government debt an indicator of the (fiscal) burden we are imposing on the next generations? And the answer is a clear no. Debt does not matter. What matters is taxes and spending, debt is just a vehicle to deal with imbalances between the two. Debt is not a burden per se but it can be the outcome of tax and spending decisions that lead to redistribution of resources.

We can construct examples where a government with high debt levels is not imposing any costs on future generations. We can also construct examples where a government with very little of no debt imposes large burden on a given generation (tax everyone under 50 and give the revenues as a transfer to everyone over 50).

And while seeing these debates come back without a resolution is frustrating, the advantage is that I can cut and paste below a longer and more detailed post that I wrote last time the debate happened. Just for those who still want to read more about it.

Antonio Fatás

------

(Repost) Debt does not matter. Spending and taxes do.

Monday January 2, 2012.

Paul Krugman makes the point that government debt matters less than most people think because in some cases we simply owe money to ourselves. He is right and what he has in mind is the notion that government debt is (in many countries) mostly held domestically. Japan is an extreme case where more than 90% of the government debt is held by its nationals but even in the US the majority of government debt is held by US citizens or institutions. For some it is debt but for others it is an asset, they cancel out from a national point of view.

We can think of an extreme case where government bonds are held by all taxpayers in proportion to their income - in a way that mimics tax rates. In that case, government debt is not imposing a future burden on anyone, it simply cancels out with the assets that all investors/taxpayers have.

How do future generations enter into this analysis? What if we try to pass the bill to future generations? Let's start with the case of a closed economy/system. In a closed system (the world, no international trade or capital flows) the debt that the current generation has will end up in the hands of the future generation in one of two ways: either it gets simply passed to the next generation as a bequest or, alternatively, the current generation could try to sell their assets and spend all their wealth if they do not want to leave a bequest to their children. But the debt must be bought by someone. And given that this is a closed economy, it can only be bought by the future generations. In both cases the bond holders are also the taxpayers.

If we bring other countries into the picture then the analysis is different. The government debt that other countries hold is a claim on our current and future income and as such it is a financial burden that either the current generation or the future one will have to pay for. But Krugman's point, which is correct, is that many make the mistake of assuming that government debt is equivalent to external debt and they overestimate the burden that it imposes on a country.

Let's go back to the case of a closed economy: is it really true that debt does not matter? Not quite, because there are distributional issues of two types: first there is no perfect match between bond holders and taxpayers so it is not quite true that we owe money to ourselves. Some citizens owe money to others. The second distributional issue is about generations and here we need to go back to the example above to understand how difficult the analysis can get. The best way to understand the argument is to stop talking about debt and talk about spending and taxes, which is what really matters. A government spends some income today (builds a road, provides health services to the population). It decides not to tax anyone but instead it issues debt bought by the current generation. The government decides that it will only pay back the debt in the future when it raise taxes on the next generation, not the current one. Are we passing a burden to the next generation? It all depends on what the current generation does. If they decide to spend all their income and leave no bequests for their children then the answer is a clear yes. The current generation enjoyed services that they did not pay for themselves and did not compensate the next generation in any way for the future taxes they will have to pay. Just to be clear, the future generation will be holding the debt that the previous generation sold to them when they were spending their inheritance, but this is not a transfer of resources, the asset was sold at market price. So the fact that in the future bondholders are also the taxpayers does not mean that we are not passing a burden to the next generation.

There is a second scenario where there is no burden passed to the next generation. It can be that the current generation is responsible, understands that the government is asking future generations to pay for the goods and services that they enjoyed and they decide to leave a larger-than-planned bequest to their children so that they have resources to pay for all the taxes (you can think about the bequest being the government debt itself). In this case no burden is passed to the next generation.

This simple example (*) makes it clear that answering the question of what distributional impact government debt has across generations requires an understanding of the patterns of spending, taxes and saving of different generations. What matters is not debt but who enjoys the spending that the government does and who pays for it. Debt is just a vehicle that can be used to transfer resources across different individuals or generations. Debt is not a problem, the problem, from a generational point of view, is the potential mismatch between spending and taxes (even if future taxpayers are also the holders of government bonds when they are paid back).


(*) The example ignores many issues: the type of goods government buy, the possibility of default, the possibility of crowding out (government bonds displacing other forms of saving),...

Coordinated Fiscal Contraction

The new issue of the IMF fiscal policy monitor is out. As usual, a great reading to understand the state of fiscal policy in the world. There are many issues I could highlight from the report but here is one that caught my attention: below is a summary of what fiscal policy has been doing since 2009.

The red dot in the chart represents the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary balance as a % of potential GDP in advanced economies during the period 2009-13. This variable is the best way to capture discretionary fiscal policy, as the balance is adjusted by the cycle and we use potential output (instead of output) to avoid the ratio to be influenced by cyclical variations in GDP (the blue and yellow columns just show how much of the action comes from expenditure cuts of increases in taxes).

Not only we see a majority of countries reducing budget balances (a coordinated fiscal policy contraction) but the numbers are extremely large. Greece is an outlier (16.3%), but many others are large (Spain, Portugal and Ireland close to 10%), the UK around 7% and a significant number of countries around 4%.

How this coordinated fiscal policy contraction is affecting the pace of the recovery (or the likelihood of another recession) depends on your views on the fiscal policy multipliers (see my previous post), but what remains a fact is that the amount of coordinated fiscal policy contraction during the current cycle is  very large and I doubt that we can find a similar experience in any of the previous recoveries.

Antonio Fatás

Underestimating Fiscal Policy Multipliers

The October edition of the IMF World Economic Outlook is out with very strong warnings about risks to growth (full report can be found at the IMF web site). In Chapter 1 there is a nice analysis about whether in our most recent growth forecasts we have recently underestimated fiscal policy multipliers. Quoting from that chapter:

"With many economies in fiscal consolidation mode, a debate has been raging about the size of fiscal multipliers. The smaller the multipliers, the less costly the fiscal consolidation. At the same time, activity has disappointed in a number of economies undertaking fiscal consolidation. So a natural question is whether the negative short-term effects of fiscal cutbacks have been larger than expected because fiscal multipliers were underestimated."

And the answer is yes and here is my reading of what has happened. About eleven years ago there was a series of academic papers that estimated fiscal policy multipliers. The conclusion of the earlier papers is that multipliers were somewhere in the range 1-1.5. In other words, a 1% increase in government spending raised GDP by somewhere between 1% and 1.5%. This was the conclusion I reached together with my co-author back in 2001 (paper is available at my web site).  This was also the conclusion of the paper written by Oliver Blanchard and Roberto Perotti written around the same time and available here. The academic literature on this issue grew very fast with a large number of papers confirming the earlier estimates but also with a set of other papers that challenge the size of fiscal multipliers. In particular, papers that used events such as wars tended to find smaller multipliers. Because this is about fiscal policy, the debate has not gone away and there are still those who believe that multipliers are close to zero or even negative (i.e. when public spending goes up, private spending goes down by the same amount).

Despite the debate, my reading of the literature up to that point was that there was a significant amount of consensus around multipliers being around or slightly above 1.

As soon as the 2008 crisis started the debate went from a simple academic discussion to an urgent policy issue. What will be the impact of fiscal stimulus? The Obama administration produced a report (co-authored by Christina Romer) that suggested multipliers around 1.5 to justify the need for fiscal policy stimulus. These multipliers were criticized by those who believed that there is no room for aggregate demand management even in the presence of a large crisis. Since then the debate has become much more ideological than academic. We have had a series of additional academic papers that, if any,  suggest that multipliers are even larger than the initial estimates because of the special circumstances we are in (monetary policy stuck at the zero-lower bound and a deep recession caused by develeraging forces that reduce private demand).

But these new (and old) academic results have simply be displaced by the ideological debate that followed the fiscal policy stimulus of the 2008-2009 period, which somehow led to the conclusion that those policies did not work and that what we now needed was more austerity. And when over the last two years we forecasted GDP growth rates in the face of coordinated austerity by many governments we somehow forgot to consider that multipliers can be large.

This is what the IMF suggests now in their analysis, which, by the way, is also self critical. They look at their recent forecasts for global growth and they suggest that their model was implicitly using fiscal policy multipliers around 0.5 when measuring the impact of fiscal consolidation. Given that their GDP growth forecast has been overestimating growth, the IMF now wonders whether multipliers are higher than 0.5. The analysis in the current World Economic Outlook suggests that multipliers might be within the range 0.9 to 1.7. A range which happens to be very almost identical to the one produced by the early papers and confirmed by the most recent academic literature. It is also not far from what most economic models would predict given current economic conditions.

Antonio Fatás

Cyclical Zombies

Stephen Roach argues in this article that the "current medicine being applied to America's economy" is wrong. The real disease is a "protracted balance-sheet recession that has turned a generation of America’s consumers into zombies – the economic walking dead. Think Japan, and its corporate zombies of the 1990’s. Just as they wrote the script for the first of Japan’s lost decades, their counterparts are now doing the same for the US economy".

This is an argument that has been used before during the current crisis: we are trying to fix a structural problem with medicine that can only deal with cyclical misalignments. Using Roach's words: "Steeped in denial, the Federal Reserve is treating the disease as a cyclical problem – deploying the full force of monetary accommodation to compensate for what it believes to be a temporary shortfall in aggregate demand."

There is no doubt that asset bubbles and excessive optimism during the pre-crisis years are now reflected in weak balance sheets that will take time to fix and will represent a drag on growth. And this clearly is not a mere cyclical issue. But there is something else that is going on: advanced economies have gone through a deep recession and are still producing below potential. This is not structural, this is cyclical. And finding a solution to the structural problem in the middle of a recession is not easy. While households have to reduce spending to repair their balance sheets, doing so at the same time that income is below potential just becomes more painful. Monetary and fiscal policy cannot eliminate the effort that is associated with deleveraging but they need to ensure that this happens in the least painful way. And this requires producing a path for output and income in the short run that is as close as possible to the level of potential output. We can debate about what this level should be but it is hard to argue that given current economic conditions and high levels of unemployment we are close to potential.

Antonio Fatás

Can you Spare a Few Trillion?

Most governments in advanced economies have been unable to deliver on debt sustainability for the last decades. In some cases increasing spending is not matched by their ability to find additional sources of revenues, in other cases taxes have been reduced without the corresponding reduction in spending. And it will only get worse going forward as worsening demographics will put enormous pressure through the corresponding increase in spending. 

As we can see in the US presidential race, solutions are not easy to find. Everyone talks about finding a sustainable path for the government debt but details on how this will be achieved are difficult to find. This is probably more obvious in the case of Mitt Romney and his promise to cut taxes. This is only compatible with debt sustainability if you find enough spending items in the budget to cut, but that is where the difficulty lies. Societies ask governments to provide certain services that are considered to be necessary. Yes, we can make governments more efficient and eliminate some unnecessary bureaucrats but when you look at the numbers, this is not going to be enough - in some cases there is very little margin to reduce spending if you just follow that route.

Here is a picture from the US that makes this point as clear as possible. Government spending on pensions and healthcare (medicare and medicaid) from 1972 until today and then extrapolated to 2030 (source: Congressional Budget Office).

What is striking about this picture is not so much the shape but the magnitude of the increase. From 4% of GDP in 1972 to about 10% today and reaching 14% in 2030. This is measure as % of GDP (not % of government spending). In the absence of a reduction in spending in some other budget items, this has to be met by increasing revenues (taxes) by a similar amount. 

This looks like an impossible task. But let's try to look at it from a different angle to see if we find a solution. Forget about governments, imagine a world where all goods are purchased by the private sector (e.g. you pay for your own healthcare). Because of changes in taste, income and technology, we continue spending more on certain sectors (such as healthcare). We have satisfied all our basic needs (food, housing), our income keeps increasing and there is a technology out there that allows us to live healthier and longer so we choose spending more on it. Sectoral changes in the composition of our spending are not rare. How visible is the above trend if we look at consumer expenditures? Do we also see a large increase in healthcare spending in the private sector? And, more interestingly, are there other components that are going down at a similar speed to ensure that budgets are not overstretched? 

Here is a quick look at Personal Consumption Expenditure by type of good (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis). I picked the sectors that have moved the fastest and I particularly looked for two moving in opposite directions. 

This is what you find: Healthcare is the fastest growing component and has gone from 4% in 1960 to 16% today (this is measured as % of the total expenditures). The component that follows the opposite trend and almost by the same magnitude is Food and Beverages. From 18% down to 8%. So we spend less in food and beverages to be able to afford the increasing cost of going to the doctor more often and enjoying a healthier and longer life.

In some sense we expect governments to do one of these two things:

1. Either they find some spending in their budget that we do not want anymore and they reduce as fast as healthcare and pensions public spending is increasing.

2. Or they do simply pass the bill to the private sector (you will need to pay for those doctors). But if they do so, then the private sector will need to find something else to cut.

What we have seen is that #1 is not obvious. There are not that many things that governments do that we do not want them to do. And #2 is exactly what politicians do not want to do (and we do not want them to do it), to pass the bill to us in the form of higher taxes - and I am ignoring here the question of who exactly gets the bill. So we end up with debt levels that keep increasing and will do so until we find a way to deal with long-term sustainability of government finances that is very different from what we have done in the past.

Antonio Fatás

QE3 and the Fed Dual Mandate

The US Federal Reserve just announced the third round of quantitative easing (QE3) by signaling a commitment to keep rates low for a long(er) period of time and engage in additional purchases of assets at a rate of $40 Billion a month.

Reading the press commentary on this move I can see once again the difficulty in making strong and clear economic policy decisions to end the crisis. I do not want to discuss in this post the potential effects of QE3 but simply the way it is being interpreted in the context of the mandate of the US Federal Reserve.

Let me take an example from this morning's Financial Times: John Authers starts the front-page commentary by saying

"The Federal Reserve did not need to do this. Its dual mandate, to ensure full employment and combat inflation pointed in different directions. Political pressure against taking action (...) was intense".

At the end of the column, after reviewing the decision of the Fed, the author concludes that the weak US data and the fact that fiscal policy will not do much about it forced the Fed to move

"That is why, by default, the Fed felt it had to do this."

Notice the different choice of words for the two sentences. The article opens up with the statement that the Fed did not need to do this and then it tells a story of why the Fed felt it had to do it (even if they did not need to do it?).

The dual mandate of the US Federal Reserve is as explicit as it can be even if the precise definitions of full employment and price stability can be open to interpretation. Imagine that inflation had been higher than the implicit or explicit Fed target for several years with an economy at full employment. Would we be saying that the Fed does not need to raise interest rates? No. We would be screaming for the Fed to raise interest rates as aggressively as possible.

The US economy has now been producing at a level which is clearly below its potential for the last four years. The unemployment rate is at levels that are higher than any sensible estimate of the natural unemployment rate. To make matters worse, inflation and inflation expectations have been consistently below the Fed target. How do we go from here to the conclusion that "they did not need to do this"? I can imagine a discussion on the effectiveness of additional quantitative easing measures. Will they have an effect on output and employment? I can see a debate on this question but not on one about the need to find additional ways to effectively stimulate the economy.

Antonio Fatás