Friday, January 16, 2009

Is He Serious?

Eugene Fama, a giant in the world of financial economics, argues against a stimulus (hat tip: Greg Mankiw) for reasons put it politely, I don’t understand. Maybe he is trying to satirize the way Keynesians often ignore or dismiss alternative theories – giving the Keynesians a taste of their own medicine. Or maybe he is deliberately making a wrong argument, as a pedagogical technique, to see if we spot his error. Or maybe (as Greg suggests) he is actually arguing something different from what he is literally saying, but he thinks that the rigorous argument is too complicated to discuss in a short article. Or maybe he just hasn’t thought through the issue. Or...your guess is as good as mine, but, as far as I can tell, if you take his words in their plain sense, they don’t make any.

In a nutshell:
...bailouts and stimulus plans are funded by issuing more government debt. (The money must come from somewhere!) The added debt absorbs savings that would otherwise go to private investment. In the end, despite the existence of idle resources, bailouts and stimulus plans do not add to current resources in use
Which makes perfect sense if you assume (as he seems to) that bailouts and stimulus plans have no effect on the total amount of private savings. I understand the need to make simplifying assumptions in any discussion of economic phenomena, but there is a difference between the usual “not quite true but perhaps close enough to make a reasonable argument” assumption and one so far from reality as to be thoroughly ridiculous. The aforementioned assumption is in the latter category.

Bailouts (usually) and stimulus plans (almost by definition) raise someone’s disposable income. Is it even remotely plausible that an increase in disposable income would not have a significant effect on someone’s savings? (By “someone” I mean the generic, average person who might be receiving funds from a bailout or stimulus plan; I don’t deny that there may exist some individuals for whom the assumption would almost be valid, but the funds from bailout and stimulus plans seldom go to a single, unusual individual.) Think about it. Suppose you received an unexpected check for $1000. Would you go out and spend the entire $1000 immediately?

That fact is, even if you wanted to, you couldn’t. Perhaps, with today’s technology, you could spend it within a few seconds, but the instant after you receive the funds, your savings necessarily increase. More likely, though, even if you intended to spend all of it quickly, it will take at least a matter of days to do so. In the mean time, there are more savings to finance the government deficit.

But what happens when you do spend it? Someone else must be receiving the money from you as income. And just like you, they won’t be able to spend it instantaneously. Your savings have been reduced, but the savings of the vendor have increased by the same amount. The vendor has received income and is saving that income in the form of money. And the vendor will either save it or spend it, and in the latter case it will immediately become part of someone else’s savings, and so on. So the very act of implementing the bailout or stimulus plan creates the savings that are necessary to finance it.

One might try to argue that, since the money necessary to finance the stimulus must come from somewhere, someone’s savings must be reduced by the amount of that money. But that argument is wrong. When the government sells, for example, a T-bill, the purchaser of the T-bill has the same savings as before. It’s just that some of the savings they were previously holding in the form of money, they now hold in the form of a T-bill. The T-bill itself is a form of newly created wealth, so by the very act of issuing it, the government causes personal (or corporate) savings to rise.

You might argue that the T-bill is not in fact net wealth, because people will realize that the government borrowing raises their future tax obligations, and they will accordingly consider their wealth to be reduced by the amount of the T-bill, thus offsetting the increase in wealth resulting directly from the issuance of the T-bill. (This is what some economists call Ricardian Equivalence.) In that case, though, those people will choose to save more of their income to provide for the increased future taxes, so private savings will still rise in response to the stimulus.

Granted, in that case the stimulus doesn’t work, since people will have to reduce their consumption by the amount of the stimulus, thus offsetting its effect. That argument is theoretically valid, although the empirical evidence tends to indicate that people do not generally behave in accordance with Ricardian Equivalence. In any case, that is not the argument that Professor Fama is making. According to him (using the example of a tax cut),
Suppose the recipients of the tax reduction from the stimulus don't know about Ricardian Equivalence, and they use the windfall to buy consumption goods. Does this increase economic activity? The answer is again no. The composition of economic activity changes, but the total is unchanged. Private consumption goes up by the amount of the new government debt issues, but private investment goes down by the same amount.
And here he is clearly wrong. Private investment does not go down. When he says that “recipients...don't know about Ricardian Equivalence,” that is equivalent to saying that government debt is (from their point of view) net wealth. By consuming more, people have indeed reduced what they save out of their old income. But by issuing debt securities (new wealth) and using the proceeds to cut taxes, the government has given people new income, so their total quantity of savings has remained the same. Therefore, for any private investment that was financed out of that savings, it can still be financed.

Greg Mankiw and Brad Delong have been discussing this issue, and I disagree with both of them. Brad says:
Fama mistakes the NIPA savings-investment accounting identity for a behavioral relationship that constrains the behavior of investment
As I see it, Professor Fama has simply got the accounting wrong: he is ignoring the fact that newly issued government securities constitute new wealth and therefore new savings. (Or, if you want to look at it in terms of Ricardian Equivalence, he is ignoring the deferred revenue asset that the government “saves” to offset the increase in the deficit.)

It has nothing to do with behavioral relationships. You can see this by considering a simple Keynesian multiplier model: the amount of private saving created by an increase in the government deficit is independent of the behavioral parameter. (lf you don’t believe the algebra, do the calculus: calculate how much new saving is done by each individual in the chain of income recipients, and take the infinite sum. Or just do a finite sum, and recognize that the remainder must be saved. Or take it far enough out and ignore the remainder.)

Greg says:
I think Fama's arguments make sense in the context of the classical model
I don’t see how that can be the case. For one thing, the reduction of investment is supposed to happen “despite the existence of idle resources.” In the classical model, market clearing would prevent those resources from being idle. (Unless by “idle” he means intentionally devoted to leisure.) Moreover, in the classical model, Ricardian Equivalence holds, but Professor Fama argues that investment will decline even in the absence of Ricardian Equivalence. (Unless he means to say that Ricardian Equivalence holds in fact even if people don’t act accordingly. But then, as I said above, he’s ignoring the government’s deferred revenue asset.)

Maybe Greg can explain this to me, but I find no way to make sense of what Professor Fama writes, unless he means something very different from what he says.

DISCLOSURE: Through my investment and management role in a Treasury directional pooled investment vehicle and through my role as Chief Economist at Atlantic Asset Management, which generally manages fixed income portfolios for its clients, I have direct or indirect interests in various fixed income instruments, which may be impacted by the issues discussed herein. The views expressed herein are entirely my own opinions and may not represent the views of Atlantic Asset Management.


Anonymous said...

Andy, your incredulity is an unflattering debate technique; the derisive scoff. There is a whole school of economic thought (at least one that I know of), which has been quite well developed over a century of time, that does seriously question the value of government stimulus. It's called the Austrian school, but I'm sure you knew that.

Government is an inefficient way for a society to allocate capital, and a rushed $850 billion stimulus plan will be even more inefficient than normal. Maybe three quarters of that money will be lost through waste, corruption, needless bureaucracy, misallocation, instead of the normal 60% that government wastes. You may disagree with those percentages, fine I pulled them out of thin air. But anyone who has observed the workings of both government and private industry knows that the two are incomparable. Private capital strives for return on investment, public capital strives for the re-election of those currently in power. One may think those goals would lead to the same end, but one would be wrong.

Government does not know where to deploy society's capital; it's not that smart. You are not that smart and neither am I. Our banks of computers are not that smart. The collective intelligence of millions of consumers and producers is the only way of allocating society's productive capital, any other method of central supervision will waste what we have and send us further down the road toward either government default or hyperinflation.

I know academic economists have little use for the Austrian school. It's much more alluring to think that we can tweak the levers of the economy from some high place and gently steer it along the path we want. But the Austrian school won't die, because the facts keep it alive. The Greenspan/Bernanke housing bubble is the latest example. The fed's distortion of interest rates created a false signal about the availability of capital in the real economy, with a resultant housing bubble. The current fiscal and monetary stimulus, will have the same impact, waste and misallocation of resources.

If the economy has idle resources at present, let them sit idle for a while. They will eventually find a productive outlet and create some good or service that we need or want. This is the way capitalism works. This is the only way capitalism works.

I don't have a PhD in economics, so you are welcome and entitled to disregard my advice, but here it is just the same. In the spirit of open-mindedness, spend a little more time trying to understand the Austrian perspective. Read Hayek and von Mises, if you haven't already. Read some of the Austrian blogs on the web. Listen to folks like Peter Schiff; sometimes they get it right ( I don't expect you to become a convert, but just maybe you can occasionally acknowledge that we are indeed "serious".

The Original Fred said...

There's a simpler way to refute Fama. Household savings must always equal Corporate borrowing (including bank loans and newly issued stocks and bonds) + Government deficit spending. In a crisis like the current one, household savings are going up (definitely ex ante and probably ex post as well). If government deficit spending remains the same (and the current account balance remains the same), then simple bookkeeping logic shows that corporate borrowing must go up to compensate for increasing household savings. But corporations are NOT in a mood to borrow right now. So the only way for the bookkeeping identity to hold is for corporations to be forced to borrow/dissave, which is equivalent to saying corporationsn suffer unwanted decreased profits and/or losses.

When corporations suffer unwanted decreased profits and/or losses, they tend to lay people off and their stock prices fall, both of which consequences cause households to increase savings even more, and the vicious deflationary cycle continues until enough of the economy has been destroyed that we are at the subsistence level and households are thus incapable of further savings.

There are only two way to counteract this spiral down into deflationary depression: either the government increases deficit spending to compensate for increased household savings, or the government takes steps to increase household and corporate "animal spirits" so that the former save less and the latter borrow more. But there is no quick way to increase animal spirits, which is why countercyclical spending is the answer. This is the essence of the Keynesian argument for countercyclical fiscal policy. Talking about infinite sums is pointless when poor anonymous and the other Austrians can't even do basic bookkeeping.

Andy Harless said...

I apologize for not being more careful in the way I expressed myself. I didn't mean it as a derisive scoff (but I can see how it would appear that way). I'm genuinely confused at how someone of Professor Fama's statute could make what seems to be such a fundamental error. When I attack the error itself (assuming it is an error), it is more with a "love the sinner but hate the sin" attitude. I was aggressive in explaining why I believe the argument, as stated, is fundamentally flawed, but I meant to leave open the possibility that I may be misinterpreting what was intended.

As to the Austrians, according to my understanding they are saying something quite different from what Professor Fama is trying to argue. AFAIK they don't deny that a stimulus will mobilize idle resources; they just deny that there will be any benefit in mobilizing those resources in that way.

I'm not sure I understand the Austrian view well enough to comment further on it, but there are certainly plenty of reasonable arguments against a stimulus. I happen to disagree with all of them, but I don't see them as making fundamental errors.

Fred, your argument seems to rely on savings having risen in the first place. That view is certainly relevant to the present situation, but my argument is more general. I'm saying that, even if savings had not risen in the first place, as long as there are idle resources, government deficits will create the necessary savings to finance themselves. I see Professor Fama's argument as being internally flawed in a way that does not depend on the empirical state of the world.

Original Fred (not the imposter) said...

>I'm saying that, even if savings had not risen in the first place, as long as there are idle resources, government deficits will create the necessary savings to finance themselves.

You could make an argument that government deficits might depress animal spirits (and thus decrease consumption and/or investment spending) sufficiently that the net effect of the deficit was contractionary. I have never been able to get a clear answer myself as to what is meant by "Austrian", but it is pretty clear that people who proclaim themselves to be Austrian react violently to all talke of government deficits. Which suggests they might indeed reduce their personal spending enough to offset the effect of increased deficits. So if the Austrian personality-type is dominant in our society, then this is an argument that government deficits might not be stimulating (at least until there is no further possibility of spending reductions by the private sector).

timothy straus said...

only one comment; the idea that the government thru the issuance of a t-bill is both receiving wealth, i.e. the savings and cash of the purchaser and is at the same creating wealth thru the issuance of the governments obligation to pay the note with interest at some future time is a total joke. Debt is not wealth. Credit is not wealth. In addition, the issuance of an I.O.U. on the part of the government to allow that government to transfer the real wealth of the lender to someone else, very likely to a very inefficient consumer of that largess, is wealth is absurd. This is why the whole chimera of credit and debt as wealth has destroyed this world.

Anonymous said...

Fama perfectly expresses the logic behind either (a)the Hoover era "Treasury View" or (b)full employment crowding out. It is not clear to which he refers. The former completely ignores dishoarding and/or increased loan creation from utilizing formerly idle excess reserves. Either/both of these reduce interest rates that have increased due to deficit finance back toward ("fully back to" in the Liquidity Trap) their pre-deficit-financing levels. The conditions for full employment crowding out do not, alas, apply today. Ricardian Equivalence is a red herring here.

suvie said...

During the 70's - a period of inflation - the public didn't buy as many houses
due to high mortgage rates. And once one buys a house, one has to spend money
to fill it. That probably didn't happen. Perhaps people saved money betting on
Arthur Burns' Fed to turn things around?

As rates came down, people sucked the equity out of thier home to spend.
This is how the sub-prime loans effected 2nd mortgages. Sub-prime also effected people who
purchased with prime mortgages, and are now underwater.

grissha hamearth said...

Its such as you scan my mind! You appear to understand such a lot concerning this, such as you wrote the book in it or one thing. i believe that you simply may do with some pics to drive the message home to a small degree, however apart from that, this is often nice web log. an excellent scan.
Agen Bola Online
Agen Bola Terbaik said...

I agree with you. This post is truly inspiring. I like your post and everything you share with us is current and very informative, I want to bookmark the page so I can return here from you that you have done a fantastic job.

Asia Travel said...

After scan a handful of the articles on your web site these few days, and that i actually like your type of blogging. I tag it to my favorites web site list and can be checking back shortly. Please look at my information processing system additionally and let Maine recognize what you think that. Online Casino

Mary T. Allen said...

I enjoyed your article . It was awesome. You can add more information in this article. For information you can contact thesis writing service UK. It is one of the best writing service.This service will help you to get more information about this topic.

PatriciaMoncrief said...

I was reading carefully in the same classification and I to run over this site which I thought that it was great. It looked fascinating and I chose to investigate each substance and I read yours. Anyway, you’re conclusively somebody that has something to say that persons must to take note. Keep up the magnificent work. Continue moving the people! It is very helpful information for me. Because I am new in blogging and I require great instructional exercise like your post. If you like to travel then you can use munnar call taxi for a trust worthy travel.

jhon said...

Among added advantages offered by aggressive car sales accommodation is the adaptability of repayment. The borrower is accustomed the advantage of advantageous low account installments for a best continuance or can booty up the advantage of advantageous college than assured to accomplishment off the accommodation abundant faster thereby extenuative added by alienated advantageous the interest. Alike the bulk offered as accommodation is decidedly college than what is provided for a accepted auto loan.
payday loans chicago

jhon said...

In adjustment to be acceptable for a aggressive car loan, the borrower should be actively confined in the armed forces. This accommodation is alike provided to abounding of them with bad acclaim ratings as able-bodied as to cadre that accept afresh entered the armed armament too. But, the administration of account does comedy a role in accepting an approval for aggressive auto loan.
online cash advance in fresno ca

jhon said...

They alarm it a aeon of debt or a debt allurement which spirals borrowers affairs into the abyss. Can a lender be abhorrent for a person's banking difficulties? Should they abolish out the debt or debris added casework because a borrower has adversity advantageous one accommodation off? Some bodies anticipate so.
check cashing costa-mesa

Big Brother said...

Buying a new home has become actual difficult afresh as abounding of the nation's top lenders are closing their doors. What does this beggarly to you in your attending for your dream home? The dream may still be animate but your adeptness to accomplish it may be gone for now as lenders restructure their guidelines so they can break alive. This commodity will acquaint you what has afflicted in contempo months.
check cashing

Shan Jonson said...

In some cases there is no acclaim analysis agitated out, which can be a above allure of course. With applications area there is a acclaim analysis made, the lenders may able-bodied still accommodate alike if the acclaim analysis shows a poor acclaim history e.g. somebody with a County Court Judgement may still be able to borrow, back added lenders would debris credit.

Desty Lilian Rosana Putry said...

model rak piring
model rak tv
model rak sepatu
cat dapur minimalis
model vas bunga unik
cara memasang talang air
lemari kaca pajangan
warna gorden rumah jendela
desain kitchen set dapur
kombinasi warna cat

Jakarta Lawyer said...

Government is an inefficient method for a society to apportion capital, and a hurried $850 billion stimulant arrange are going to be even a lot of inefficient than traditional. So at least we need a lawyer to solve this. Especially a lawyer who had many experience in this problem :)

Katherine Hayden said...

I know you has expressed the article in your own way. It truly shows your uniqueness in the article. I just enjoyed it. You can see my article in coursework writing service.

Akhadiwi Rajie said...

This is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!

King said...

Thanks for Nice and Informative Post. This article is really contains lot more information about This Topic. -
Packers and Movers in Pune
Packers and Movers in Hyderabad
Packers and Movers in Bangalore

King said...

Thanks for sharing. I hope it will be helpful for too many people that are searching for this topic.
Packers and Movers in Delhi
Packers and Movers in Gurgaon
Packers and Movers in Mumbai

King said...

This article is really fantastic and thanks for sharing the valuable post.
Packers and Movers in Noida
Packers and Movers in Chennai
Packers and Movers in Ghaziabad
Packers and Movers in Faridabad
Packers and Movers in Navi Mumbai
Packers and Movers in Thane

King said...

Thanks for post this helpful post - Please visit for More information about -
Packers and Movers Hyderabad
Packers and Movers Pune
Packers and Movers Bangalore
Packers and Movers Mumbai
Packers and Movers Delhi
Packers and Movers Gurgaon

Mushtaq ahmed said...

activate axis bank mobile banking
activate andhra bank mobile baking
activate canara bank mobile banking
activate corporation bank mobile banking
activate syndicate bank mobile banking
activate central bank mobile banking
activate dena bank mobile banking
activate union bank mobile banking
activate yes bank mobile banking
activate uco bank mobile banking
activate obc mobile banking
activate vijaya bank mobile banking
activate idbi mobile banking
activate citi bank mobile banking
activate kotak mobile banking
hdfc net banking
icici net banking
axis net banking
andhra net banking
canara net banking
corporation net banking
syndicate net banking
central bank net banking
dena bank net banking
union bank net banking
yes bank net banking
uco bank net banking
obc net banking
vijaya bank net banking
idbi bank net banking
citi bank net banking
bob net banking
kotak net banking

Mushtaq ahmed said...

hdfc update kyc

Mushtaq ahmed said...

bobibanking login

bestshifitingcom said...

Packers and movers in delhi@
Packers and movers in gurgaon@
Packers and movers in pune@
Packers and movers in ghaziabad@
Packers and movers in hyderabad@
Packers and movers in noida@
Packers and movers in faridabad@
Packers and movers in trivandrum@

Gege Dai said...

nike mercurial
ferragamo outlet
michael kors outlet clearance
true religion outlet
louis vuitton pas cher
omega watches
hollister canada
burberry outlet store
prada sneakers
tiffany and co jewelry
michael kors handbags
lacoste shirts
christian louboutin outlet
salomon shoes
nike roshe run shoes
cheap oakley sunglasses
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglasses
lebron james shoes
adidas nmd
fitflops sale clearance
prada outlet
lululemon outlet
hollister clothing store
true religion outlet
toms outlet
michael kors handbags
ferragamo outlet
moncler coats
louis vuitton sunglasses
michael kors bags
uggs on sale
michael kors handbags
juicy couture tracksuit
michael kors handbags
czq20160816 said...

nice! thank you so much! Thank you for sharing. Your blog posts are more interesting and impressive. I think there are many people like and visit it regularly, including me.

caiyan said...

nike air max
polo ralph lauren outlet online
gucci outlet
true religion outlet
cheap oakleys
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet
cheap nfl jerseys
michael kors outlet
cheap jerseys

Thomas pedro said...

Such advances are secured for purposes, for example, buy of business or business property, extension of such property or improvement of the effectively obtained property. There are various criteria that decide qualification for these advances which incorporate among others the FICO score of the entrepreneur furthermore the long haul projections for the association as far as benefit and income. payday loans san-diego

Neil Jakson said...

I just want to say your article is wonderful the clarity in your post is just nice and i can assume you are an expert on this subject thanks
Dissertation writing services