Krugman Perpetuates Myth of the Zero Lower Bound

Professor Paul Krugman

Professor Krugman just published a column where he deserves kudos for sticking his neck on the line and predicting that the Bernanke Fed is not creating a bubble in bonds, and "probably not" in stocks either.

While the argument on whether or not Bernanke is blowing bubbles is interesting and worthy of discussion (although only time will tell for sure), that's not what this post is about.

In the column Krugman makes a somewhat tangential comment about what economists often refer to as the 'zero lower bound problem' on where a central bank can set interest rates. Here's Krugman's quote:

"True, it (the Fed) can’t cut rates any further because they’re already near zero and can’t go lower. (Otherwise investors would just sit on cash.)"

Krugman's statement is problematic for several reasons:

First, it's misleading and patently false of Dr. K to say that the Fed "can’t cut rates any further" when in fact it can. There is no economic or natural law which prevents the Fed from setting nominal rates at exactly zero, or at a negative rate.

Whether they should be set at zero or negative is another question. In short, Dr. K needs to replace "can't" with something like "could but shouldn't because...".

Second, I suggest that it would be helpful if Dr. K was a little more precise so that people understand why the Fed "can't" (shouldn't) set zero or negative rates but Denmark's central bank can set a negative deposit rate, and now Drahgi at the ECB is openly discussing this as well.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing negative rates. I'm only saying that negative rates are possible and that some central banks are experimenting with negative rates as a policy tool.

And finally, yes, perhaps if the Fed were the only central bank to pursue a negative rate policy then investors may sit on cash, move their money elsewhere, etc. But if enough central banks around the world kept driving rates further and further into negative territory then it would be very surprising if this didn't help generate inflation, in which case people would probably not be sitting on cash as Dr. K suggests but rather spending it before money lost its purchasing power.

The long perpetuated myth of the zero lower bound is starting to be challenged more and more, and for a more detailed academic discussion of the zero lower bound myth see here. 

Ben Bernanke Cannot Print a New Steve Jobs

Gold bulls rejoice, for open-ended QE is here!

Yesterday's Fed announcement wasn't the long rumored 'QE3', as a '3' implies a beginning and an end like the two prior rounds of quantitative easing.

The Fed has instead committed to not stop printing new money until the economy improves.

What then will the Fed do if the economy never improves, meaning unemployment never gets back below 5%? Will the Fed go on printing forever? We shall have to wait and see.

In the meantime anyone who believes that printing money ad infinitum will fix what ails the U.S. economy, or the global economy for that matter, is living in macroeconomic Willy Wonkaland.

Monetary policy in the form of printing new money and changing interest rates does very little if anything to improve the foundational competitiveness of an economy. The most dynamic economies are the ones which are the most productive and most innovative, and monetary policy has very little if any impact on these two areas.

The kind of GDP growth driven by purchases of products like Apple's iPhone reflects real economic growth. The kind of GDP growth derived from nominal GDP targeting (aka inflation) is fake.

In short, Ben Bernanke cannot create new real jobs. Real jobs are created by the Steve Jobs of the world.

However, it's much easier for central planners to punch a few buttons on a keyboard and print more money than to make the long-term adjustments necessary for fundamental economic improvement.

Video: Michael Burry 2012 UCLA Commencement Address

Video: Review of 4-Part Frontline Financial Crisis Series 'Money, Power, and Wall St.'

The PolyCapitalist is kicking May off with a number of must watch videos, and this epic 4-part Frontline special follows the crisis from what is arguably its point of genesis: a 1994 JP Morgan retreat in Boca Raton, Florida which of led to the creation of the first credit default swaps.

Frontline has done an incredible job getting many of the key players and insiders, including a number of top Wall St. bankers, to go on record about what happend. Even if you've read all the books, seen the earlier Frontline financial crisis special, and think you know all you need to about the financial crisis, this is still must watch.

The big new item for me, and I'm a bit surprised this has not received more ink, was the March 2009 battle between Larry Summers and Tim Geithner over what to do with the megabanks. My prior understanding was that Summers and Geithner were two peas in a pod. Not always it turns out.

According to Frontline, in March 2009 Summers, along with fellow economist Chritina Romer, pushed for what was called 'Old Testament Justice', meaning firing a bank CEO and or possibly nationalizing one of the megabanks. In contrast, Geithner, who it would appear is more of a protege of Bob Rubin than Summers, fought hard to treat the banks with kid gloves and use stress tests to help instill confidence back into the marketplace.

Obama ultimately sided with Geithner, which seems to contradict earlier reporting that Geithner had ignored Obama's instructions to dissolve Citigroup. Frontline definitely presents Summers in a better light and Geithner and Obama in a worse one.

I have only a minor gripe with this Frontline series, which is the annoying editing. In a multi-part, complex story, reusing clips to aid telling the story is probably unavoidable. However, I felt they recycled too many from within the four part series, as well as from an earlier Frontline special on the financial crisis from a couple years ago. But this is a minor, forgivable quibble given the extraordinary job the Frontline team did to compile and document the crisis up through present day.

Overall, perhaps the key point made in the series - and one I could not agree more with - is that the financial crisis still has not ended. Where it will go from here is as much dependent now on politics as markets or economics.

2012 Prediction #4: Romney Will Not Win the U.S. Presidency

It's looking like Romney has the Republican nomination, but I am very doubtful that he can carry the country in 2012 for a whole variety of reasons:

1. U.S. economic figures are showing signs of life, at just the right time.
2. Like Eichengreen, Dalio, and others, I think the next leg down in the ongoing financial crisis won't make landfall until 2013 at the earliest.
3. There is a decided lack of enthusiasm about Romney. He comes across as a Wall St. guy who, policy wise, isn't all that different from Obama. He also isn't well liked by the Republican base. In short, Romney seems positioned somewhere in political no-man's land.
4. There is a reasonable chance for a third party candidate to be a factor, and should that happen it will work against Romney more than Obama.
5. Even if Eurogeddon boils over the world's central banks have plenty of space to deploy more monetary artillery. Central banker hands won't begin to be tied until core inflation starts to increase significantly, and that's unlikely to happen over the next 10 months. Even though Bernanke was appointed originally by a Republican, he would probably prefer that Obama (who reappointed him) be reelected given Romney's and general Republican hostility towards the Fed.
6. An Iranian conflict (perhaps the biggest X-factor in 2012) likely favors the incumbent as it would provide Obama with an opportunity to exercise leadership and look presidential.

What could upset this prediction is any material economic deterioration or a geopolitical flub by Obama.

Prediction #1: U.S. Dollar Bears Will Remain On the Run in 2012

Since its March 2008 low the U.S. Dollar is up 13% against a basket of the world's most widely held currencies, including the yen, sterling, franc, loonie, krona, and of course the beleaguered euro.

How is this a problem for portfolio manager Axel Merk, the self described "Authority on Currencies"? After all, according to Merk's written after-the-fact letters he claims to have traded out of and back into the euro just in time to surf its wild gyrations.

Merk moved his fund management business to California a number of years ago, where he has been beating a steady 'demise of the U.S. dollar' drumbeat ever since. This past year Merk Funds even took to deploying amusing anti-Dollar cartoon propaganda while routinely touting the superiority of the euro over the U.S. dollar.

Continue reading the full article at Seeking Alpha here.

My $0.02 on Krugman's and Delong's Inflationista Potshots

Here's Delong's OH BOY: NIALL FERGUSON PRACTICING ECONOMICS WITHOUT A LICENSE DEPARTMENT

And my comment (which for some reason won't load onto Brad's blog so I'm posting it here):

I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert on CPI methodologies, and I am inclined to believe that the BLS has many well intentioned and highly educated professionals using defendable methodological practices. However, I share Ezra's feeling that something doesn't smell right on inflation numbers.  

Over the past decade how can official cost of living figures have gone up so little when they supposedly take into account the following items: 

-Housing
-Medical
-Fuel
-Food
-Education 

These are some of the largest cost items for most consumers, and in the last decade up to the financial crisis many saw double digit price increases (in some cases in a single year). 

The BLS's CPI calculator says that $1 in 2001 has the same buying power as a $1.17 in 2007, so yes, the BLS is picking up at least some of the perceived inflation in these categories. However, do the BLS number capture the full picture? 

One thing is for certain: the CPI was utterly useless with respect to the housing bubble as it does not include housing prices, only rent. This despite the fact that nearly 70% of all American homes are owner occupied.

It's convenient to dismiss anyone questioning official government statistics as a conspiracy crank. However, under reporting of inflation by a government bureaucracy would be useful in terms of reducing that same government's expenses in the form of lower cost of living adjustments for government workers and TIPs expense. Under reporting inflation also provides ammunition for the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed to not have to raise interest rates and thereby dampen exuberance. 

In other words, many stand to benefit from the under reporting of inflation. It is therefore reasonable to cast a skeptical eye on these numbers, especially when they fly in the face of everyday experience.

A final point I'd add is that economics is too important to be left to economists, particularly with most of the 'license' holders (econ PhDs) having completely failed to identify in advance the biggest economic event since the Great Depression.

Jeremy Grantham's Full December 2011 Quarterly Letter

JGLetter_ShortestLetterEver_3Q112

The Fed's $1.2 Trillion in Secret Bank Loans

Interactive chart detailing previously secret Federal Reserves loans to each bank here. Bloomberg deserves an award for their doggedness and reporting on this issue.

Video: Pimco's El-Erian Explains Financial Repression

Is the Bernanke Put Kaput?

As Barry suggests, have we just seen the end of the Bernanke put? Based on the way markets are trading today it would appear Ken Rogoff was right that Bernanke doesn't have the stock market's back.

However, in all likelihood Soros is right about how policymaking powers-that-be will be forced to bailout Too Big To Fail banks should the financial system begin to teeter again. In which case the only real question is for how long can the current central bank shell-game be sustained in a low-to-no growth economic environment?

No one -- not Ben Bernanke, not Alan Greenspan, not Milton Friedman if he were alive, nobody -- knows for sure just how much more room the Fed's balance sheet has before non-negligible inflation kicks in. However, former Fed Chair Paul Volcker for one is starting to get nervous.

Federal Reserve Total Assets ($s Trillions)

(click to enlarge)

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.

Video: Jim Rogers on Greek Default, Operation Twist, SNB Intervention & Why He's Shorting Equities

Rogers on how "Bernanke has been lying to us again" and other thoughts on what's happening right now and where he's investing.

Playing it Safe, Losing it All

Two facts worth highlighting from Drew Westen's controversial NY Times piece titled 'What Happened to Obama':

1. Obama published nothing (except his autobiography) during his twelve years as a faculty member at the University of Chicago
2. Before joining the Senate he voted 'present' (instead of 'yea' or 'nay') 130 times

What is one to make of this?

I won't speculate on Obama's not publishing anything in an academic journal, but one thing presidential candidates are often attacked on is their voting record. During a heated political campaign a candidate's previous legislative votes are scrutinized and picked over for any possible controversy (see John Kerry). As an astute observer of political history and campaigns, Barrack Obama would be well aware of this.

Was his voting 'present' strategy all about playing it safe and as Westen puts it "dodging difficult issues"? Or is there another explanation all together?

From Westen:

Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.

One of the hallmark qualities of Barrack Hussein Obama's rise to the presidency has been his exceptional risk aversion. That strategy worked well in the campaign but is not serving President Obama or the country well at a time when bold, visionary political leadership is needed.

Like many, I've been scratching my head trying to put my finger on what it is about Obama that just doesn't seem right. And then I remembered a comment made by fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld when he was asked to describe himself: "I don't want to be real in other people's minds. I want to be an apparition."

I completely agree with Westen that right now the U.S. desperately needs the gregarious optimism and energy of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Teddy Roosevelt type personality in the White House, and not the Lagerfeld-esque 'complete improvisation' we seem to have at present.

I will never wholly forgive and forget the missed opportunity in 2009 to conduct a perhaps once-in-a-century overhaul of the global financial system, along with Obama's decision to reappoint many of the same people who led us into the crisis - Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Greenspan protege Ben Bernanke.

With the way things are going at Bank of America and the Eurozone we may soon get a second bite at the financial system overhaul apple. Fighting to keep Timothy Geithner on as Secretary of the Treasury doesn't exactly instil in one a sense of optimism, but there is still time for President Obama to do what is necessary to restore American optimism.

Video: Barry Eichengreen on Why Economics Needs History

Berkeley Professor Barry Eichengreen discusses the importance of history to the study of economics and other topics in the below video.

A summary of Professor Eichengreen's recent book, Exorbitant Privilege, can be found here; a video lecture he gave on this book can be viewed here. 

So far Germany's current generation of leaders seem to be as committed to supporting the current Eurozone project as Professor Eichengreen has suggested they would . However, it's less than clear to me whether Germany has the appetite or capacity to support countries such as Spain and Italy should a full blown debt crisis ignite in these two large countries. Perhaps Germany would prefer a smaller Eurozone, comprised primarily of more economically homogeneous northern European countries instead of the current version which includes slow growing Club Med countries?

FDIC's Bair: "They Should Have Let Bear Stearns Fail"

Today's must-read interview is with just-departed FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, who sets the record straight on:

• where Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner went wrong (e.g., bailing out Bear Stearns)
• the disconnect between President Obama's 'heart' and the people he chose for his economic team 
• what the future holds for Too Big (or more accurately 'Too Bigger') to Fail

Bair's argument on letting Bear fail is that it would have sent a strong signal to the larger, more systemically integrated firms, like Lehman, that they should raise capital because the government was not going to bail out everyone. Whether Lehman could have in fact raised sufficient capital in the wake of Bear being allowed to fail is a great counterfactual question. 

One has the impression from reading Sorkin's Too Big to Fail that Dick Fuld and Co. either expected Paulson to bail Lehman out, or that the storm would pass soon enough for the prices of Lehman's assets to recover. Paulson purportedly appealed directly to Fuld to raise capital on numerous occassions in 2008. However, given the Federal Reserve's bailout of Bear, Fuld's skepticism that the systemically more important Lehman would be allowed to go under is understandable. If Bear had been allowed to fail Fuld likely would have come away with an entirely different interpretation of how things might play out should his back get pushed up against the wall, as it did during that fateful September of almost three years ago.

The interview also makes reference to former CFTC head Brooksley Born. For anyone who hasn't watched it already I highly recommend Frontline's profile of her battle with Greenspan, Rubin and Summers on the regulation of derivatives, a Wall Street product which Warren Buffet has called "financial weapons of mass destruction".

Video: Jim Grant - 'We Traded the Gold Standard for the PhD Standard'

Interview with Jim Grant on Bernanke's press conference today, the coming of QE3, and why the Federal Reserve should "be run by someone with a degree in unintended consequences" after the break.