(cross posted at EconoMonitor)

Guess which US bank holds assets equal to a fifth of US GDP.

Now guess what percent of its assets have extremely long maturities, greater than ten years: a) 10%; b) 20%; c) 30%; d) 40%; e) 50%.

Answer: The Fed, and e) 50% of its assets have ten years or more to maturity.

Recap. The global financial crisis (GFC) began about four years ago. The Fed pulled out all the stops to save the biggest banks. As I discussed previously the Fed engaged in “deal-making” designed to protect creditors of failing banks, and used Section 13(3) to create Special Purpose Vehicles that engaged in legally questionable lending and asset purchases to save banks and shadow banks. Four years later, the Fed’s balance sheet is still humongous and it is even increasing its interventions in recent weeks through loans to foreign central banks.

A recent speech by Herve Hannoun at the Bank for International Settlements, “Monetary policy in the crisis: testing the limits of monetary policy” (link below) shows that ramping up the role for central banks has taken place all over the world. Indeed, in emerging market economies, the central banks have assets equal to 40% of GDP. In large part that is due to accumulation of foreign currency reserves among countries like China and Brazil–a topic beyond the scope of this blog. But the intervention by central banks during this GFC is entirely unprecedented–and is starting to worry most observers, who are asking when, or if, this will ever end.

Graph 1: Central bank assets, and as share of GDP

Graph 2: Maturity of assets

You can find the BIS report here.

To be sure, I do not share the worry of the BIS and many other commentators that the central bank expansions will cause inflation. My worry is this: the “too big to fail” (or as my colleague Bill Black calls them “systemically dangerous”) institutions have learned that no matter what they do, they will be saved and their top management will never be punished. continue reading…

Well then.  Apparently not everyone agrees that the Federal Reserve is having trouble balancing its dual mandate.  Rather, I should say that not everyone agrees about the nature of the imbalance.  From the Boston Globe‘s reporting of Ben Bernanke’s appearance in front of the Senate Budget Committee, we find this:

“It seems to me that you care more about unemployment than about inflation,’’ said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

“I want to disabuse any notion that there is a priority for maximum employment,’’ Bernanke responded.

Bernanke deserves credit here for refraining from hitting himself over the head with a frying pan in response.  (Is this just a cynical form of “working the ref” or does the Senator really believe it?  If the latter, what more could possibly disabuse him of this notion?)  I suggested yesterday that you “don’t need to look very hard” to see that the Federal Reserve is doing much better at keeping inflation in check than at controlling unemployment—but you do need to look.

I’ll outsource the rest to the The Economist (where Ryan Avent performs the literary equivalent of hitting himself over the head with a frying pan):

During the second half of 2010, annual inflation stood at its lowest level in over half a century. Unemployment, by contrast, peaked at 10.0%. Only once in the post-war period did the jobless rate rise above that level. Only twice in the postwar period has the country experienced a recession that brought the unemployment rate above its current level, at 8.3% […] I’m left to muse that Mr Grassley must say good-bye when he enters a room and hello when he leaves, and wears his shoes on his head.

Marshall Auerback appeared on the Business News Network to give his take on the latest developments in the eurozone crisis; specifically with respect to the ongoing negotiations over the proposed (now 70 percent) haircut on Greek debt.  Auerback also addressed the LTRO (noting the rather dramatic increase in the ECB’s balance sheet) and the credit default swaps on Greek debt (on this, see also Micah Hauptman’s take on the process for determining when these CDS payments are triggered:  “murky, unregulated, and replete with conflicts of interest“).

You can watch a clip of Auerback’s interview here.

(credit to Mitch Green at NEP)

In his General Theory, J.M. Keynes argued that substandard growth, financial instability, and unemployment are caused by the fetish for liquidity. The desire for a liquid position is anti-social because there is no such thing as liquidity in the aggregate. The stock market makes ownership liquid for the individual “investor” but since all the equities must be held by someone, my decision to sell-out depends on your willingness to buy-in.

I can recall about 15 years ago when the data on the financial sector’s indebtedness began to show growth much faster than GDP, reading about 125% of national income by 2006—on a scale similar to nonfinancial private sector indebtedness (households plus nonfinancial sector firms). I must admit I focused on the latter while dismissing the leveraging in the financial sector. After all, that all nets to zero: it is just one financial institution owing another. Who cares?

Well, with the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight, we all should have cared. Big time. There were many causes of the Global Financial Collapse that began in late 2007: rising inequality and stagnant wages, a real estate and commodities bubble, household indebtedness, and what Hyman Minsky called the rise of “money manager capitalism”. All of these matter—and I think Minsky’s analysis is by far the most cogent. Indeed, the financial layering and leveraging that helped to increase the financial sector’s indebtedness, as well as its share of value added and of corporate profits, is one element of Minsky’s focus on money managers. I don’t want to go into all of that right now. What I want to do instead is to focus quite narrowly on liquidity in the financial sector.

So here’s the deal. What happened is that the financial sector taken as a whole moved into extremely short-term finance of positions in assets. This is a huge topic and is related to the transformation of investment banking partnerships that had a long-term interest in the well-being of their clients to publicly-held, pump-and-dump enterprises whose only interest was the well-being of top management.

It also is related to the rise of shadow banks that appeared to offer deposit-like liabilities but without the protection of FDIC. And it is related to the Greenspan “put” and the Bernanke “great moderation” that appeared to guarantee that all financial practices—no matter how crazily risky—would be backstopped by Uncle Sam.

And it is related to very low overnight interest rate targets by the Fed (through to 2004) that made short-term finance extremely cheap relative to longer-term finance.

All of this encouraged financial institutions to rely on insanely short short-term finance.  Read the rest here.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) noted on its website yesterday that in 2011, “annual totals for [layoff] events and initial claims were at their lowest levels since 2007.” Nonetheless, today’s report that the Fed open-market committee plans to keep short-term interest rates low until late 2014 reminds us of the obvious but unfortunate fact that the current slump in employment growth is continuing.

Appearing at the top of this post is a chart showing monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) figures on new hiring, which remains very slow. Last week, in citing similar data, Ed Lazaer argued that “If jobs are scarce and wages are flat or falling, decent increases in the gross domestic product or the stock market are almost irrelevant” (WSJ link here). One should not forget that the last official recession began in December 2007—well over four years ago. (National Bureau of Economic Research recession dates are indicated with grey shading in the figure above.)  Such dates are somewhat arbitrary. To take another example, the BLS’s broadest labor underutilization rate still stood at 15.2 percent as of last month, down only modestly from 16.6 percent the previous December.

Paul Krugman—orthodox economist? Heterodox economist? Pragmatic economist? New Keynesian economist? Michael Stephens recently commented on an article in the Economist that discussed MMT, as well as two other non-mainstream schools of macroeconomic thought. The article contrasted the three relatively unfamiliar and unorthodox approaches with “[m]ainstream figures such as Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw[, who] have commanded large online audiences for years.”

As Michael points out,

If you step back, what’s slightly unsatisfactory about [describing Krugman simply as a mainstream economist] is that Krugman is, right now, more in tune with the policy preferences of two-thirds of these “doctrines on the edge of economics” than he is with the reigning fiscal or monetary policy stance of the US government. 

But as Michael well knows, Krugman is hardly alone among neoclassical scholars in most of his policy views. Micheal’s point is true of quite a few mainstream economists right now—they are far more flexible on the policy issues that dominate the agenda today than they are on many other economic issues. This excerpt from a recent essay written by Marc Lavoie may help to illuminate the very significant differences of opinion that distinguish such forward-thinking neoclassicals from numerous heterodox economists around the world:

Paul Krugman (2009) has also made quite a stir by continue reading…

Robert Skidelsky runs through and corrects five fallacies about debt that one often hears lazily deployed in the public arena.  His third correction:

…the national debt is not a net burden on future generations. Even if it gives rise to future tax liabilities (and some of it will), these will be transfers from taxpayers to bond holders. This may have disagreeable distributional consequences. But trying to reduce it now will be a net burden on future generations: income will be lowered immediately, profits will fall, pension funds will be diminished, investment projects will be canceled or postponed, and houses, hospitals, and schools will not be built. Future generations will be worse off, having been deprived of assets that they might otherwise have had.

Nick Rowe had a post a couple weeks back on this same topic that might be of interest to some MMTers and Abba Lernerites.  Rowe lays out four different positions on the question of whether or in what sense the national debt imposes a burden on future generations, the first of which (it’s labeled “Abba Lerner”) sounds like it’s supposed to represent functional finance.  Rowe is ultimately dismissive of the functional finance approach, but you’ll find quite a bit of lively discussion in comments and a number of links to the ongoing debate.

For some background reading on functional finance, Thorvald Grung Moe recommends this short piece from 1943 by Abba Lerner himself:  “Functional Finance and the Federal Debt.”  It’s tightly argued and written in a reasonably jargon-free style that’s so rare in economics or public policy writing.

For those who want more of the basics and central contrasts, Mathew Forstater’s primer on deficit “doves,” “hawks,” and “owls” (beginning on p. 6 of this working paper) is a helpful place to start.

Update:  Nick Rowe graciously engages in the comments section below.

Phil Izzo of the Wall Street Journal points us to the invaluable work of the people at The Daily Stag Hunt, who tallied the number of times that laughter appears in the transcripts of the Fed’s FOMC meetings.  Peak laughter, as The Daily Stag points out, corresponds nicely with the height of the housing bubble:

If there weren’t a six-year delay on the release of these transcripts, this could be a useful tool for measuring systemic risk.

Over the break an article appeared in The Economist spotlighting three “schools of macroeconomic thought”:  Scott Sumner’s market monetarism, Austrian free banking, and neo-chartalism (MMT).  In addition to noting the role of the blogosphere in refining and promoting these heterodoxies, the article elects to use Paul Krugman as a stand-in for the “mainstream” opponent.

If you step back, what’s slightly unsatisfactory about this choice is that Krugman is, right now, more in tune with the policy preferences of two-thirds of these “doctrines on the edge of economics” than he is with the reigning fiscal or monetary policy stance of the US government.  Krugman has written extensively about the fact that our current debt and deficit levels present no serious current economic problem.  (The dispute between Krugman and MMTers stems from disagreements about the long-term debt.)  And as The Economist points out, Krugman is fine with nominal GDP targeting.

Figuring out where to draw the boundaries of “the mainstream” in the economics profession is one thing, but when it comes to the range of politically acceptable policy options (a different kind of mainstream, admittedly) Krugman stands shivering in the cold side-by-side with a lot of heterodox thinkers.  With respect to both policy outcomes and policy rhetoric, our institutions seem to pay a great deal more attention to deficits, debt, and inflation than they do to unemployment and the threat of deflation (though one might argue that, at least with respect to fiscal stimulus, this has more to do with the fact that in the US political system the “opposition” party has the ability to see the government fail.  Resistance to fiscal stimulus may all but disappear from Congress in the event of a Romney presidency.  Explaining the preferences of the FOMC is a more complicated affair.)  The mainstream policy space since 2010 excludes neo-chartalism, market monetarism, and Paul Krugman.

A handful of the Levy Institute’s working papers and policy briefs related to the neo-chartalist approach can be read here:  “Money,” “Deficit Hysteria Redux?“, “Money and Taxes,” “Modern Money.”

As Dimitri Papadimitriou has said, the European Central Bank is one of the only institutions that can save the euro project.  The commitment alone to making unlimited purchases of member-state debt might do the trick.  But as we have seen, there is a lot of opposition to the ECB acting as lender of last resort.  Why?

Here are a couple more links on this question:

Paul De Grauwe (“Why the ECB refuses to be a Lender of Last Resort“):  it may not (just) be dogma holding the ECB back, but a rational (though, to De Grauwe’s mind, unfortunate) calculation.  His analysis suggests the ECB won’t act until the sovereign debt crisis turns into a banking crisis.

Noah Millman (“In the Long Run, We’re All German“):  the ECB is engaged in a game of chicken, attempting to secure as much of a commitment to fiscal rectitude and reform as it can before it steps in to stave off a eurozone collapse.  (Recent suggestions of a kind of quid pro quo in which a stronger fiscal pact would lay the groundwork for the ECB stepping up as lender of last resort lends some credence to this theory.  They should also plant doubts for those who think the ECB’s inaction on this front stems merely from good faith concerns about Article 123-type Treaty obstacles).

Update, Dec. 8:  Paraphrasing ECB chief Mario Draghi, today:  “Quid pro what?  Never heard of it.”  (Or more accurately, according to the FT “Mr Draghi made clear that the option of capping government bond yields had not been raised at the governing council meeting.”)