Fed Bloggers
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has launched a new blog, Liberty Street Economics, following in the footsteps of the Atlanta Fed’s Macroblog. From their introductory post:
We have created this blog to augment our existing publications by providing a way for our economists to engage with the public about economic issues quickly and frequently. Further, the less technical style that we are striving for in the blog posts should make the insights from our research informative to a broader audience…
There are some topics that you will not find in the Liberty Street Economicsblog. We will not be blogging on the next policy move of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) or other issues that only the FOMC or other policymakers could know. And the blog posts will not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for the RBA to start blogging.
posted on 22 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Monetary Policy
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
‘If the FIRB Doesn’t Kill It, We Will’
The FIRB is nothing more than a fig-leaf for political decisions that have already been made:
A senior source told the Herald that the government’s disposition was to reject the [SGX-ASX] merger, despite what the board recommended. ‘‘If [the board] doesn’t kill it, we will.’‘
posted on 19 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Foreign Investment, Rule of Law
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
How Big Are Fiscal Multipliers?
For an open economy with a flexible exchange rate, zero to negative. (HT: Scott Sumner).
posted on 17 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Fiscal Policy
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
ERA and Economic Papers
A letter to contributors from the editor of Economics Papers, Harry Clarke, can be found below the fold.
continue reading
posted on 17 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
A Forgotten Financial Failure
I have an article in Online Opinion questioning the dominant narrative of the recent financial crisis and its role in conditioning regulatory responses to the crisis:
Perhaps the most pernicious myth about the crisis is that it was the failure of the US government to rescue Lehman Brothers that precipitated these events. Indeed, it has become common practice to date the crisis from 15 September 2008 when Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. Yet trouble had been brewing in credit markets for more than 12 months before.
The failure of Lehman Brothers was a trivial event compared to a much bigger but largely ignored financial failure that took place one week before when the two US mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were put into conservatorship by the US government. These Congressionally-mandated, government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) either owned or guaranteed two-thirds of the bad mortgages in the US financial system. They were far more highly leveraged than the private US or European investment banks. They will also ultimately cost US taxpayers more than all the other bail-outs of private financial institutions combined…
The failure of Lehman Brothers was merely a symptom rather than a cause of the crisis and the unwillingness of the US authorities to rescue Lehman was perhaps the one good US policy decision made through this episode. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke conceded as much recently, when he tried to defend the decision as a necessary one, but then undercut his own argument by maintaining that the decision also had disastrous consequences. What Bernanke should have argued was that the winding up of Lehman Brothers was fairly orderly as far as these things go and not a source of major systemic problems in the financial system.
Other contributions in this series can be found here.
posted on 16 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(2) Comments | Permalink | Main
Bernanke is Not a ‘Money Printer’
Frederic Mishkin is in Australia and will be presenting at the Reserve Bank on Thursday. He was interviewed by Alan Kohler for Inside Business:
ALAN KOHLER: So therefore do you join those who call Ben Bernanke a money printer?
PROFESSOR RICK MISHKIN: No, so… I don’t at all. The purpose here is not to print money and to just not worry about future inflationary consequences.
There is, however, an issue that when you have a balance sheet which is this large - and particularly in long-term assets and even more so in housing assets - the Fed is now involved in the most politicised of all financial markets in the US. The Federal Reserve and also the government has been involved in very large transactions to help the economy and bail outs.
The government’s not going to lose a penny on everything but one - the Fannie and Freddie, a couple [sic] of hundred billion dollars. So again, this is an indication of how crazy some of our policies have been.
Economists didn’t get - we missed a lot of things in this crisis, we got a lot of things wrong. Much to trusting for example of the quality of prudential supervision, which by the way in your country was done much, much better than in many other places, so you know, I don’t know whether you’re just lucky or good but…
ALAN KOHLER: Good!
posted on 14 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Monetary Policy
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Government Activism Hindering Recovery: Greenspan
Alan Greenspan, writing in International Finance, highlights the role of government activism in undermining economic recovery in the US:
What is most notable in sifting through the variables that might conceivably account for the lacklustre rebound in GDP growth and the persistence of high unemployment is the unusually low level of corporate illiquid long-term fixed asset investment. As a share of corporate liquid cash flow, it is at its lowest level since 1940. This contrasts starkly with the robust recovery in the markets for liquid corporate securities. What, then, accounts for this exceptionally elevated level of illiquidity aversion? I break down the broad potential sources, and analyse them with standard regression techniques. I infer that a minimum of half and possibly as much as three-fourths of the effect can be explained by the shock of vastly greater uncertainties embedded in the competitive, regulatory and financial environments faced by businesses since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, deriving from the surge in government activism.
posted on 06 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
John Taylor versus Bernanke and Greenspan
John Taylor has accused Ben Bernanke of mis-representing him in testimony before Congress over Taylor’s preferred version of his eponymous rule. This is a rather bizarre dispute, because naming rights aside, there can never be a definitive formulation of the Taylor rule. The Taylor rule depends on assumptions about unobservable variables such as the equilibrium real interest rate and potential output. There are dozens of methodologies for recovering these latent variables, all of which have strengths and weakness, but none of which yield definitive answers, especially not in the real time setting in which monetary policy is actually made. Alan Greenspan was always very careful to highlight the implications of uncertainty in relation to these variables, whereas Taylor seems untroubled by this issue in his recent commentary on Fed policy.
The Taylor rule can also be given a backward or forward-looking specification. Monetary policy is supposed to be forward-looking, so forecasts for inflation and the output gap are more relevant to judging the appropriateness of policy than contemporaneous or lagged values. Again, these forecasts are necessarily subject to considerable uncertainty. Insert the Federal Reserve Board’s staff forecast for inflation and the output gap circa 2003 into a reasonably parameterised Taylor rule and you will get different implied policy settings than if you use historical data, not least because the historical values will have been influenced by the stance of policy, which in turn was influenced by the forecast.
Taylor’s 1993 rule was an outstanding contribution and most economists have embraced it, but they have also significantly improved upon it. John Taylor’s 1993 specification may be his own, but it is far from definitive and may not be the optimal or efficient rule. Taylor should concede this much at least.
posted on 03 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Monetary Policy
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
WikiLeaks Blows the Whistle on Australian FDI Policy
WikiLeaks confirms what many have long suspected. The Australian government runs a secretly discriminatory policy on foreign direct investment by China:
The Foreign Investment Review Board told US diplomats that new investment guidelines signalled “a stricter policy aimed squarely at China’s growing influence in Australia’s resources sector”.
The anti-China rationale was set out in confidential discussions with US embassy officers in late September 2009 by the head of the Treasury Foreign Investment Division, Patrick Colmer, who is also an executive member of the Foreign Investment Review Board.
The embassy report on MrColmer’s remarks, titled “New Foreign Investment guidelines target China” and classified “sensitive”, is among US embassy cables leaked to WikiLeaks and provided to the Herald.
Based on Mr Colmer’s briefing, US diplomats reported that the Australian government privately wished to “pose new disincentives for larger-scale Chinese investments”.
The documents also confirm that the recent liberalisation of FIRB review thresholds was designed to alleviate the administrative burden on an over-worked FIRB that has increasingly sought to micro-manage high-profile FDI transactions.
My own whistle blowing efforts in relation to Australian FDI policy can be found here, although I obtained the document legally through the Freedom of Information Act.
posted on 03 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Foreign Investment
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Time to Dump Australia’s Anti-Dumping Laws
I have an op-ed in today’s Australian arguing against the campaign by the Australian Workers’ Union and the federal opposition to strengthen Australia’s anti-dumping regime:
The AWU has dressed up its anti-dumping campaign in the language of free trade and adherence to World Trade Organisation rules. But there is nothing in the WTO rules that prohibits dumping and WTO members are not required to maintain an anti-dumping system…
It is far more likely that Australian consumers and producers will end up paying more because of misplaced fears about foreign predation than due to the acquisition of international monopoly power by foreign producers. Anti-dumping measures bring about the very outcome they are designed to prevent.
The Productivity Commission has recommended the introduction of a public interest test, which would improve the operation of our anti-dumping system by allowing greater consideration of the economy-wide implications of dumping.
But a simpler reform that would have greater benefits for Australian consumers and the majority of producers would be for Australia to dump its anti-dumping system. This was one of the recommendations of the 1989 Garnaut Report. It shows just how little progress has been made in this area that we have still not acted on Garnaut’s recommendation two decades later.
posted on 02 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Free Trade & Protectionism
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
The Irrelevance of Fed Policy to House Prices
In my CIS Policy Monograph Bubble Poppers, I was dismissive of the notion that Fed policy had anything to do with the US house price boom and bust of last decade. The Reinharts take this Fed irrelevance proposition much further in a new NBER Working Paper:
We take a close look at the responses of asset markets to changes in the short-term policy interest rate since the founding of the Fed in 1914. Changes in the federal funds rate have no systematic effect on either long-term interest rates or housing prices over nearly a century. Indeed, since the mid-1990s the policy rate had a negative relationship with long-term interest rates. This is consistent with a global view of capital markets where massive cross-border flows shape the availability of domestic credit and asset prices. The evidence casts doubts on arguments that a moderately different monetary policy path might have mattered.
I tried telling the same story to John Taylor once, without much success. Maybe the Reinharts will be more convincing.
posted on 02 March 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, House Prices, Monetary Policy
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Is It Any Wonder Kevin Rudd Loves the G20?
The G20, solving the world’s problems one complicated but meaningless sentence at a time:
Negotiators from the world’s leading economies haggled all night over seemingly technical details regarding how to measure global economic imbalances. They eventually produced a 53-word sentence intended to appease all sides—and open to interpretation by all sides…
All 20 countries must agree on any technical detail for there to be a deal. If one country walks away, no deal.
The key agreement they came up with on Saturday—one sentence in the four-page “communiqué”—essentially says that exchange rates and fiscal and monetary policies will be taken into consideration when determining whether a country’s policies lead to imbalances.
To draft that sentence, officials from the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, China, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil and India were just some of the members who weighed in—at times with much different views—according to several people present. The sentence had one colon, one semi-colon, three commas, and the word “and” appeared six times…
“The way it’s written, the French can say it’s an indicator and the Chinese can say it’s not really,” said one G-20 official after the meetings.
posted on 20 February 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Offshore Perceptions of Australia: Hostage to ‘Ultranationlist Mavericks’
The FT’s Kevin Brown on the proposed ASX-SGX merger:
a handful of ultranationalist mavericks holds the balance of power in Australia’s divided parliament…
The tricky element in this strategy is finding a way to get the government and the opposition to move together, so that neither is able to outflank the other by suddenly adopting the nationalist agenda.
posted on 16 February 2011 by skirchner in Economics, Foreign Investment
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
How (Some) Academic Economist Bloggers Are Made
Bryan Caplan on GMU faculty:
None of us discovered economics in a mainstream econ class, found it fascinating, then decided to try to ascend the academic hierarchy. Instead, our inspiration came from libertarian books, libertarian friends, and libertarian intellectuals, plus our broader reading in philosophy, history, and the history of economic thought. Once we fell in love with ideas, we asked, “How can I make a career out of this?” We would have preferred to be instantly anointed as public intellectuals. But the best realistic path, we learned, was “Become a professor of economics.”
Throw in a couple of diversions via politics and financial markets and you have my career in a nutshell.
posted on 16 February 2011 by skirchner in Classical Liberalism, Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Sealand, HavenCo, and the Rule of Law
Proto-seasteading:
The story itself is fascinating enough: it includes pirate radio, shotguns and .50-caliber machine guns, rampant copyright infringement, a Red Bull skateboarding special, perpetual motion machines, and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of State. But its implications for the rule of law are even more remarkable.
posted on 15 February 2011 by skirchner in Classical Liberalism, Economics, Rule of Law
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Page 13 of 97 pages ‹ First < 11 12 13 14 15 > Last ›
|
