Hassan Bougrine and Louis-Philippe Rochon have edited two volumes of essays in honour of Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia!
Publisher’s pages for the books:
Volume 1
Volume 2
The contents of the two books are available in the links to the publisher’s website above.
Cover images credits: Louis-Philippe Rochon on Twitter.
📅 Conference: The Legacy Of Wynne Godley
Levy Economics Institute has announced a virtual conference in commemoration of Wynne Godley on May 13th.
The site says that you can join by Google Meet.
Marc Lavoie’s talk is Wynne Godley And The Monetary Circuit. There’s a roundtable Godley’s Approach In The Current Crisis.
There are several new speakers who didn’t attend the conference in honour of Godley in 2011 such as Ken Coutts, Graham Gudgin, Bill Martin.
Poster from Levy Institute’s Facebook page.
Marc Lavoie On A Podcast Episode ❗
Marc Lavoie recently appeared on David Beckworth’s podcast, Macro Musings, where he discusses his recent paper on the Canadian settlement system and its relation to monetary policy. He also discusses a few more things such as inflation and Post-Keynesian perspectives on this.
Marc Lavoie — History And Fundamentals Of Post-Keynesian Macroeconomics
Marc Lavoie talks on Post-Keynesian macroeconomics at the recent conference Euro At 20 – Macroeconomic Challenges in Berlin
There were some interesting additions to his table on macro paradoxes at 31:20 in the video on flexible wages leading to more instability, which is counter-intuitive from a neoclassical viewpoint.
Marc Lavoie — Advances In The Post-Keynesian Analysis Of Money And Finance
There’s a new article by Marc Lavoie in a newly released book which is an interesting read. Abstract:
This chapter focuses on the various monetary themes that have been emphasized by post-Keynesian economists and that turned out to have been validated by the events that occurred during and after the subprime financial crisis. These include interest rate targeting by the central bank, interest rate spreads, endogenous money, the reversed causality between reserves and money, the defensive role of central banks, the links between the central bank and the government, banks as very special financial institutions, the different role of the shadow banking system, and whether there are limits to the amounts of credit that banks can create. The chapter analyzes unconventional monetary policies, including quantitative easing (QE), QE for the people and 100% reserves. It also discusses the consequences, for the theory of endogenous central bank money, of the adoption of a system where the target interest rate is the interest rate on reserves.
Mario Seccareccia and Marc Lavoie — Central Banks, Secular Stagnation, And Loanable Funds
Mario Seccareccia and Marc Lavoie comment on Larry Summers’ recent shift on his view of fiscal policy:
… At the time [2013], however, he still sought to explain this new normalcy of secular stagnation in terms of interest rate rigidity.
Now, however, he seems to have abandoned that view altogether and has embraced Keynesian and post-Keynesian ideas originating with the General Theory. For instance, nowhere in the article by Summers and Stansbury is there mention of the negative natural rate as the explanation for an incapacity of central bankers to deal with secular stagnation. Is that because he has now abandoned the loanable funds theory, which remains at the core of mainstream thinking and to which he had previously subscribed? Nor do he and his coauthor suggest now that activist fiscal policy to combat secular stagnation is needed as a temporary measure to kick-start an economy stuck in a liquidity trap.
Marc Lavoie has a new paper in Review Of Political Economy in which he explains how the Bank of Canada, the central bank of Canada 🇨🇦 is able to maintain the target interest rate at the center of the corridor with high perfection despite zero reserve requirement and clearing happening privately.
Abstract:
In a number of ways, implementing monetary policy in Canada stands apart from monetary policy in most other industrial countries. Commercial banks and other participants to the main clearinghouse – the large-value transfer system (LVTS) – hold no reserves at the central bank. Clearing and settlement is both in real time and net, while only settlement occurs on the books of the central bank. The Bank of Canada does not conduct open-market operations and rarely intervenes in the repo market; and despite this, the collateralized overnight rate always remains within 2 or 3 basis points of the target interest rate. The paper explains why this is so by describing the setup of the Canadian clearing and settlement system, including the rules that have been put forward in case a bank defaults on its due payments before settlement occurs. Some puzzles that arose through the years are also discussed, as well as the unlikely prospect of introducing blockchain technology in the Canadian clearing and settlement system.
A good lecture by Marc Lavoie on whether Hyman Minsky was a Post-Keynesian. The answer is in the end and I won’t give out the answer!
One of the points Marc discusses when discussing the financial instability hypothesis is that Minsky’s analysis avoids discussing dynamic effects: a rise in production of firms leads to a rise in demand for their products because of incomes generated and will hence generate profits for firms. Hence firms’ debt ratios needn’t worsen necessarily. Minsky’s narrative makes it look like it is always worsening. Also Minsky assumes that the rise in supply of debts will raise interest rates, which has a sound of the loanable funds model to it.
Which is no to say that the hypothesis is irrelevant but just that a better articulation is required.
Marc Lavoie at Poznan Summer School 2018
The video was live at the Review Of Political Economy‘s page on Facebook but still available.
Some background papers on this:
There’s now a paper, Was Hyman Minsky A Post-Keynesian Economist?, at Review Of Evolutionary Political Economy.
Recently I commented on a paper, The Financial Crisis In The Eurozone: A Balance-Of-Payments Crisis With A Single Currency? by Eladio Febrero, Jorge Uxó and Fernando Bermejo, published in ROKE, Review Of Keynesian Economics. I hadn’t realised that Sergio Cesaratto has a reply (paywalled) in the same issue.
Sergio Cesaratto. Picture credit: La Città Futura, Sergio Cesaratto
Abstract:
Febrero et al. (2018) criticise the balance-of-payments (BoP) view of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) crisis. I have no major objections to most of the single aspects of the crisis pointed out by these authors, except that they appear to underline specific sides of the EMU crisis, while missing a unifying and realistic explanation. Specific semi-automatic mechanisms differentiate a BoP crisis in a currency union from a traditional one. Unfortunately, these mechanisms give Febrero et al. the illusion that a BoP crisis in a currency union is impossible. My conclusion is that an interpretation of the eurozone’s troubles as a BoP crisis provides a more consistent framework. The debate has some relevance for the policy prescriptions to solve the eurocrisis. Given the costs that all sides would incur if the currency union were to break up, austerity policies are still seen by European politicians as a tolerable price to pay to keep foreign imbalances at bay – with the sweetener of some European Central Bank (ECB) support, for as long as Berlin allows the ECB to provide it.
Sergio carefully responds to all views of Febrero et al. and Marc Lavoie, Randall Wray and also Paul De Grauwe, pointing out that he agrees with most of their views except that their dismissal of this being a balance-of-payments crisis with their claims that the problem could have been addressed by the Eurosystem/ECB lending to governments without limits. He points out that, “The austerity measures that accompanied the ECB’s more proactive stance are clearly to police a moral hazard problem”. It is true that the ECB, the European Commission and the IMF overdid the austerity but it doesn’t mean that Sergio’s opponents’ claims are accurate.
… But more disturbing still is the notion that with a common currency the ‘balance or payments problem’ is eliminated and therefore that individual countries are relieved of the need to pay for their imports with exports.
Quite the reverse: the existence or a common currency makes a country more directly dependent on its ability to sell exports and import substitutes than it was before, particularly as it will then possess no means whereby it can (in the broadest sense) protect itself against failure.
– Wynne Godley, Commonsense Route To A Common Europe, in The Observer, 6 January 1991.
Greece had large negative current account balance of payments and Germany had the opposite over the lifetime of the Euro.
Yet, there are some economists who argue that the Euro Area crisis is not a balance of payment crisis. Of course there are other aspects to the crisis as well but this in my view is the main issue. There was a debate between Sergio Cesaratto and Marc Lavoie on this. Now there is a new paper in the most recent issue of ROKE (Review of Keynesian Economics) by Eladio Febrero, Jorge Uxó and Fernando Bermejo which discusses this. The Wayback Machine/Internet Archive link is here if you are reading it after the journal puts the paywall again.
The authors seem to be against Sergio Cesaratto view. Since I agree with Cesaratto, I thought I should comment on it.
The fundamental problem of the Euro Area is that it doesn’t have a central government. If there had been a central government like the US federal government, with large fiscal powers, the Euro Area crisis would have been far less deeper. This is because weaker regions would have been recipients of “fiscal transfers”, i.e., receive more government expenditure than what they send in taxes.
Fiscal transfers can be seen transactions in the balance of payments of Euro Area countries if the EA had a central government. The way to do balance of payments for monetary and political unions is explained in the IMF Balance of Payments and International Investment Position manual. Take a country like Greece. The Euro Area government would be considered external to Greece. Same for other countries. But for the Euro Area as a whole, the central government would be considered inside the Euro Area.
So government expenditure would appear in Greek exports in the goods and services account and transfers in the secondary income account. Taxes would appear only in the latter.
So there is an improvement in the current account balance of payments for regions compared to the case when there is no central government. Current account balances accumulate to the net international investment of the whole country. A country which has persistent imbalances would have negative net international investment position, i.e., indebtedness to other countries.
So fiscal transfers keep all this in check by improving the current account balance. So if the Euro Area had a central government, debts of a country like Greece would be in check.
By joining the half-baked half-way house, Greece got an overvalued exchange rate and easier access for other Euro Area countries into its markets and its external imbalances worsened in its lifetime inside the monetary union.
Nations with high current account deficits will also have higher public debt than otherwise and would need international investors to buy the debt which residents won’t. Normally the price would adjust to bring international investors but as we have seen, sometimes there is no price and a fall in bond prices might lead to expectations of further fall leading external investors to dump the bonds instead of finding them attractive.
The trouble with Febrero et al. is that they seem to think that the European central bank can purchase all government debt of nation. Certainly, the European Central Bank (ECB) has stepped in at various times to ease the pressure on government bond markets. But the trouble with this is that there are under some conditions such as assuming it can impose tight fiscal policy on the governments it is helping.
If the Euro Area treaty is modified to allow countries to have independent fiscal policies, then for stability, the ECB has to buy bonds without limits and can keep accumulating. It is a political mess. A country like Germany could argue that it is writing an open cheque to Greece.
A political union wouldn’t have such problems. National level governments such as the Greek government would have fiscal rules on them, and hopefully not the supranational government. This is like the United States where state governments have rules on their budgets.
In contrast, if the ECB guarantees Greece’s debt, it has to impose some rules and since Greece is not recipient of any equalisation payments—the fiscal transfers—its performance is still dependent on its competitiveness. This is because competitiveness would affect the Greece government’s fiscal balance and hence put a deflationary pressure on Greece’s fiscal stance.
On the other hand, a Euro Area with a central government would imply Greece is recipient of substantial equalisation payments and its competitiveness isn’t so binding.
An argument of the economists arguing that the European monetary system has this thing called TARGET2 and that the intra-Eurosystem balances (i.e., automatic credits offered by one national central bank to another) can rise without limit is used in this paper. This is highly misleading. It is true but one should look at the changes in debits and credits elsewhere. Suppose a country like Greece sees a large private financial outflow. While T2 can absorb a lot of this—much more than anyone imagined—in the late stages, Greece banks become heavily indebted to their national central bank, The Bank of Greece. When they run out of collateral, the rules under ELA, Emergency Liquidity Assistance, is triggered. So TARGET2 or more accurately the Eurosystem cannot absorb everything.
In summary, the Euro Area cannot do without a central government in the long run. Anyone who thinks that the ECB or the Eurosystem can buy whatever residual debt private investors doesn’t understand that in such a system, Euro Area governments are given an open cheque.
The difference between not having a central government and a central government is that in the former, there is no equivalent income flow as in the latter. The Eurosystem purchases would affect the financial account of balance of payments, not the current account.
One of the noticeable assertions of the paper is:
With T2, there is just one currency. This means that if foreign exchange markets did not exist, there could not be a BoP crisis, so that the cause of the crisis should be found elsewhere.
The trouble with this is that it sees it only as a currency crisis. But the fact is that countries whose external position were weak were the ones running into trouble in the Euro Area. Had current account deficits not blown up, countries would have had better fiscal balance since the current account balance and the budget balance are related by an identity and even behaviourally as can be seen in stock-flow consistent models. In crisis times, foreign investors are more likely to shift their funds in their home countries. With better balance of payments, public debt would be held more internally and there would have been less pressure on government bonds.
There are comments in the paper about too much credit etc. This is true, but then the Euro Area crisis would have looked more like the economic and financial crisis affected the United States.
Here’s the the NIIP of Euro Area countries in 2011.
Doesn’t this explain why Germany was in a better position than Greece when the crisis started heating up? Or that Netherlands was in a better position than Portugal?
