Sumner - Arnold Kling On Monetary and Fiscal Policy

1/3/2021 TheMoneyIllusion » Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy
Home
About this blog
Bio
FAQs
Privacy Policy
TheMoneyIllusion
A slightly off-center perspective on monetary problems.
Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy

 Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn
Arnold Kling has a new article on monetary and fiscal policy. Because he slightly mischaracterizes my
views, I should probably respond:
Scott’s argument for monetary dominance is that the Fed, which sets monetary policy, is way
more agile than Congress, which sets fiscal policy. It’s like a game of rock, paper, scissors in
which if Congress shows rock, the Fed shows paper. Or if Congress shows scissors, the Fed
shows rock. The Fed can always win.
I do think the Fed is more agile, but the decisive factor is that the Fed is much stronger. If you want a
metaphor that is better than rock, paper, scissors, imagine I’m driving my car and my 6-year old daughter
pushes the steering wheel to try to change direction. I’d simply push back more strongly.
I believe in fiscal dominance. That is because I do not think that Peter cares all that much
whether he hangs on to his T-bill or exchanges it for money. Scott thinks that Peter will spend
more in the latter case. I am skeptical.
This isn’t the right thought experiment. I don’t doubt that if you give the average person a briefcase with a
million in cash they’ll go on a shopping spree, and that’s equally true if you give then a million dollars in T-
bills. That’s not the issue. Money is special not because it is regarded by individuals as wealth, rather
because it is the medium of exchange.
If you add more cash to the economy than people want to hold, they can get rid of the excess cash balances
only by pushing up the price level. In contrast, if you add more T-bills than people want to hold, they can
drive down the price of T-bills, with no change in the price level. You merely need to assume that they aren’t
perfect substitutes. (At least when nominal interest rates are positive, and Arnold seems to be arguing for
fiscal dominance even during periods where interest rates are positive.)
Scott, like almost all mainstream economists, sees inflation as having a continuous dose-
response pattern. Give the economy a higher dose of money and it will respond with higher
inflation. Other economists measure the “dose” as the employment rate.
I think of inflation as an autocatalytic process. Inflation is naturally low and stable. But it can be
jarred loose from that regime and become high and variable. Then it takes a lot of force to bring
it back to the low and stable regime.
Nominal variables don’t have natural rates. It’s a policy choice. Inflation was not low and stable for most of
American history, but became low and stable after 1990, when the Fed decided to target inflation at roughly
2%. These things don’t happen automatically. That’s why most central banks have set inflation targets, to
prevent this:
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/arnold-kling-on-monetary-and-fiscal-policy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe… 1/10
Here’s Arnold:
Once inflation gets going, the only way to stop it is to slam on the economic brakes. Usually,
this means drastically cutting government spending. But in the U.S. in the early 1980s, we
slowed the economy without cutting government spending. Instead, the foreign exchange market
put on the brakes by raising the value of the dollar, stimulating imports and making our exports
non-competitive. And the bond market put on the brakes by raising interest rates, so that nobody
could afford the monthly payment on an amortizing mortgage. After a few years of high
unemployment, inflation receded.
Most economists attribute these developments to Fed policy under the sainted Paul Volcker.
Scott could say that this was exhibit A for monetary dominance. The economic consensus may
be right, but I would raise the possibility that the financial markets were the main drivers.
The price of goods (CPI) the price of foreign currency (E) are two ways of measuring the value of money
(actually its inverse.) Here Arnold is saying that monetary policy did not make the dollar strong, a stronger
dollar (exchange rate) made the dollar stronger (purchasing power). OK, but the two most plausible theories
for the strong dollar were tight money and fiscal deficits. Obviously, Arnold is not saying that big fiscal
deficits brought inflation down in the 1980s.
Exhibit A? Volcker was perhaps Exhibit J for monetary dominance; there are so many other examples that
one hardly knows where to begin. Remember LBJ raising taxes and pushing the budget into surplus in 1968
in order to bring down inflation? How’d that work out? Budget deficits were pretty low in the 1970s, as a
share of GDP. What happened to inflation? Then inflation fell as Reagan pushed the deficit much higher. A
big reduction in the budget deficit from $1061 billion in calendar 2012 to $561 in calendar 2013 should have
slowed the economy according to the fiscal dominance theory. Instead NGDP growth sped up in 2013. Then
the deficit ballooned to a trillion dollars in 2019, and yet inflation stayed below 2%.
Overseas you find the same thing. Japan runs some of the biggest fiscal deficits ever seen in peacetime from
the mid-1990s to 2013 and both the price level and NGDP actually fell. Then a new government switched to
fiscal austerity and monetary stimulus, and NGDP begins rising (albeit still too slowly.)
Sorry, but fiscal dominance is not remotely plausible, at least with positive interest rates and an independent
central bank.
Almost every major school of thought—monetarist, Keynesian, and Austrian, etc.—believe that monetary
policy has a major impact on nominal variables. The financial markets respond to monetary policy
announcements as if they are extremely important, often adding or destroying hundreds of billions of dollars
in wealth within seconds. The history of economics is full of examples of monetary dominance over fiscal
policy. Basic theory predicts that a $100 bill is not identical to a T-bill yielding 2% interest; otherwise they’d
have the same yield. If Arnold Kling and the MMTers want to convince the me, the rest of the profession,
and the financial markets that open market operations don’t matter when interest rates are positive, they are
going to need something better than dubious thought experiments about the substitutability of cash and T-
bills.
 Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn
Tags:
This entry was posted on March 01st, 2021 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses
to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or Trackback from your own site.
« No hay esperanza
2 Responses to “Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy”
1. rayward
1. March 2021 at 11:18
I’m not questioning Sumner, but there were three significant shifts in the past 40 years: the shift in the
production function to China, the shift in the US economy to services, and the shift in income and
wealth upstream. Deficits and the “strong” dollar to fund them didn’t change much, but the three shifts
I listed had a profound effect on wages and prices and policies adopted in both Congress and at the
Fed.
2. Ray Lopez
1. March 2021 at 12:42
Sumner sees his name in print and like a little boy wants to respond, how predictable. And guess what?
He is misunderstood (no surprise).
Let’s deconstruct Sumner’s post. Sumner (SS): “I do think the Fed is more agile, but the decisive
factor is that the Fed is much stronger.” – how much is much? How long is a string? Without a
yardstick, how do we know Kling is disagreeing with Sumner?
Kling thinks fiscal > monetary policy (the commonsense view): Sumner: “This isn’t the right thought
experiment” What? It’s not a thought experiment, it’s a historical fact. See more here Youtube: 2021 –
MacroVoices #260 Lyn Alden: Shifting from Monetary to Fiscal Dominance. In short, after WWII and
now, the fact we’re printing and deficit spending more than 25% of GDP via fiscal policy is huugee, to
quote the Orange Man.
SS: “If you add more cash to the economy than people want to hold, they can get rid of the excess cash
balances only by pushing up the price level. In contrast, if you add more T-bills than people want to
hold, they can drive down the price of T-bills, with no change in the price level” – no. Sumner
apparently has never heard of a brokerage house, where you can give them cash and get T-bills in
exchange. People are not that sticky.
SS: “Nominal variables don’t have natural rates.” – no. Nominal = F(Nominal, natural rate). The
nominal variable is path dependent. Easy to model, it’s called “anchoring”. If somebody says: “pick a
number between 1, 10 and 1M, you are likely to pick something well over ten since your mind is
anchored to the higher number.
SS: “Exhibit A? Volcker was perhaps Exhibit J for monetary dominance; there are so many other
examples that one hardly knows where to begin” – begin with that at times Volcker raised rates and
inflation ROSE and he lowered rates and inflation FELL, the opposite of conventional monetary
theory.
SS: “almost every major school of thought—monetarist, Keynesian, and Austrian, etc.—believe that
monetary policy has a major impact on nominal variables.” – wrong. The Ray Lopez / Nobelist Fisher
Black school says money is largely short-term and long-term neutral. Only hyperinflation is non-
neutral. Money is like the Van der Waals forces in nature: very weak, inverse r2 forces. Statistically
true as Bernanke said in his 2003 FAVAR econometrics paper, but weak (Bernanke found monetarism
is about 3.3% to 13.3%–out of 100%–to a range of economic variables including nominal GDP, and
unemployment. Weak, like our host’s arguments.
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Submit
Search
Search term...
About
Welcome to a new blog on the endlessly perplexing problem of monetary policy. You’ll quickly notice
that I am not a natural blogger, yet I feel compelled by recent events to give it a shot. Read more...
US NGDP Forecasting Challenge
by HYPERMIND & MERCATUS CENTER
Join Now! $90,000 Prize
US nominal GDP Q1 2021 Y/Y
FAQs
Archive
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
Bio
My name is Scott Sumner and I have taught economics at Bentley University for the past 27 years. I
earned a BA in economics at Wisconsin and a PhD at Chicago. My research has been in the field of
monetary economics, particularly the role of the gold standard in the Great Depression. I had just
begun research on the relationship between cultural values and neoliberal reforms, when I got pulled
back into monetary economics by the current crisis.
Recent Posts
Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy
No hay esperanza
Focus on the target, not the instrument
Lael Brainard on monetary policy and employment
Middlebrow science
Recent Comments:
Categories
Argentina
Australia
China
Cognitive illusions
Crisis of 2008
Culture/arts
Efficient markets hypothesis
Eurozone
Exchange Rates
financial regulation
Financial system
Fiscal policy
Forecasting
Global Warming
Gold standard
Great Depression
Great Recession
healthcare
Heterodox macro
housing market
India
inequality
Inflation
Interest on reserves
International economics
Japan
Keynesianism
Labor markets
Level targeting
Libertarianism
Liquidity trap
Market monetarism
Methodology
Misc.
Modern Monetary Theory
Monetarism
Monetary History
Monetary Policy
Monetary policy stance
Monetary Theory
Movies
Neoliberalism
Never Reason From a Price Change
NGDP futures targeting
NGDP targeting
Philosophy
Praising Krugman
Price Level Targeting
Quantitative Easing
Quantity Theory of Money
Rational Expectations
Scandinavia
Social trends
Supply-side economics
Switzerland
Teaching economics
Trade
Trump Derangement Syndrome
Uncategorized
United Kingdom
Utilitarianism
Quick intro to my views

A short intro course on money
A very simple model of money, NGDP, and business cycles
Defense of NGDP Targeting
Link to RSS feed for all comments
Links to key blog posts and papers
Misconceptions about market monetarism

Monetary Offset
My views on the Great Depression
NGDP Futures Targeting
Sites I Visit
Alt-M
Arnold Kling
Basil Halperin
Ben Bernanke
Bill Woolsey
Bloggingheads
Brad DeLong
Britmouse
Colin Marshall
David Beckworth
Econbrowser
Econlog
Econlog–Sumner
Economist’s View
EconTalk
Ed Dolan
Election odds
Free Exchange
Giles Wilkes
Greg Mankiw’s Blog
Hawtreyblog
Hypermind NGDP market
Josh Hendrickson
JP Koning
Kevin Erdmann
Lars Christensen
Marcus Nunes
MarginalRevolution
Matt Yglesias
Michael Pettis
Modeled Behavior
NGDP Advisers
Nick Rowe
Note on Liberty
Oilprice.com
Overcoming Bias
Paul Krugman
Slate Star Codex
Slate.com
Stephen Kirchner
Steve Winkler
Supply-Side Liberal
Tim Duy
Will Wilkinson
This Site runs with WordPress 5.6 and the Theme Simplicity
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/arnold-kling-on-monetary-and-fiscal-policy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=F… 10/10

Sumner - Arnold Kling On Monetary and Fiscal Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sumner - Arnold Kling On Monetary and Fiscal Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/3/2021 TheMoneyIllusion » Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy

Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy

 Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn

2 Responses to “Arnold Kling on monetary and fiscal policy”

Mail (will not be published) (required)

US NGDP Forecasting Challenge

by HYPERMIND & MERCATUS CENTER

Join Now! $90,000 Prize

US nominal GDP Q1 2021 Y/Y

US nominal GDP Q4 2021 Y/Y

US nominal GDP Q4 2022 Y/Y

Quick intro to my views

Misconceptions about market monetarism

You might also like