The recent surge in interest in Nominal GDP Targeting, as an alternative to money targeting or inflation targeting if the central bank is to commit to a nominal target of some sort, has prompted some pushback.   This is not surprising.  But one of the responses is most peculiar.  This is the allegation (1) that the surge comes from liberals opportunistically adopting an idea that was originally proposed by conservatives, and (2) that they will not stick with this “fad” in the longer run because it is only designed to fit current circumstances of high unemployment and low output.   Remarkably, every component of this argument is wrong.

 I have in mind, especially, the views of Benn Steil and Dinah Walker of the Council on Foreign Relations, as expressed in “Why  Nominal GDP Targeting is a Fad“:  
 ”NGDP targeting having once been the intellectual stomping ground of economists on the right (notably Scott Sumner), its newest supporters come overwhelmingly from the left (such as Christy Romer)…. We think the rage will be short-lived. The reason is that NGDP targeting’s newest supporters are bad-weather fans. That is, they like it now, when NGDP is well below its 2007 “trend” line, meaning that the policy implies extended and more aggressive monetary loosening. But what happens when NGDP goes above its target, as it eventually will? NGDP targeting then requires tightening….”

Let’s consider the analytics first, and hold off awhile on the less edifying political labels.   The nominal GDP proposal was originally studied and supported by many prominent economists in the 1980s.  The problem at the time was a need for monetary discipline, anchoring expectations, and reducing inflation.   Nominal income targeting was not designed as a way of getting easier monetary policy, but rather the opposite.   It is equally good for either purpose:  the target can be set high or low, depending on the times.

Originally, the leading competitor for the role of monetary anchor was money supply targeting (monetarism).  This was the regime that was adopted in the early 1980s by the central banks of the largest economies. But they were forced to abandon it subsequently.  Later on, the leading competitor became Inflation Targeting;  but it too ran into difficulties in the 2000s.   The general argument for nominal GDP throughout has been that it is robust to a variety of shocks, positive and negative.   It dominates money targeting in that it is robust with respect to velocity shocks.  It dominates inflation targeting in that it is robust to supply shocks. 

In other words, Nominal GDP Targeting is not a short-term expedient but is fit precisely for the long run.

It is true that a major reason why the nominal GDP proposal has been revived over the last two years is that it could help deliver easy monetary policy in the short run, which is what the economy has needed recently.  Some supporters may indeed view it as a short-term expedient, to be jettisoned when the economic recovery has become better established.   And I can see the attraction of the proposal that the Economist magazine has made for the UK: that the Bank of England commit to keeping interest rates low until nominal GDP has re-attained a level 10% higher than today’s level.  But I personally favor keeping it as the framework in the longer term, with loose nominal GDP targets set annually at a horizon of two years.  The width of the bands and the degree of commitment could be similar to whatever it would be under the alternative of inflation targeting.

The targeted nominal GDP growth rate would not be the same every year, let alone every decade.    If the US were to adopt the framework now, 4 ½ % would not be a bad number for the center of the target range.  (A lower number would be appropriate for some, like Japan, and a higher number for others, especially emerging market countries.)

Steil and Walker support their argument that the proposal is not fit for the long run with an attractive graph.  It shows that in many of the years since 1981 when the rate of growth of nominal GDP was above 4 ½ %, which they claim would imply monetary tightening under the proposed regime, unemployment was above 5 ½ %, prompting the Fed to loosen (wisely, in the authors’ view, if I understand them right).

The problem with this argument is that of those eight years when the Fed is shown loosening  in response to unemployment above 5 ½ % (by my count), seven of the years came during the first part of the sample: 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993.   (The only year from the more recent half of the sample is 2003.)  Why is this a problem for the argument?  In the 1980s and even the 1990s, it seems to me that nobody would have set a target so aggressive as to require monetary tightening when nominal GDP reached 4 ½ %.   Back then we were coming down from high levels of inertial inflation and this process was understood to be gradual.   Furthermore, the rate of growth of potential output was higher than today as well.   Thus the numbers chosen for the nominal GDP target would have been higher than today.  They would not have forced the Fed to tighten when unemployment was 7%.

Now to the political labels.  Recall that Steil-Walker claim that the nominal GDP proposal was originally put out by economists on the right and has recently been adopted opportunistically by economists on the left as a short-term fad.   But the originator of the nominal GDP proposal in the UK was Sir James Meade (1978, 1982), who (it turns out) was an “interventionist” and member of the Social Democratic Party.  The earliest proponent in the US was James Tobin (1980, 1983), also a Nobel Prize winner and also on the left.   (I am trying to avoid the confusing word “liberal” which in the US usually means on the left but in the UK continues usually to mean pro-free-market.) 

The recent revival of Nominal GDP Targeting came from a group of bloggers who describe themselves as conservatives (Scott Sumner, Lars Christensen and David Beckworth,)   Even those now proposing a one-time threshold for the level of nominal GDP are not noticeably  clustered on the left of the political spectrum.  The current British chancellor is, of course, a Conservative.   Perhaps what is confusing some observers is the reflexive, but wrong, assumption that Labor/Democrats always favor more expansionary policy than Conservatives/Republicans.

In other words, it would be more correct to say that the idea was a proposal of the left picked up by the right than the other way around, as Steil and Walker claim.   But there are plenty of nominal GDP proponents from each side of the political spectrum, currently as in there were in the 1980s, as well as many whose political views are not immediately apparent.  That is all to the good.   This proposal is neither liberal nor conservative.  Nor is it one that I, personally, will be abandoning as soon as the economy returns to full employment.   With money targeting and inflation targeting discredited, Nominal GDP Targeting is left.  Right?

[Notice to readers:  Starting today, my blogposts will also appear at On Deck, the blog space of Project Syndicate.   Some are elaborated versions of Project Syndicate op-eds.  Others, like this one, stand alone.]

 
            The Fed has come in for a surprising amount of criticism since its decision in the fall of 2010 to launch a new round of monetary easing — Quantitative Easing 2.  Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are right not to give in to these attacks.

            Critiques seem to be of four sorts. (Some are mutually exclusive.)

            1)  “QE is weird.”    Quantitative Easing entails the central bank buying a somewhat wider range of securities than the traditional short-term Treasury bills that are the usual focus of the Fed’s open market operations.    This has been a bold strategy, which nobody would have predicted 3 or 4 years ago.   But it has been appropriate to the equally unexpected financial crisis and recession.    Some who find QE alarmingly non-standard may not realize that other central banks do this sort of thing, and that the US authorities themselves did it in the more distant past.    It is amusing to recall that when Ben Bernanke was first appointed Chairman, some reacted “He is a fine economist, but he doesn’t have the market experience of a Wall Street type.”  The irony is that nobody who had spent his or her career on Wall Street would have had the relevant experience to deal with the shocks of the last three years, since none of them were there in the 1930s.  But as an economic historian, Bernanke had just the broader perspective that was needed.   Thank heaven he did.

            2)   “Monetary easing under current circumstances has no effect.”  It is true that, with short-term interest rates already near zero for the last two years, further monetary expansion is likely to be of less help than in a normal recession.  (The classic “liquidity trap” has been re-born as the “zero lower bound.”)    But monetary policy can work through other channels besides short-term interest rates.  Seven such mechanisms are: long-term interest rates, expected inflation, the exchange rate, equity prices, real estate prices, commodity prices, and the credit channel.   QE is worth a try, given that the economy is still weak and given the constraints that keep fiscal policy sub-optimal.

            3)  “Monetary ease will lead to inflation.   What we need now, if anything, is monetary tightening.”   This is the view, for example, expressed recently by some conservative economists, including John Taylor.   It seems to me way off base.  With unemployment far above the natural rate, GDP well below potential, and inflation (slightly) below target, it is clear that the Fed’s November 3 decision to ease further  was appropriate.

            4)  “The Fed is firing a volley in a destructive international currency war.”   This is the criticism that has come from some of our trading partners:  in particular, China, Germany and Brazil.   I don’t generally do “My country, right or wrong.”   But my country is right on this one.    Monetary easing is not a beggar-thy-neighbor policy.  The colorful phrase “currency wars“ seems to have confused some people.  The current situation is precisely the point of floating exchange rates:    when some countries feel that their high unemployment calls for monetary expansion (US) at the same time that others feel that their overheating calls for monetary tightening (Brazil, India, Korea, China…), an appreciation of the latter currencies against the former is precisely the way that floating rates accommodate the differences.    This is why Milton Friedman favored floating rates, so that each country could pursue its own desired policies independently.   I realize that the pressure which US monetary easing puts on countries like China to allow appreciation is unwelcome. China is finding it increasingly difficult to cling to its exchange rate target by means of controls on capital inflows and sterilized foreign exchange intervention.   But capital flows are a far more legitimate way to let China feel the pressure than the alternative:  Congressional threats to impose WTO-inconsistent tariffs on Chinese imports if it won’t allow faster appreciation of the yuan.

            I was glad to see that today’s decision by the Federal Open Market Committee to stay the course was unanimous.   The Fed is right not to give in to misguided criticisms.   This is what we have central bank independence for.

Click here for a TV interview on today’s FOMC decision, and inflation & TIPs.

[Comments can be posted on the Belfer site.]

If strong economic growth is not the explanation for the large increases since 2001 in prices of virtually all mineral and agricultural commodities, then what is? One wouldn’t want to try to reduce commodity markets to a single factor, nor to claim proof of any theory by a single data point. Nevertheless, the developments of the last six months provided added support for a theory I have long favored: real interest rates are an important determinant of real commodity prices. High interest rates reduce the demand for storable commodities, or increase the supply, through a variety of channels:

• by increasing the incentive for extraction today rather than tomorrow (think of the rates at which oil is pumped, copper mined, forests logged, or livestock herds culled)
• by decreasing firms’ desire to carry inventories (think of oil inventories held in tanks)
• by encouraging speculators to shift out of spot commodity contracts (think gold), and into treasury bills.

All three mechanisms work to reduce the market price of commodities, as happened when real interest rates where high in the early 1980s. A decrease in real interest rates has the opposite effect, lowering the cost of carrying inventories, and raising commodity prices, as happened in the 1970s, and again during 2001-2004. It’s the original “carry trade.”

The theoretical model can be summarized as follows:

A monetary expansion temporarily lowers the real interest rate (whether via a fall in the nominal interest rate, a rise in expected inflation, or both – as now). Real commodity prices rise. How far? Until commodities are widely considered “overvalued” — so overvalued that there is an expectation of future depreciation (together with the other costs of carrying inventories: storage costs plus any risk premium) that is sufficient to offset the lower interest rate (and other advantages of holding inventories, namely the “convenience yield”). Only then do firms feel they have high enough inventories despite the low carrying cost. In the long run, the general price level adjusts to the change in the money supply. As a result, the real money supply, real interest rate, and real commodity price eventually return to where they were. The theory is the same as Rudiger Dornbusch’s famous theory of exchange rate overshooting, with the price of commodities substituted for the price of foreign exchange.There was already some empirical evidence to support the theory: Monetary policy news and real interest rates, along with other factors, do appear to be significant determinants of real commodity prices historically. (For a simpler illustration, see graph below).

But the events since August 2007 provide a further data point. As economic growth has slowed sharply, both in the US and globally, the Fed has reduced interest rates, both nominal and real. Firms and investors have responded by shifting into commodities, not out. This is why commodity prices have resumed their upward march over the last six months, rather than reversing it.