Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: Krugman et al  (Lida 606651 vezes)

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1420 em: 2015-02-16 18:56:45 »
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog

Weimar and Greece, Continued

Try to talk about macroeconomics, and you’re sure to encounter accusations that your policies would turn us into Weimar Germany; those wheelbarrows full of cash remain the ultimate bogeymen for many, despite years of being wrong about everything. As some of us have noted, however, there’s a peculiar selectivity in the use of Weimar as cautionary tale: it’s always about the hyperinflation of 1923, never about the deflationary effects of the gold standard and austerity in 1930-32, which is, you know, what brought you-know-who to power.

But that’s not the only piece of Weimar history that has gone missing; there was also the reparations issue, which as I noted yesterday has considerable bearing on the issue of how large a primary surplus Greece must run.

Thinking about this led me to an interesting question. We know that part of the reason large postwar reparations were such an unreasonable and irresponsible demand was the dire, shrunken state of the German economy after World War I. So how does Greece compare? The answer startled me:

Austerity, it turns out, has devastated Greece just about as much as defeat in total war devastated imperial Germany. The idea of demanding that this economy triple the size of its primary surplus is … disturbing.


krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

as

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 229
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1421 em: 2015-02-16 19:00:21 »
Oh Lark (Varoufakis ou como quiseres),

Porque é que a Grécia não volta ao Dracma e faz as políticas expansionistas que quiser?

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1422 em: 2015-02-16 19:08:18 »
Weimar on the Aegean

Try to talk about the policies we need in a depressed world economy, and someone is sure to counter with the specter of Weimar Germany, supposedly an object lesson in the dangers of budget deficits and monetary expansion. But the history of Germany after World War I is almost always cited in a curiously selective way. We hear endlessly about the hyperinflation of 1923, when people carted around wheelbarrows full of cash, but we never hear about the much more relevant deflation of the early 1930s, as the government of Chancellor Brüning — having learned the wrong lessons — tried to defend Germany’s peg to gold with tight money and harsh austerity.

And what about what happened before the hyperinflation, when the victorious Allies tried to force Germany to pay huge reparations? That’s also a tale with a lot of modern relevance, because it has a direct bearing on the crisis now brewing over Greece.

The point is that now, more than ever, it is crucial that Europe’s leaders remember the right history. If they don’t, the European project of peace and democracy through prosperity will not survive.

About those reparations: The basic story here is that Britain and France, instead of viewing the newly established German democracy as a potential partner, treated it as a conquered enemy, demanding that it make up their own wartime losses. This was deeply unwise — and the demands placed on Germany were impossible to meet, for two reasons. First, Germany’s economy had already been devastated by the war. Second, the true burden on that shrunken economy would — as John Maynard Keynes explained in his angry, powerful book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” — be far greater than the direct payments to the vengeful Allies.

In the end, and inevitably, the actual sums collected from Germany fell far short of Allied demands. But the attempt to levy tribute on a ruined nation — incredibly, France actually invaded and occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland, in an effort to extract payment — crippled German democracy and poisoned relations with its neighbors.

Which brings us to the confrontation between Greece and its creditors.

You can argue that Greece brought its problems on itself, although it had a lot of help from irresponsible lenders. At this point, however, the simple fact is that Greece cannot pay its debts in full. Austerity has devastated its economy as thoroughly as military defeat devastated Germany — real Greek G.D.P. per capita fell 26 percent from 2007 to 2013, compared with a German decline of 29 percent from 1913 to 1919.

Despite this catastrophe, Greece is making payments to its creditors, running a primary surplus — an excess of revenue over spending other than interest — of around 1.5 percent of G.D.P. And the new Greek government is willing to keep running that surplus. What it is not willing to do is meet creditor demands that it triple the surplus, and keep running huge surpluses for many years to come.

What would happen if Greece were to try to generate those huge surpluses? It would have to further slash government spending — but that wouldn’t be the end of the story. Spending cuts have already driven Greece into a deep depression, and further cuts would make that depression deeper. Falling incomes would, however, mean falling tax receipts, so that the deficit would decline by much less than the initial reduction in spending — probably less than half as much. To meet its target, then, Greece would have to do another round of cuts, and then another.

Furthermore, a shrinking economy would lead to falling private spending too — another, indirect cost of the austerity.

Put it all together, and attempting to cough up the extra 3 percent of G.D.P. the creditors are demanding would cost Greece not 3 percent, but something like 8 percent of G.D.P. And remember, this would come on top of one of the worst economic slumps in history.

What would happen if Greece were simply to refuse to pay? Well, 21st-century European nations don’t use their armies as bill collectors. But there are other forms of coercion. We now know that in 2010 the European Central Bank threatened, in effect, to collapse the Irish banking system unless Dublin agreed to an International Monetary Fund program.

The threat of something similar hangs implicitly over Greece, although my hope is that the central bank, which is under different and more open-minded management these days, wouldn’t go along.

In any case, European creditors should realize that flexibility — giving Greece a chance to recover — is in their own interests. They may not like the new leftist government, but it’s a duly elected government whose leaders are, from everything I’ve heard, sincerely committed to democratic ideals. Europe could do a lot worse — and if the creditors are vengeful, it will.

krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1423 em: 2015-02-16 19:40:46 »
Athenae Delenda Est

OK, this is amazing, and not in a good way. Greek talks with finance ministers have broken up over this draft statement, which the Greeks have described as “absurd.” It’s certainly remarkable. On my reading, here’s the key sentence:

The Greek authorities committed to ensure appropriate primary fiscal surpluses and financing in order to guarantee debt sustainability in line with the targets agreed in the November 2012 Eurogroup statement. Moreover, any new measures should be funded, and not endanger financial stability.

Translation (if you look back at that Eurogroup statement): no give whatsoever on the primary surplus of 4.5 percent of GDP.

There was absolutely no way Tsipras and company could sign on to such a statement, which makes you wonder what the Eurogroup ministers think they’re doing.

I guess it’s possible that they’re just fools — that they don’t understand that Greece 2015 is not Ireland 2010, and that this kind of bullying won’t work.

Alternatively, and I guess more likely, they’ve decided to push Greece over the edge. Rather than give any ground, they prefer to see Greece forced into default and probably out of the euro, with the presumed economic wreckage as an object lesson to anyone else thinking of asking for relief. That is, they’re setting out to impose the economic equivalent of the “Carthaginian peace” France sought to impose on Germany after World War I.

Either way, the lack of wisdom is astonishing and appalling.

krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1424 em: 2015-02-16 20:08:25 »
Krugman parece estar a sair de Princeton:
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/07/14/is-paul-krugman-leaving-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/


então Inc, o Krugman saiu de Princeton em desgraça mesmo?
a cair em hoaxes destes... tss tss
you should know better

L


Eu não disse que o Krugman tinha saído em desgraça. Aliás, eu nem sequer disse que ele tinha saído - eu disse que parecia que tinha saído, e dei a fonte (essa sim, falava de "disgrace", mas tal não significa que eu tivesse partilhado dessa opinião).
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1425 em: 2015-02-17 16:06:48 »
Krugman: Money makes crazy


Monetary policy probably won't be a major issue in the 2016 campaign, but it should be. It is, after all, extremely important, and the Republican base and many leading politicians have strong views about the Federal Reserve and its conduct. And the eventual presidential nominee will surely have to endorse the party line.

So it matters that the emerging Republican consensus on money is crazy - full-on conspiracy-theory crazy.

Right now, the most obvious manifestation of money madness is Sen. Rand Paul's "Audit the Fed" campaign. Paul likes to warn that the Fed's efforts to bolster the economy may lead to hyperinflation; he loves talking about the wheelbarrows of cash that people carted around in Weimar Germany. But he's been saying that since 2009, and it keeps not happening. So now he has a new line: The Fed is an overleveraged bank, just as Lehman Brothers was, and could experience a disastrous collapse of confidence any day now.

This story is wrong on so many levels that reporters are having a hard time keeping up, but let's simply note that the Fed's "liabilities" consist of cash, and those who hold that cash have the option of converting it into, well, cash. No, the Fed can't fall victim to a bank run. But is Paul being ostracized for his views? Not at all.

Moreover, while Paul may currently be the poster child for off-the-wall monetary views, he's far from alone. A lot has been written about the 2010 open letter from leading Republicans to Ben Bernanke, then the Fed chairman, demanding that he cease efforts to support the economy, warning that such efforts would lead to inflation and "currency debasement." Less has been written about the simultaneous turn of seemingly respectable figures to conspiracy theories.

There was, for example, the 2010 op-ed article by Rep. Paul Ryan, who remains the Republicans' de facto intellectual leader, and John Taylor, the party's favorite monetary economist. Fed policy, they declared, "looks an awful lot like an attempt to bail out fiscal policy, and such attempts call the Fed's independence into question." That statement looks an awful lot like a claim that Bernanke and colleagues were betraying their trust in order to help out the Obama administration - a claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever.


Oh, and suppose you believe that the Fed's actions did help avert what would otherwise have been a fiscal crisis. This is supposed to be a bad thing?

You may think that at least some of the current presidential aspirants are staying well clear of the fever swamps, but don't be so sure. Jeb Bush appears to be getting his economic agenda, such as it is, from the George W. Bush Institute's 4% Growth Project. And the head of that project, Amity Shlaes, is a prominent "inflation truther," someone who claims that the government is greatly understating the true rate of inflation.

So monetary crazy is pervasive in today's Republican Party. But why? Class interests no doubt play a role - the wealthy tend to be lenders rather than borrowers, and they benefit at least in relative terms from deflationary policies. But I also suspect that conservatives have a deep psychological problem with modern monetary systems.

You see, in the conservative worldview, markets aren't just a useful way to organize the economy; they're a moral structure: People get paid what they deserve, and what goods cost is what they are truly worth to society. You could say that to the free-market true believer, to know the price of everything is also to know the value of everything.

Modern money - consisting of pieces of paper or their digital equivalent that are issued by the Fed, not created by the heroic efforts of entrepreneurs - is an affront to that worldview. Ryan is on record declaring that his views on monetary policy come from a speech given by one of Ayn Rand's fictional characters. And what the speaker declares is that money is "the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. ... Paper is a check drawn by legal looters."

Once you understand that this is how many conservatives really think, it all falls into place. Of course they predict disaster from monetary expansion, no matter the circumstances. Of course they are undaunted in their views no matter how wrong their predictions have been in the past. Of course they are quick to accuse the Fed of vile motives. From their point of view, monetary policy isn't really a technical issue, a question of what works; it's a matter of theology: Printing money is evil.

So as I said, monetary policy should be an issue in 2016. Because there's a pretty good chance that someone who either gets his monetary economics from Ayn Rand, or at any rate feels the need to defer to such views, will get to appoint the next head of the Federal Reserve.

Krugman is a New York Times columnist.
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1426 em: 2015-02-17 17:07:00 »
Não há dúvida de que quem quer que diga que a FED ou o BCE podem falir por o que compram (taxa fixa, ou mesmo bonds privadas) cair de valor não compreende simplesmente como a FED ou o BCE funcionam. Falir não é uma opção.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1427 em: 2015-02-17 21:06:54 »
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1428 em: 2015-02-24 09:28:56 »
Um exemplo do que incentivos mal desenhados conseguem produzir:

http://kiddynamitesworld.com/gaming-medicare/

(E a Medicare em grande medida até funciona bem)
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Iznogoud

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Mensagens: 217
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1429 em: 2015-02-28 01:04:29 »
The Closed Minds Problem

When I was a young economist trying to build a career, I lived — or thought I lived — in a world in which ideas and those who championed them met in relatively open intellectual combat. Of course there were people who clung to their prejudices, of course style sometimes trumped substance. But I believed that by and large better ideas tended to prevail: if your model of trade flows or exchange rate fluctuations tracked the data better than someone else’s, or resolved puzzles that other models couldn’t, you could expect it to be taken up by many if not most researchers in the field.

This is still true in much of economics, I believe. But in the areas that matter most given the state of the world, it’s not true at all. People who declared back in 2009 that Keynesianism was nonsense and that monetary expansion would inevitably cause runaway inflation are still saying exactly the same thing after six years of quiescent inflation and overwhelming evidence that austerity affects economies exactly the way Keynesians said it would.

And we’re not just talking about cranks without credentials; we’re talking about founders of the Shadow Open Market Committee and Nobel laureates.

Obviously this isn’t just a story about economics; it covers everything from climate science and evolution to Bill O’Reilly’s personal history. But that in itself is telling: academic economics, which still has pretenses of being an arena of open intellectual inquiry, appears to be deeply infected with politicization.

So what should those of us who really wanted to be part of what we thought this enterprise was about do? That’s the question Brad DeLong has been asking.

I see three choices:

1. Continue to write and speak as if we were still having a genuine intellectual dialogue, in the hope that politeness and persistence will make the pretense come true. I think that’s one way to understand Olivier Blanchard’s now somewhat infamous 2008 paper on the state of macro; he was, you could argue, trying to appeal to the better angels of freshwater nature. The trouble with this strategy, however, is that it can end up legitimizing work that doesn’t deserve respect — and there is also a tendency to let your own work get distorted as you try to find common ground where none exists.

2. Point out the wrongness, but quietly and politely. This has the virtue of being honest, and useful to anyone who reads it. But nobody will.

3. Point out the wrongness in ways designed to grab readers’ attention — with ridicule where appropriate, with snark, and with names attached. This will get read; it will get you some devoted followers, and a lot of bitter enemies. One thing it won’t do, however, is change any of those closed minds.

So is there a reason I go for door #3, other than simply telling the truth and having some fun while I’m at it? Yes — because the point is not to convince Rick Santelli or Allan Meltzer that they are wrong, which is never going to happen. It is, instead, to deter other parties from false equivalence. Inflation cultists can’t be moved; but reporters and editors who tend to put out views-differ-on-shape-of-planet stories because they think it’s safe can be, sometimes, deterred if you show that they are lending credence to charlatans. And this in turn can gradually move the terms of discussion, possibly even pushing the nonsense out of the Overton window.

And the inflation-cult story is, I think, a prime example. Yes, you still get coverage treating both sides as equivalent — but not nearly as consistently as in the past. When Paul hyperinflation-in-the-Hamptons Singer complains about the “Krugmanization” of the media, who have the impudence to point out that the inflation he and his friends kept predicting never materialized, that’s a sign that we’re getting somewhere.

It really would be nice not having to do things this way. But that’s the world we live in — and, as I said, there’s some compensation in the fact that one can have a bit of fun doing it.

the krug
Quero ser Califa no lugar do Califa

Kin2010

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 3989
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1430 em: 2015-02-28 01:16:21 »
E no entanto a hiperinflacção ainda poderá vir. Como é que se vai resolver o problema dos rácios dívida / PIB que têm vindo a aumentar? O problema vai tornar-se mais e mais crítico.

Creio que até houve um recente artigo do BIS a dizer que esse perigo se mantém. E o artigo saiu em 2014. O BIS é altamente reputado e previu a crise de 2007.


Iznogoud

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Mensagens: 217
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1431 em: 2015-02-28 01:23:19 »
E no entanto a hiperinflacção ainda poderá vir. Como é que se vai resolver o problema dos rácios dívida / PIB que têm vindo a aumentar? O problema vai tornar-se mais e mais crítico.

Creio que até houve um recente artigo do BIS a dizer que esse perigo se mantém. E o artigo saiu em 2014. O BIS é altamente reputado e previu a crise de 2007.

em plena deflação estás a dizer que a inglação ainda poderá vir?
quem dera que tenhas razão, para ver se a economia arrebita.
o facto é que as mesmas cassandras que diziam há seis anos que a inflação (agora pelos vistos hiper) vem aí,  continuam a dizê-lo hoje. e ela continua a não se vislumbrar no horizonte.
quantos anos são preciso estar errado, para se considerar que se está errado?
não ligues ao BIS. Liga ao FMI.
o BIS é para inglês ver. não interessa para nada e está politicamente capturado.

I
Quero ser Califa no lugar do Califa

Kin2010

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 3989
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1432 em: 2015-02-28 02:11:14 »
Opinião de William White, em Janeiro 2015, sobre o Japão:

Mr White said QE is a disguised form of competitive devaluation. "The Japanese are now doing it as well but nobody can complain because the US started it," he said.

"There is a significant risk that this is going to end badly because the Bank of Japan is funding 40pc of all government spending. This could end in high inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation.

Vem no Telegraph. W. White foi um alto quadro do BIS e escreveu os relatórios que avisaram da crise de 2007-2008 com anos de antecedência.


Dilath Larath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 553
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1433 em: 2015-02-28 02:12:04 »
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog

Unbalanced in Basel

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard draws our attention to a speech by Jaime Caruana, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements. It is indeed a quite remarkable speech — and I mean that in the worst way; it’s a perfect illustration of the way permahawks keep finding new arguments for their never-changing demand that we raise interest rates now now now.

Some background: the BIS has spent almost the whole period since the financial crisis struck calling for tighter money. Oddly, however, it keeps changing its justifications for that call. At first it was dire warnings of inflation just around the corner. Then it was financial instability. Now, with low inflation and possible deflation a growing concern, Mr. Caruana argues that (a) deflation is not so bad (b) we’re in a balance sheet slump, and that means loose money is bad.

On the first point, isn’t it quite remarkable how the BIS has slid from warning about inflation — and dismissing concerns about deflation — to saying that deflation is OK? Beyond that, the main case for arguing that deflation is OK is economic growth during the late 19th century. Is that really a good model? Just to take the most obvious point: the late 19th century was marked by rapid population growth in the “zones of recent settlement” (basically places where Europeans were moving in, displacing or wiping out the locals). In the United States, population grew 2 percent a year from 1880-1910, sustaining high investment demand. And the zones of recent settlement also offered an outlet for very large capital outflows from Europe. In other words, the global situation was conducive to a high natural real rate of interest, making mild deflation much more sustainable than in today’s world.

I’ll probably want to write more about Gilded Age deflation. But for now, let me turn to the balance-sheet thing. Mr. Caruana draws a distinction between the view that we’re suffering from inadequate aggregate demand, and what he claims is a contrasting view that the problem is too much debt; and he claims that the excess debt/balance sheet approach implies that expansionary monetary policy is unhelpful and counterproductive.

And I wonder what on earth he’s talking about.

It’s true that balance-sheet considerations were underemphasized in macroeconomics until recently. But it’s not too hard to put them into a more or less New Keynesian model — see, in particular (ahem) Eggertsson and Krugman (pdf). And what this analysis tells you is that expansionary monetary policy is more, not less, helpful than a model without balance-sheet effects would suggest, because high income and prices reduce the burden of debt.

And conversely, deflation is much worse in a debt-laden world than without, again because of its effect on the real burden. You don’t have to take my word for it — read Irving Fisher from 1933!

So how does the balance-sheet story turn into a case for tight money? I have no idea — there’s certainly no clear explanation in the Caruana speech.

By all means let’s talk about balance-sheet effects. But is it really too much to demand a model, or at least a carefully spelled-out mechanism? Right now it looks as if the BIS is claiming that balance sheets make the case for tight money because in Basel everything makes the case for tight money.
O meu patrão quer ser Califa no lugar do Califa

Dilath Larath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 553
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1434 em: 2015-02-28 02:13:58 »
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog

Liquidationism in the 21st Century

Brad DeLong professes himself confused:

I confess that I do not understand the recent BIS Annual Report. I have tried–I have tried very hard–to wrap my mind around just what the BIS position is. But I have failed.

Actually, I don’t think it’s that hard. But you need to see this in terms of an attitude, not a coherent model.

At least since 2010 the BIS position has basically been the same as that of 1930s liquidationists like Schumpeter, who warned against any “artificial stimulus” that might leave the “work of depressions undone.” And in 2010-2011 it had an intellectually coherent — factually wrong, but coherent — story underlying that position. The BIS basically claimed that mass unemployment was the result of structural mismatch — workers had the wrong skills, and/or were in the wrong sectors. And it therefore claimed that easy money would lead to a rapid rise in inflation, despite the high level of unemployment.

But it didn’t happen. So you might have expected the BIS to revise its policy prescriptions. What it did, instead, however, was to look for new justifications for the same prescriptions. Partly this involved playing up the supposed damage low rates do to financial stability. But the BIS has also gone in heavily for the notion that we’re suffering from a balance-sheet recession, that is, that over-indebtedness on the part of part of the private sector is exerting a persistent drag on the economy.

That’s a reasonable story — it’s a model I like myself. But the BIS either doesn’t understand that model’s implications, or doesn’t care.

Throughout the annual report, balance-sheet problems are treated as if they were equivalent to the kind of real structural problems the bank used to claim were at the root of our troubles. That is, they’re treated as a good reason to accept a protracted period of high unemployment as somehow natural, and to reject artificial stimulus that might alleviate the pain.

That, however –as Irving Fisher could have told them! — is not at all the correct implication to draw from a balance-sheet view. On the contrary, what balance-sheet models tell us is that left to itself, the process of deleveraging produces huge, unnecessary costs: debtors are forced to cut back, but creditors have no comparable incentive to spend more, so there is a persistent shortfall of demand that leads to great pain and waste. Moreover, the depressed state of the economy can cripple the process of deleveraging itself, both because debtors don’t have the income to pay down their debts and because falling inflation or deflation increases the real value of debt relative to expectations.

So the balance-sheet view actually makes a compelling case for activism — for fiscal deficits to support demand while the private sector gets its balance sheets in order, for monetary policy to support the fiscal policy, for a rise in inflation targets both to encourage whoever isn’t debt-constrained to spend more and to erode the real value of the debt.

The BIS, however, wants governments as well as households to retrench — I’m kind of surprised that it doesn’t also call for everyone to run a trade surplus; it wants interest rates raised right away; and — in a clear sign that it isn’t being coherent — it includes a box declaring that deflation isn’t so bad, after all. Irving Fisher wept.

Oh, and about the BIS’s claim that its position is Wicksellian: if you go back just a couple of years, you have William White of the BIS claiming that interest rates were below their natural rate in the ordinary sense that they were inflationary. When it turned out that they weren’t — well, you guessed it — the Bank redefined the natural rate so that it could keep claiming that rates are too low.

Are the BIS’s methods unsound? I don’t see any method at all. Instead, I see an attitude, looking for justification.
O meu patrão quer ser Califa no lugar do Califa

Dilath Larath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 553
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1435 em: 2015-02-28 02:14:52 »
um gajo muito reputado e honesto este william white

I
O meu patrão quer ser Califa no lugar do Califa

Kin2010

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 3989
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1436 em: 2015-02-28 02:31:12 »
um gajo muito reputado e honesto este william white

I

Bom, obrigado por postares esses artigos do Krugman. Ele advoga o expansionismo e diz que uma das razões até é para combater o problema da balance sheet -- pois se se houver expansão vem inflacção e ela faz a dívida descer em termos reais. Compreendo isto, e note que o Krugman activamente favorece isto. Portanto ele pensa que é possível e desejável a inflacção. Ele não diz que a inflacção não virá, ele queixa-se de ela não ter vindo ainda.

Agora o que os outros tipos dizem é que se for só uma inflacçãozinha está tudo ok, o problema é se quando ela vier, crescer e se tornar hiperinflacção. Não tenho conhecimentos para avaliar da probabilidade disso, mas parece-me que se os bancos centrais absorvem cada vez mais a dívida que os estados emitem, qualquer dia isso tem que parar, e nessa altura os estados ficam sem poder cobrar em impostos o que precisam para as suas despesas, e isso aí será um risco de hiper-inflacção, ou não? Se os estados mesmo dos países desenvolvidos, não conseguirem cobrar impostos, só lhes resta imprimir a rodos. Ou não?



Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1437 em: 2015-02-28 02:57:12 »
um gajo muito reputado e honesto este william white

I

Bom, obrigado por postares esses artigos do Krugman. Ele advoga o expansionismo e diz que uma das razões até é para combater o problema da balance sheet -- pois se se houver expansão vem inflacção e ela faz a dívida descer em termos reais. Compreendo isto, e note que o Krugman activamente favorece isto. Portanto ele pensa que é possível e desejável a inflacção. Ele não diz que a inflacção não virá, ele queixa-se de ela não ter vindo ainda.

Agora o que os outros tipos dizem é que se for só uma inflacçãozinha está tudo ok, o problema é se quando ela vier, crescer e se tornar hiperinflacção. Não tenho conhecimentos para avaliar da probabilidade disso, mas parece-me que se os bancos centrais absorvem cada vez mais a dívida que os estados emitem, qualquer dia isso tem que parar, e nessa altura os estados ficam sem poder cobrar em impostos o que precisam para as suas despesas, e isso aí será um risco de hiper-inflacção, ou não? Se os estados mesmo dos países desenvolvidos, não conseguirem cobrar impostos, só lhes resta imprimir a rodos. Ou não?

Eu tenho uma teoria incipiente para quando é que a inflação pode aparecer e tornar-se hiperinflacção. Mas exigiria mais estudo para validar.

Basicamente, penso que a hiperinflação acontecerá com juros acima de zero, quando os juros x pool de liquidez existente começarem a gerar uma fracção muito grande de todo o rendimento gerado numa economia, de tal forma a que deixe de fazer sentido produzir para obter rendimento.

É uma teoria interessante que nunca vi exposta desta forma, mas ainda exigiria muito tempo e trabalho para validar.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

John_Law

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 466
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1438 em: 2015-02-28 10:27:25 »

Eu tenho uma teoria incipiente para quando é que a inflação pode aparecer e tornar-se hiperinflacção. Mas exigiria mais estudo para validar.

Basicamente, penso que a hiperinflação acontecerá com juros acima de zero, quando os juros x pool de liquidez existente começarem a gerar uma fracção muito grande de todo o rendimento gerado numa economia, de tal forma a que deixe de fazer sentido produzir para obter rendimento.

É uma teoria interessante que nunca vi exposta desta forma, mas ainda exigiria muito tempo e trabalho para validar.

Quanto te reformares fases com tese de doutoramento. ;)

Zel

  • Visitante
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #1439 em: 2015-02-28 11:44:37 »