Matt Nolan

More on currency misalignment

/5 Comments/in , , /by

Given the rising pressure for the Reserve Bank to target the currency as well as other things in New Zealand it is important to have a look at reasons why people may think our currency is misaligned.  I have said before that IF the currency is overvalued I think it is a structural issue and is really unrelated to monetary policy – however, there are of course many other arguments.

We have mentioned the begger thy neighbour type externalities from domestic focused monetary policy – something that a small country like NZ cannot cause, and so we can’t blame our domestic monetary environment for.

And a new discussion paper by the Dallas Fed discusses why the exchange rate may be an important issue to look at intervening into (ht Econobrowser).  Specifically the paper states:

If the nominal exchange rate regime matters for the determination of relative prices such as the real exchange rate or the terms of trade, it must matter because there is some kind of nominal price stickiness. For example, if the U.S. dollar/euro exchange rate is to affect any real prices, it must be because there are some nominal prices that are sticky in dollar terms and others that are sticky in euros. From the standpoint of modern macroeconomics, the question should be posed: What policy best deals with the distortions from sticky prices and other sources? Is it a fully flexible exchange rate, or some sort of exchange rate targeting?

However, coming back to New Zealand I still feel fully flexible exchange rates are appropriate.  Why?  Apart from the fact that I view such a “relative price shock” as an insufficient condition for intervention, the idea of price stickiness only matters when export prices are SET by exporters.  New Zealand is a small open economy that sells on foreign markets and receives (and pays) the world price – therefore our trade prices are flexible.

The inefficiency occurs when prices are denominated in domestic dollars, and do not change in the face of some “shock” which changes the value of the exchange rate.

Finally there is an asset price bubble argument for intervention (as the currency is a forward looking asset price).  Whether we can really identify and then improve welfare by intervening against “currency bubbles” is highly debatable – and it is an area the Bank has already been involved in (by becoming a currency trader 😉 )

Matt Nolan

Supply shocks, demand shocks, and corridors

/4 Comments/in , , /by

In a recent post by Arnold Kling I see him hinting at the similarities between his recalculation view of the current recession and the corridor theory of Axel Leijonhufvud.  Now I agree with both these theories, and feel they add an important flavour to current debate – but I think the theories actually tell us about very separate elements of any large scale recession.

In order to get my head around my feelings I’ll have a brief talk about shocks, and the kind of shocks I think are being represented by the different theories.  Feel free to tell me where I am blatantly wrong.

Now, for the non-economist readers I guess this post is a little wonkish in nature – although there will be no maths sitting around this time.

Read more

Matt Nolan

A little bit of filler on monetary policy: An addition to the Dom article

/10 Comments/in , /by

While working on the Dom Post article I was given a few questions I might get.  I quickly tried to rope together some incredibly average answers.  I am going to post them here so I don’t lose them 😛

Read more

Matt Nolan

Dom Post article: Defending the Bank

/2 Comments/in , , , /by

Did an article on why we should leave the Reserve Bank Act alone in the Dom this week.  Given I’m too lazy to put up new material this morning I will just link to it (on Rates Blog, on the Infometrics site).

Money quote:

Warping the Reserve Bank Act to focus on a multitude of different goals will not solve these underlying issues; it will just cloak the symptoms by damaging other sections of the economy.  Although pretending to solve an issue may be beneficial for politicians, it is not the best way to run New Zealand economic policy.

Update:  A bit of pointless filler – again because I’m not up to writing anything fresh today 😉

Matt Nolan

Points on optimal taxation

/in , , , /by

There has been a lot of talk about tax (eg here).

When thinking about tax systems it is useful to run the following train of thought for optimal design:

  1. Start with a target level of government spending.  Goal is to raise this revenue at the lowest cost to society.
  2. First start with taxes which improve the allocation of resources by correcting a market failure (externality taxes).
  3. Then design a nice flat tax (either on all income or consumption) which treats everything equally.
  4. Then shift relative taxes in broad areas based on the long-run elasticity of supply and demand, and constrained by the potential for tax avoidance (Ramsey principle).

Once this initial tax system has been designed, and government spending has been sorted we face a clear “equality-efficiency” trade-off.

In a final step we then adjust the progressivity of the tax system, or the type of government welfare spending, in order to achieve the type of trade-off between these factors that society desires.

Now this doesn’t tell us what the scheme should be, but it allows us to directly look at the trade-offs we are making and make a clear decision.  If the goal is to make fiscal policy that represent the preferences of society at the lowest cost this is the way we need to think about it – instead of saying “more growth”, “more redistribution”, “more tax on land/capital/houses/consumption” etc etc without thinking about it in general terms.

Furthermore, even when we come up with a scheme based on this train of thought we only get told what would be optimal “in the long run”.  The required transition path for the tax system from now until then is still far from clear.

Matt Nolan

What happened to the term monetarism?

/4 Comments/in , , , , /by

Given the sudden rapid attack on New Zealand monetary policy from various segments I’ve begun to notice a few more things crawling around in political language that confuse me.

For example, the term monetarist.  In a discussion with my sister and on this post from the DimPost the term “monetarist” was used to describe a relatively right wing outlook about political issues and policy in general.  However, this confuses me.  My impression was that monetarists at their most narrow are people that believe money supply growth = inflation completely.  While more generally a monetarist is someone that believes money supply growth is in some way related to higher long run inflation.

In this sense, even some of the most left-wing economists have a touch of monetarist in them.  Monetarism is a set of beliefs about how changes in the money supply influence inflation – not a set of beliefs regarding the appropriateness of “economic freedom” or “government intervention”.

When replying to my sister I said:

Monetarism is simply people saying, if we print a whole bunch of money it will end up increasing prices. Evidence and logic add some credence to this view, and so even very left wing economists are in some sense monetarists.

However, an early monetarist was Friedman. He also wrote heaps on “economic freedom”, which is viewed as quite right wing a lot of the time. As a result, people have said Friedman=monetarist and have associated that word with political views that have nothing to do with it.

I think what they mean is “capitalism based on the idea that individual freedom almost always leads to the best outcomes for society” instead of “capitalism based on monetarist theory” – as the second statement doesn’t actually make any sense to me.

Update:  Paul Walker blogs Milton Friedman’s own views on what monetarism is.