Infometrics

Small New Zealand: It’s advantages and the growing importance of trade

/in /by

Matt Nolan discussed the benefits of trade for a small open economy on Rates Blog (Infometrics copy here), and some of the specific factors for New Zealand.  Namely, the fact that New Zealand’s comparative advantage is in a homogenous product, where New Zealand as a whole only provides a tiny amount of the world’s supply.  In this context, if demand or supply changes in our of New Zealand’s target markets it is relatively easy for dairy or meat producers to slip the products somewhere else for a slightly lower process (relative to if New Zealand sold very specific goods within a global supply chain).

New Zealand’s small size and exporters reliance on homogenous goods actually makes the country relatively resilient to global economic shocks – an important point to keep in mind when demanding that the government interfere to “restructure” or “rebalance” the economy.

However, he does touch on the idea of terms of trade shocks, and the justification for insurance.

Then Matt wrote up a guest Top-ten at ten last week.  In this, he focused on trade during the Great Depression and now – before swinging to a couple of posts by Aaron Schiff and Eric Crampton discussing the importance of competition to domestic industries.  That can in turn be expanded by thinking about services and the changing nature of scarcity.  At the end of it all he concluded:

We are moving into a world where trade in services is becoming more important, more valuable, and where it is removing the burden of distance from New Zealand firms.  The fact the world is changing, and that New Zealand firms and households have to be prepared to change with it, is an important point to keep in mind – both in terms of what we can expect, and what policies government should be putting in place.

Matt Nolan

Perspective is great – income

/4 Comments/in /by

Via Tim Harford on Twitter, I see the “global rich list” site has been updated.  Take a look!

It is this sort of recognition that makes economists get so wound up about global income inequality rather than income inequality within a country.  This is why it came up in the second part of my “careful with occupy” plea in NZ back in 2011 – because I guess that is the sort of way we’ve been trained to view these equity issues.  When economists talk about equality of opportunity (which is a value judgment – so we are wandering out of our strict specialty here) we are viewing all people as equal, irrespective of the country – and this is why development economics is such a massively popular field, and I can fully understand and appreciate that.

Let us take someone working every week of the year, 40 hours a week, on the current minimum wage ($13.75 per hour).  Assume they have no kids and the such, so we are just talking about an individual.  That gives us gross income of $28,600pa.  Now go here, and we get tax of $3,710pa.  Take off the ACC levies, that is $486.20.  Add on the independent earner tax credit, so $520pa.  Ignore any other payments.  This gives us net income of $24,923.80pa.

This result would put you in the top 6.53% of the income distribution over the world.  You would be among the 6.53% of worlds richest people, if you work in NZ on the minimum wage full time.

This in term does ignore two things:

  1. The fact that goods prices tend to be higher in wealthier countries – so this factor will be exaggerating how wealthy the NZer is (as we actually care about goods and services)!
  2. It also ignores that the tax that is paid is used to fund health care, education, etc etc.  These are “goods and services” that are provided which people is much poorer countries do not have access to.  As a result, this factor will be making you look less relatively wealthy than you actually are!

Perspective, it’s interesting.

Matt Nolan

The excel error in Rogoff-Reinhart

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

I see the Rogoff-Reinhart figures regarding the correlation between GDP growth and the size of the debt stock are currently under attack – due largely to an unfortunate excel error discovered reported by Mike Konczal.  Here are the list of posts about it at the moment:

All very nice.  Depending on the message people were trying to sell they either said the result was meaningless, or central, so I don’t think this makes any actual difference.  Honestly, without clear causal drivers there just were not good evidence based claims for actual policy adjustments – a lot of people were actually just saying we need to do X based on their preconceptions.  And they found this correlation either something that supports that (somehow) or something they need to rule out.

Over the last few years I have seen authors, at different times, use R-R as central to their argument on one thing, and then dismiss it for arguments regarding other issues (I’m not going to name names).  For example, you can’t use this result to say we need more savings policy because the stock of debt is to high, then complain that the study is flawed when you want more government borrowing … just focus on the actual core elements of your frikken argument instead!

My problem with the result isn’t the excel errors, or anything R-R appear to have said – it is the way it has been used as an inconsistent marketing tool by people for selling their own unrelated ideological policies.  I’m just hoping that this shuts that up.

As a side note, here are my feelings on twitter:

People who think the R&R result caused austerity overestimate the impact evidence has on government policy.

Matt Nolan

Bernanke rules out currency wars

/2 Comments/in , /by

As we said in the title, Ben Bernanke has ruled out that monetary policy in developed nations is akin to a “currency war”:

The lessons for the present are clear. Today most advanced industrial economies remain, to varying extents, in the grip of slow recoveries from the Great Recession. With inflation generally contained, central banks in these countries are providing accommodative monetary policies to support growth. Do these policies constitute competitive devaluations? To the contrary, because monetary policy is accommodative in the great majority of advanced industrial economies, one would not expect large and persistent changes in the configuration of exchange rates among these countries. The benefits of monetary accommodation in the advanced economies are not created in any significant way by changes in exchange rates; they come instead from the support for domestic aggregate demand in each country or region. Moreover, because stronger growth in each economy confers beneficial spillovers to trading partners, these policies are not “beggar-thy-neighbor” but rather are positive-sum, “enrich-thy-neighbor” actions.

I’ve heard this point a few times in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here) … and those are just the links on this blog ;).  You’ll also note that the third one quotes Bernanke … so hearing him say this is hardly surprising.

Matt Nolan

Inflation stickiness, demand, and judging the success of monetary policy

/7 Comments/in , , /by

I am still a fan of flexible inflation targeting.  I agree with Nick Rowe that explicit inflation targeting has made inflation outcomes “stickier” – and that knowing inflation is in a range of the inflation target is therefore insufficient for telling if the central bank is truly achieving “socially optimal policy”.

For all the time I’ve spent reading monetary economics books and sitting in classes where macroeconomics has been discussed, I still remember a clear (albeit very partial) description of why we do inflation targeting that came in 100 level economics.

I distinctly remember my tutor saying that the point of inflation targeting in the form we use it in New Zealand was to pin down “inflation” (price growth that is shared between all goods and services that is independent of the “relative” value of these goods and services).  With people setting prices based on this view of inflation, central banks with a clear very of the economies “ability to produce” can move around “aggregate demand” in order to prevent recessions that are due to short-falls in demand.  The flipside was often that inflation stickiness was “asymmetric”, with excess demand translating into rising prices, while insufficient demand translated into falling output – this is our good friend the upward sloping, U-shaped, short run AS curve.

This story is massively oversimplified, especially in its treatment of expectations.  But an overarching goal of anchoring inflation expectations was always part of what central banks were aiming to do.  Given this, then in so far an central banks had an idea about economic capacity (which is a very debatable point in itself) they could help to manage “demand” in a macroeconomic sense.  When I was tutoring, this was very much how active monetary policy is taught to first years, and I doubt terribly much has changed.

And this is the point – economists have always know that, if their announcement of a 2% inflation target was the sole determinant of inflation, this does not mean “success” … it just means that they can focus solely more heavily on how the actions of monetary policy have a short-run impact on output.  Deviations of inflation from their target provide information that is useful information about the state of “demand”, but as the NGDP targeting proponents point out it does not capture the whole story.  Variables such as NGDP, and unemployment, provide significant information … something central bankers already recognise and incorporate, contrary to the “narrative” of them being closed minded (Nick isn’t saying this – I’m talking about the more general stories from the media).

This is consistent with flexible inflation targeting – and it does come with one massive hole.  Judging the “success of monetary policy”.  As of course, flexible inflation targeting can only be judged on a forecast, forecasts that are determined by the central banks themselves – and filled with unobservables such as “future economic capacity”.

NGDP targeting differs from this in only three ways:

  1. It changes a partially discretionary rule based process with a fully rule based process.
  2. It targets levels instead of growth rates – making policy “history dependent”.
  3. It gives guidance, and will make “stickier” growth in nominal income – compared to flexible inflation targeting which does this for price growth.

On that final point, at the moment inflation targeting lets a firm say “with competition and the such, I was able to increase my prices 2% this year – this is the same as inflation, and so in reality my “price” is the same”.  With NGDP targeting the firm will say “I increased revenues by 5% this year – this is the same as the growth in nominal spending/value add, as a result my real “revenue” is performing as well as the average firm”.  The right “guidance” will depend strongly on what we think is the most important factor for firms and households to have certainty about (to extract appropriate “market signals”).

To put all this another way – inflation stickiness isn’t an unintended consequence, it is a feature of central banks trying to improve the “sacrifice ratio” associated with active monetary policy!

Matt Nolan

Menzie Chen on currency wars

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

You know I don’t believe that the “currency war” is a negative thing in a world of insufficient demand (*,*,*,*,*).  But Menzie Chen from Econbrowser has the same view – and to be absolutely honest their view is significantly more reputable than mine 😉 .  Furthermore, it was a point that Chen made all the way back in 2010!

The post I have linked to is excellent, I would suggest reading it the whole way through.

The global economy is not a zero sum game.  The fact that we have significant “output gaps” (unused labour and capital) is the justification for trying to get private agents to “bring forward” consumption and investment now – which is what monetary easing in all its forms does.

In New Zealand, the hard question seems to be “how close are we to filling our output gap” – as if we are close (a popular, even mainstream, view in NZ, that I am not sold on) the current high dollar is indeed indicative of NZ inoculating itself from this global monetary easing.  This is a separate issue again from the “persistently high real exchange rate” that New Zealander’s are concerned about – this is an issue largely unrelated to monetary policy, where as a society we have to start being more honest about the trade-offs from different policy settings we have put in place.