Category Archives: Macroeconomics

Oil shocks

Posted on by

Time is tight so I can’t do a real blog post just now. However, I thought I could mention oil shocks and the difference between their impact in the 1970′s and now.

Oil prices have gone through the roof in recent times as a result of high world prices. In 2006, New Zealand was also suffering from its own oil shock, with world prices high and our dollar falling. However, we haven’t really seen much of an impact on the domestic economy, other than a slight fall off in domestic consumption. Compare this to the 1970′s, when oil shocks caused periods of massive inflation, forcing economists to see that the Phillips curve idea didn’t hold up in a dynamic setting.

Greg Mankiw goes on to discuss three reasons why oil shocks haven’t lead to massive inflation (note that the current oil shock will be severe in the USA, as their dollar has fallen strongly and world prices have risen):

  1. The economy is more energy-efficient
  2. Labour markets are more flexible, monetary policy has been designed better
  3. The inflationary impact of an oil price shock is different when it is the result of greater demand for oil (as it is currently) compared to the 1970′s when their was a cut in the supply of oil.

If I find time, I might try to talk about these issues, and how I think oil price shocks influence the NZ economy, but don’t count on it :) . So, does anyone have anything to say about oil price shocks (preferably not about peak oil, but if you really have to :) )

Update: There was a fourth reason in the Mankiw article. 4) The increase in oil prices was not as sudden, giving economic variables the chance to adjust (this concept comes from his New Keynesian belief in sticky wages and prices).

Update 2: Even NZPA has something to say about Oil prices and inflation, it might be a hot topic.

Update 3: Looks like the topic of Oil prices is making its rounds on the blogsphere. With US economic growth at 3.9% (this is an annualised rate, it is equivalent to have just under 1.0% quarterly growth in terms of how we measure GDP in NZ) with these high oil prices, it looks like this will be an important and interesting issue.

Even economists struggle with inflation

Posted on by

I have to admit that when I read this news story last night I was very angry. BERL seems determined to tell everyone that increasing interest rates increases the money supply, and a higher money supply leads to higher inflation. This would make sense, if money supply wasn’t INFINITE. But it is.

In NZ we have an OCR target, the RBNZ will provide an unlimited supply of money for a given target rate. By doing this the Reserve Bank sets the interest rate, and the quantity of money is determined by money demand not money supply.

Now, the amount of foreign capital available does have an impact on us. If our interest rates rise then additional foreign funds become available for firms and banks to borrow. The foreign funds are available for a rate higher than the previous interest rate (as they required a higher return to become available) but this rate is lower than the domestic rate. If our interest rate is far above the world rate, then a significant amount of capital becomes available at this rate.

The important thing to note here is that this capital will only be spent if there is demand for it. As a result, the fact that foreign capital wants to enter the country will limit the degree with which an increase in the OCR will lift interest rates, it won’t magically make people want to borrow and spend more money.

The problem NZ has faced is that the RBNZ has not been able to drive interest rates up as much or as quickly as they would have liked (I’ve heard a time lag of 18 months mentioned in some circles!). However, the reason inflation has risen strongly is that money demand has increased significantly since from 2003, and the RBNZ was unable (and at times relatively unwilling) to significantly drive up interest rates.

The OCR is still the right tool to use, however if our interest rates are too far above the world interest rates, the marginal effect of an increase in the OCR is very small. In cases like this some type of alternate instrument might be of use. However saying that the OCR increases the money supply is at best ignorant of New Zealand monetary policy, and at worst a desperate plea for attention from a set of economists.

Run on funds drives LDC finance down

Posted on by

So the latest finance firm to collapse was actually in good shape, until good old investor panic lead to a run on funds took it out. The eight company since May 2006, I bet you a lot of people feel scared now.

The main thing to remember is that this company was small, $19m owed to investors is peanuts compared to the size of the ‘finance firm’ market of $16b. This story would not have made news if it wasn’t for the 7 other companies had gone done in recent memory.

Here we have a game of complementary actions. If you believe that other investors are now going to dump the firm, the expected payoff from you dumping the firm rises. If you think other investors are more willing to loan to the firm, the expected payoff from staying with the firm rises. In this case we can have a co-ordination problem. The equilibrium where everyone stays with the firm would have been dominant in the case of LDC, but as peoples beliefs were affected by recent uncertainty, we ended up in a degenerate, sub-optimal equilibrium where LDC folded.

In cases like this, the government can find ways to steady the nerves of investors and prevent things like this from happening, for example by cutting the cash rate. However, as always with economics, there is a trade-off. If the monetary authority cut rates to save the good firms, they would create a moral hazard problem for the market in the future. Finance companies would believe that the government would bail them out, and so would be willing to take on more risk than is socially optimal.

As a result, the best government action would be to tell investors to relax, but do nothing substantial. A correction in the financial market will take out a few genuinely good finance companies. However, this is the price we must face for clearing out all the dead wood in the market, and ensuring that our financial sector functions more cleanly in the future.

Update:  Another little finance firm has gone, this one is valued at $16m, Finance and Investments was its name.  Its times like these we need someone to come onto TV and tell everyone to calm down, someone like Keynes.  I miss Keynes.  Note:  This firm only went down as it was getting funding from LDC, as a result we can blame the damn run on funds for this as well.  Damn you fund runners ;)

Was Greenspan a big softy

Posted on by

Yves Smith think so. His argument is that, even though we didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, Greenspan really really cared about equity markets. He was scared of them, and he didn’t want to go out there and nail them as much as he should have. By being ‘hostage’ to the equity markets, Greenspan surrendered some of the Central Banks integrity. He gave up the hard arse, anti-inflationary image of the Central Bank that Paul Volcker had created.

I’m not sure I agree completely, I mean Greenspan did have the ability to keep inflation in the bag for 19 years. However, his unclear style of speaking and his refusal to target a clear level of inflation did create unnecessary uncertainty in the marketplace, and to some degree, may have damaged the inflation fighting power of the Federal Reserve.

A Reserve Bank governor needs to be a clear speaker, who finds the mere idea of inflation repugnant. That is why Don Brash did such a good job.

Outgrowing Inflation II

Posted on by

Rod Oram has had another crack at explaining why he thinks higher output will lead to lower inflation. His argument is, that higher output can help us reduce housing, labour, and business capacity constraints which are dogging the economy.

The first point seems to be his main one, that there are too few houses and so building more houses will reduce house prices . He has a point here, but not a strict point about inflation. House prices rising doesn’t mean inflation, it means that there has been an increase in the price of houses relative to other goods. However, house prices increases can drive inflation by making people feel wealthy, and thereby increasing their rate of general consumption. As a result, all that matters is the rate of growth (return) in house prices, which is driven by short-run demand factors (as supply takes time to adjust).

Now, growth won’t help increase house construction enough to drive house prices down, the constraints holding up house prices are structural. Councils refusing infill, the difficulty of getting consents to build property, these are the reasons that house construction activity has been sub-par. As a result, its not a matter of keeping interest rates low, it is more a matter of regulatory constraints.

His second point is that we need to increase labour skill training and capital to increase output. Yes that would increase output, however it is not current growth that drives investment, it is the expectation of future growth. As a result, the current goal of monetary policy of stabilising prices is the best way of driving efficient long-run investment (by reducing uncertainty).

The third point is that businesses need to innovate. Again this is a business decision, government policy is not trying to stifle innovation and so this doesn’t do anything to defend the idea that keeping interest rates down will reduce inflation.

Ultimately, I think in this second article he switched tack slightly, and discussed situations where we could grow, rather than attacking monetary policy as he did in the first article, which we wrote about. However, I don’t believe that he has shown that all things constant higher growth leads to lower unemployment, all he has done is changed some of the parameters (making people more productive etc).

Outgrowing the inflation problem

Posted on by

In this article, Rod Oram discusses the two options he sees for battling inflation:

  1. Raise interest rates to slow growth, thereby reducing the pressure on our limited resources.
  2. Increase the resource base

Both of these ‘strategies’ would reduce inflationary pressure. One would reduce aggregate demand; the other would increase aggregate supply.

The first strategy is what NZ is doing (and most countries try to do when inflation comes out of the bag). The second ‘strategy’ would be preferable, as it would increase the number of goods we can buy as a nation. However, Rod didn’t tell us how we are supposed to increase our resource base. According to him we can ‘grow it’, so as the economy is growing the resource base will magically grow as well.

I don’t agree with this idea, but I’m going to try and rationalize what he is saying, and then say why I think it won’t work. Many people have been saying that if we had lower interest rates, investment would be greater, which is an increase in our resource base. As a result, this may be his solution, lower interest rates increase investment, which increases aggregate supply. The problem is, if we kept interest rates at a lower level, we are implicitly allowing a greater level of money supply growth into the economy, which will in turn cause upward pressure on inflation. Which effect dominates depends on the productivity of new capital investment, as if new capital is very productive then the increase in resources requires an increase in the money supply for prices to remain constant.

New Zealand currently has relatively low capital productivity (capital productivity has only risen 1.2% in the last 10 years), and at the margin, this level of productivity will be even lower. This implies that any increase in the supply of resources from a lower interest rate will be very small, and as a result inflationary pressures will be strong.

Furthermore, when a firm makes a long-run investment decision what matters is the long run (risk adjusted) cost and benefit of that investment. In this case the short-term interest rate is not of importance, it is the long-run rate of interest that matters (as interest rate changes can be insured against). Uncertainty for the firms investment decision comes from issues of price, if the level of inflation is high there will be significant volatility between the price of goods (as prices would change at different discrete time periods) making the return on the investment more volatile than in a low inflation environment. As firms are risk averse, higher inflation will lead to lower long run investment – implying that trying to grow our way out of inflation will not work.