I was sitting around eating a date scone the other day when I ran into this article by Shamubeel Eaqub. The topic was central bank communication and whether the RBNZ (New Zealand’s central bank) was doing things well. Within a number of hours I’d been sent the link numerous times and had received a pile of feedback – with people on all sides fairly angry. This is an important issue though, so I thought I would note down my own thoughts while they are in my head.
Did you follow the NGDP targeting debate with interest but bemoan the lack of theoretical arguments? Then you’ll love the latest iteration of the debate, in which ex-Bank of England macroeconomist, Tony Yates, takes on Oxford’s Simon Wren-Lewis.
I don’t see that following a levels target of any variety, NGDP or otherwise, is an alternative to raising the long run average inflation rate, however implemented. There’s no choice but to bite the bullet and figure out a different trade-off, between the costs of long run higher inflation, and the costs of higher volatility imposed by missing stimulus at the zero bound.
“I have a dream. It involves a Star Trek chair and a bank of monitors. It would involve tracking the global flow of funds in close to real time, in much the same way as happens with global weather systems.”
Is the binding constraint on better macroprudential policy a lack of timely information? If they had that information, could a world regulator really have averted the crisis in 2007?
Full speech here.
Last week the Reserve Bank released their official cash rate review. As always, it was a good review laying out the important trends that are influencing their thinking when it comes to setting the official cash rate.
However, there is no fun in leaving it there. There is one part of the statement I want to be pedantic about:
Wage inflation is subdued, reflecting recent low inflation outcomes, increased labour force participation, and strong net immigration.
There are two parts I want to discuss here:
- Increased labour force participation: The Bank is essentially saying that wage inflation is subdued, relative to what we would expect given the increase in employment, due to the fact that labour force participation rose. They are right, totally and completely – labour demand shifted right, and the supply curve was such that most of the change came in quantity not price, neat! However, this can give a misleading impression of the future if we don’t read it carefully – let us not forget that labour force participation rates are at a record high at the moment. As a result, the “capacity” in the economy is more limited – and future lifts in labour demand are likely to lead to nominal wage pressures (note this isn’t the same as higher real wages per se – but more like an increase in inflation expectations) than lifts in employment. This is indeed what the Bank was hinting at with the statement prior “Inflation remains moderate, but strong growth in output has been absorbing spare capacity. This is expected to add to non-tradables inflation.”
- Strong net migration: Hold on a second. We keep being told that strong net migration is pushing up inflationary pressures. Now we are being told that net migration reduced inflationary pressures (note that “wage inflation”, again not real wage growth, is a lot closer to real inflation, and real inflation expectations, than a point in times annual increase in the CPI). Higher population growth does indeed increase “demand” and “supply” so the relevance to monetary policy itself is indeterminate.
When it comes to “potential output” there is often a view that the economies potential to produce is determined by the labour, land, and forms of capital that are available to create this output from – and this is right! Furthermore, each of these factors tends to produce a diminishing amount of additional output as you use more of it. Although the factors of production are often complementary this often implies a situation where – in the long-run – the potential for output (and growth in said output) in a nation is fundamentally about technological change and the quality of institutions.
However, in a recent speech by John McDermott of the RBNZ he points out that, when it come to considering monetary conditions, the type of “potential output” we are interested in is a bit different.
When discussing it’s new monetary policy Labour was keen to explain why they felt a change was necessary, and why a variable Kiwisaver contribution rate should be investigated. However, to investigate such a policy it is important to ask some specific questions – this is what Gareth Kiernan did in this article (Infometrics link).
In announcing its new monetary policy proposals, Labour has shown an admirable ability to think outside the square. …. Unfortunately, there are a lot of problems with Labour’s idea and the assumptions behind it.
His list of 10 questions are:
- Should KiwiSaver be compulsory?
- Does New Zealand really have a savings problem?
- How good is Australia’s compulsory savings scheme for their economy?
- Do compulsory savings programmes actually increase savings anyway?
- What effect do compulsory and limited-access savings have on the robustness of financing decisions?
- Is New Zealand’s permanent current account deficit really a problem?
- Are our ‘high’ interest rates really caused by our rigid monetary policy framework?
- How much of our mortgage interest payments go overseas?
- Does the export sector really need a lower exchange rate?
- What about compliance costs for businesses?
His answers to these questions give a case for why the VSR may not be good policy at all. What are your thoughts?