Keynesian world thrown for curve as global economy grows

IT is remarkable how Keynesian economic theories from the Great Depression are enjoying something of a vogue in a world that seems to bear little resemblance to the 1930s - at least outside Japan. It reflects an attempt to explain the behaviour of a global economy that has broken away from established economic verities, such as the link between current account deficits, interest rates and exchange rates.

For several years now there have been predictions of a crash of the US dollar, a leap in global interest rates, a collapse of asset prices and a possible global recession. Yet global growth is running on at good pace, despite weakness in Europe and Japan. World bond rates remain unexpectedly low.

The most recent manifestation of the resort to Keynesian theory is the two charts from this week's Economist, reproduced here. Generations of economics undergraduates have struggled with IS (investment/saving) and LM (liquidity/money) curves, although they have now fallen out of favour.

On the basis of some fairly limiting assumptions, the IS curve represents equilibrium in the goods market and the LM curve represents equilibrium in the money market. Where these two curves intersect is the unique combination of output and interest rates that represents balance in both the goods market and financial markets -- what the RBA's Ian Macfarlane might call Nirvana.

The chart on the left shows what happens if the private sector wants to save more than it wants to invest -- that is, there is an excess of savings. This is what Keynes called the paradox of thrift, another Keynesian theory that is getting a new lease of life. His paradox is that what may be good for individuals can be bad for the economy, because investment is the key to productivity and growth.

In a world of excess savings the IS curve moves down from IS1 to IS2 and interest rates and GDP fall (from R1 to R2 and from Y1 to Y2 on the chart). But what if the problem isn't excess savings but excess liquidity -- too much money? In that case, it is the LM curve that moves to the right, interest rates fall, but this time GDP rises. You don't really need to follow all this too closely to get The Economist's point.

Its left-hand chart represents what has become known as the "glut of savings" explanation of what is going on in the global economy and financial markets, a phrase coined by former US Federal Reserve governor Ben Bernanke in a recent speech.

China, Japan, some other Asian countries and the oil producers have been putting their excess savings into the US, which has obligingly accommodated them by going on a spending spree and running a large current account deficit, which the Asian savings have financed.

But The Economist argues that this view doesn't hold up, because contrary to what the first chart suggests should happen when there are excess savings, world growth has not fallen, but instead has been strong.

This fits better with the second chart, which also shows interest rates falling, but output picking up, in response to loose monetary policy. So far, easy money hasn't led to inflation, it argues, because of the emergence of China in world markets. To which could be added, the increased credibility of central banks as inflation fighters.

Which view is right -- excess savings or excess liquidity? The Economist thinks there could be a bit of both, but favours excess liquidity. The answer matters, because it implies different policy responses.

If it is excess savings, then America's response -- expansionary fiscal policy and, at least until recently, easy money -- is the right one for the world, provided the excess savings continue to be invested in the US.

I think there is more evidence to support the excess savings view than the alternative. While The Economist asserts there has been excess liquidity growth, it doesn't provide any figures and it is not that easy to demonstrate.

The boom in asset prices fits easily into the excess savings view, and unless there is evidence of rising global inflation, liquidity growth is by definition not excessive. Nor do bond rates point to inflationary fears in financial markets. On the contrary.

So, if the excess savings view is right, the key question for investors is: how long will the flow of savings from Asia go on funding the US current account, US consumption and investment and world growth?

Three economists who have been influential in the global savings debate -- Michael Dooley, David Folkerts-Landau and Peter Garber -- have just released a new paper. Their answer is: for the foreseeable future.

It is doubtful that, had he lived beyond 1946, Keynes would have been a Keynesian.

Keynes' diagnosis of the world's economy in the Great Depression was that it was suffering from a "liquidity trap". That is, regardless of how low interest rates went, most people had become so risk-averse that they would prefer liquidity (cash) to investments, or consumption.

Keynes' prescription was for a short-term increase in public spending. Specifically on infrastructure that would be needed to be built eventually. This so-called "counter-cyclic" investment was intended to prime the pump, and get the economy working again.

The deficits involved were to be paid back by reducing government spending during the good times.

Unfortunately, Keynes was willfully misinterpreted for decades by "tax and spend" liberals, and other "big-government" types.

Keynes certainly would not have approved of the decades of high inflation, which were largely caused by ever increasing government deficit spending during the '70's and 80's. (Along with other factors, such as the OPEC-driven oil crises of the "70's.) About inflation, he said: "The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

Keynes emphasized the importance of investor and consumer confidence. He was opposed to taxes on capital -- including estate taxes. He probably would have been a supporter of the "Laffer curve", which was the foundation of "Reganomics", and the recent Bush tax cuts -- i.e. the economic stimulation effect of lower taxes means that tax cuts actually more than pay for themselves. (Provided they are too high to begin with.) Despite the howls from the "progressives", loath to reduce the size of the government trough, Laffer has been proven correct.

In his day, Keynes was known as a "Liberal" -- a term that has become twisted beyond recognition. In today's terms, he would have probably been known as a "neo-conservative". It is a shame that he is more known for the disastrous economic policies carried out by those who misappropriated his name, and subverted his ideas; than by what he actually thought, wrote and advocated.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.