Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Did We Have a Crisis Because Deficits Were Too Small?

In comments to the previous post on fiscal policy, Steve Roth points to a couple posts from his own (excellent) blog pointing to a similar argument by Randy Wray, that falling federal debt-GDP ratios nominal volumes of government debt have consistently preceded financial crises historically.

Also in comments, Chris Mealy asks,
Isn't the idea that sufficient government debts will prevent phony safe assets and the financial crises they lead to?
Right, exactly!

A couple years ago, VoxEU ran several good pieces making exactly this argument -- that it was the lack of sufficient government debt that spurred the growth of mortgage securitization. Here is one:
The increased demand for US government debt by emerging economy central banks led to lower yields, thus forcing those savers in the OECD countries who would normally have held government assets to frantically “search for returns”. ... The AAA tranches on securitised US mortgages ... seemed to provide the safety plus a “yield pick up” without any risk... 
The key technology that permitted the transformation of US mortgages into safe liquid assets was securitisation. ... The massive buying of US government paper by emerging market central banks had displaced other investors whose preference previously had been for safe, short-term, liquid assets.  ... The excess demand for short-term, safe, liquid assets created by emerging economies’ accumulation of reserves could not have been satisfied by the securitisation of US mortgages (and consumer credit) without massive credit and liquidity “enhancements” by the banking system. ... 
Looking forward, this analysis implies that the current (smaller but still sizeable) US current account deficit should not lead to similar asset supply and demand mismatches since US households are now starting to save and it is the US government which is running the deficit, thus supplying exactly the kind of assets needed...
And here is another, from an impeccably mainstream author:
The entire world had an insatiable demand for safe debt instruments – including foreign central banks and investors, but also many US financial institutions. This put enormous pressure on the US financial system... The financial sector was able to create micro-AAA assets from the securitisation of lower quality ones, but at the cost of exposing the system to a panic... In this view, the surge of safe-asset demand was a key factor behind the rise in leverage and macroeconomic risk concentration in financial institutions... These institutions sought the profits generated from bridging the gap between this rise in demand and the expansion of its natural supply. ... 
[Once the crisis began], the underlying structural deficit of safe assets worsened as the ... triple-A assets from the securitisation industry dried up and the spike in perceived uncertainty further increased demand for these assets. Safe interest rates plummeted to record low levels. ... Global imbalances and their feared sudden reversal never played a significant role for the US during this deep crisis. In fact, the worse things became, the more domestic and foreign investors ran to US Treasuries for cover and treasury rates plummeted (and the dollar appreciated). ... 
One approach to addressing these issues prospectively would be for governments to explicitly bear a greater share of the systemic risk. ... If the governments in asset-producing countries were to do it directly, then they would have to issue bonds beyond their fiscal needs.
The logic is very clear and, to me at least, compelling: For a variety of reasons (including but not limited to reserve accumulation by developing-country central banks) there was an increase in demand for safe, liquid assets, the private supply of which is generally inelastic. The excess demand pushed up the price of the existing stock of safe assets (especially Treasuries), and increased pressure to develop substitutes. (This went beyond the usual pressure to develop new methods of producing any good with a rising price, since a number of financial actors have some minimum yield -- i.e. maximum price -- of safe assets as a condition of their continued existence.) Mortgage-backed securities were thought to be such substitutes. Once the technology of securitization was developed, you also had a rise in mortgage lending and the supply of MBSs continued growing under its own momentum; but in this story, the original impetus came unequivocally from the demand for substitutes for scarce government debt. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that if the US government had only issued more debt in the decade before the crisis, the housing bubble and subsequent crash would have been much milder.

*

While we're at it, I can resist reposting the old post where I first mentioned this stuff:

A focus on cyclical stabilization assumes that there is no systematic long-term divergence between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. But Keynes believed that there was a secular tendency toward stagnation in advanced capitalist economies, so that maintaining full employment meant not just using public expenditure to stabilize private investment demand, but to incrementally replace it.

Another way of looking at this is that the steady shift from small-scale to industrial production implies a growing weight of illiquid assets in the form of fixed capital. There is not, however, any corresponding long-term increase in the demand for illiquid liabilities. If anything, the sociological patterns of capitalism point the other way, as industrial dynasties whose social existence was linked to particular enterprises have been steadily replaced by rentiers. The whole line of financial innovations from the first joint-stock companies to the recent securitization boom have been attempts to bridge this gap. But this requires ever-deepening financialization, with all the social waste and instability that implies.

It’s the government’s ability to issue liabilities backed by the whole economic output that makes it uniquely able to satisfy the demands of wealth-holders for liquid assets. In the functional finance tradition going back to Lerner, modern states do not possess a budget constraint in the same way households or firms do. Public borrowing has nothing to do with “funding” spending, it's all about how much government debt the authorities want the banking system to hold. If the demand for safe, liquid assets rises secularly over time, so should government borrowing.

From this point of view, one important source of the recent financial crisis was the surpluses of the 1990s, and insufficient borrowing by the US government in general. By restricting the supply of Treasuries, this excessive fiscal restraint spurred the creation of private sector substitutes purporting to offer similar liquidity properties, in the form of various asset-backed securities. But these new financial assets remained at bottom claims on specific illiquid real assets and their liquidity remained vulnerable to shifts in (expectations of) the value of those assets.

The response to the crisis in 2008 then consists of the Fed retroactively correcting the undersupply of government liabilities by engaging in a wholesale swap of public for private liabilities, leaving banks (and liquidity-demanding wealth owners) holding government liabilities instead of private financial assets. The increase in public debt wasn’t an unfortunate side-effect of the solution to the financial crisis, it was the solution.

Along the same lines, I sometimes wonder how much the huge proportion of government debt on bank balance sheets -- 75 percent of assets in 1945 vs. 1.5 percent in 2005 -- contributed to the financial stability of the immediate postwar era. With that many safe assets sloshing around, it didn't take financial engineering or speculative bubbles to convince banks to hold claims on fixed capital and housing. But as the supply of government debt has dwindled the inducements to hold other assets have had to grow increasingly garish.

From which I conclude that ever-increasing government deficits may in fact be better Keynesianism – theoretically, historically and pragmatically – than countercyclical demand management.

(What's striking to me, rereading this now, is that when I wrote it I had not read any Leijonhufvud. Yet the argument that capitalism suffers from a chronic oversupply of long, illiquid assets is one of the central messages of Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes -- "no mortal being can hold land to maturity," etc. I got the idea from Minsky, I suppose, or maybe from Michael Perelman, who are both very clear that the specific institutions of capitalism are in many ways in deep tension with the development of long-lived capital goods.)


UPDATE: Hey look, The Economist agrees. I think that means it's time to move on.

UPDATE 2: So does Joe Weisenthal at the The Business Insider. His argument (and Stephanie Kelton's) is different from the one here -- it focuses on the fact that net savings across sectors have to sum to zero, as opposed to the government's advantage in providing liquidity. But the fundamental point is the same, that the important thing about the government fiscal position is the implications it has for private balance sheets.

UPDATE 3: Steve R. points out that I misread his posts -- Wray's argument is about the nominal volume of federal debt outstanding, not the debt-GDP ratio. Hmm. I'm not sure I buy that relationship as evidence of anything ... but it's still good to see that Wray is asking this question. Steve also points to this paper, which looks very interesting.

16 comments:

  1. "Another way of looking at this is that the steady shift from small-scale to industrial production implies a growing weight of illiquid assets in the form of fixed capital. There is not, however, any corresponding long-term increase in the demand for illiquid liabilities. If anything, the sociological patterns of capitalism point the other way, as industrial dynasties whose social existence was linked to particular enterprises have been steadily replaced by rentiers. The whole line of financial innovations from the first joint-stock companies to the recent securitization boom have been attempts to bridge this gap. But this requires ever-deepening financialization, with all the social waste and instability that implies."

    you mention leijonhufvud and perelman, but is there any other bibliograohy on this subjetc that you would recommend? i find it a fascinating subject

    ReplyDelete
  2. We have an incredibly bloated financial sector across most of the developed world. As the Irish and Icelandic experience have shown, this can have a huge destabilising effect on the real economy. Given this situation, maybe giving the financial sector exactly what it wants is not the best idea? And maybe this insatiable demand for safe assets is itself a function of the size of this sector?

    I am sympathetic to the argument that given a healthy financial sector, an adequate supply of government bonds might improve the functioning of a highly capital intensive economy. But I don't think we are anywhere near that situation today.

    Also, let's not forget that the solution to the problem of real estate booms and busts was figured out a century ago by Henry George. It's just that his solution was highly politically unpopular. The transformation of illiquid land assets to liquid liabilities is a purely wasteful activity that can and should be eliminated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fredrik,

      You are absolutely right. The point here is that **all else equal**, larger government deficits during the 1990s and 2000s would have prevented the crisis. This is intended as a sort of immanent critique of liberal mainstream economists who argue for the long-run importance of reducing the debt. (Why I care about this will be the subject of the next, and hopefully last, post in this series.) But yes, as I said in comments to the previous post, the more fundamental (and more authentically Keynesian) solution is to reduce the range of productive activity that is organized around the accumulation of money claims, and especially to reduce the extent to which fixed investment is guided by financial criteria.

      Delete
  3. Worth mentioning Adolph Wagner who argued long ago that government spending as a proportion of an economy will and should rise as the economy grows.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haven't read Wagner, but the idea of secularly declining private investment demand was a staple of the first generation of American Keynesians. I've been reading Alvin Hansen lately and he takes this for granted. For him though -- don't know about Wagner -- it was more about the satiation of consumer demand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This has been a great series of posts. On a related note, have you done any research on the decline in bank lending for tangible capital/investment? Recent readings suggest that a large portion of new lending/debt today is for the purpose of investing in already produced assets (land, stocks, bonds). This would appear to be related to the secular decline in private investment that you discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "falling federal debt-GDP ratios have consistently preceded financial crises historically"

    No to quite: that was about falling *nominal debt,* not debt/GDP. I don't think the pattern holds nearly as consistently with the latter measure.

    OTOH, look what I just found:

    http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/vissing/htm/shortdebt_071012.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is also interesting:

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=eDP

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, China should get its own damn money.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can't agree with that one, Bruce. The fact that China wants to hold US dollars is a good thing for the US -- it opens up space for policies to maintain full employment, without worrying about the balance of payments. The problem is on our side -- we used that space to expand mortgage lending, as opposed to lending for productive investment. If the Chinese demand for US government debt had been satisfied by higher emission of debt by the US government, say as part of a crash program of public investment in decarbonization, there would have been no problem. (And since decarbonization is a global public good, the rest of the world would be getting some compensation for being lending to the US at concessionary rates.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Josh,

    I haven't fully read this, but from the abstract it sounds like it is relevant to this discussion.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2201518

    "Drawing on recent contributions in the literature on financialization, we introduce the concept of the ‘collateral motive’ – investors’ demand for government bonds to meet their funding needs – and link it to the shift to transnational, market-based, collateral-intensive banking models. We show how this becomes a pivotal mechanism for fiscal consolidations as the singular response to the ongoing Eurozone crisis. The implication of our argument is that recent fiscal policy in the Eurozone cannot be adequately understood without analyzing the process through which the collateral motive ignited a run on peripheral sovereign bond markets which in turn compelled states to stabilize these markets through austerity."

    While it is about the Eurozone, I think there is relevance to the US situation, particularly in regard to the higher levels of collateral needed by a trade-oriented shadow banking sector.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The fact that China wants to hold US dollars is a good thing for the US -- it opens up space for policies to maintain full employment, without worrying about the balance of payments."

    Yeah, not exactly how it worked out though, was it? Funny that. It opened up space for financialization and globalization and the devastation of Michigan and Ohio.

    Going forward, I suspect China may soon have reason to wish it had been forced to develop better banking institutions a decade ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not exactly how it worked out though, was it?

      No, it wasn't. But the blame for that lies on this side of the Pacific.

      Delete
  12. [...] 3) Did We Have a Crisis Because Deficits Were Too Small? by JW Mason @ The Slack Wire [...]

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Once the technology of securitization was developed, you also had a rise in mortgage lending and the supply of MBSs continued growing under its own momentum; but in this story, the original impetus came unequivocally from the demand for substitutes for scarce government debt. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that if the US government had only issued more debt in the decade before the crisis, the housing bubble and subsequent crash would have been much milder."

    What happens if the US government went back in time and issued more debt so that no vacuum could emerge for MBS to fill, as you advocate. Let's say the government invests the funds received from its bonds issues in mortgage companies and has them lend the funds out to homeowners. What's changed? We've got no MBS, just a bunch of "safe" government assets. We've got huge flows into housing markets. It there no bubble or crash? Do we have a free ride?

    ReplyDelete
  14. JP-

    That's a great question!

    I think we should be open to the possibility that the answer is Yes. The idea that some process just can't continue is too often used as a debate-ender, without providing any reason why it cannot.

    I think in the case you describe, the financial crisis as we experienced it would not have taken place. There would have been no flight to safe assets, and (probably) no major failures of financial institutions. But that doesn't mean steady growth would have continued indefinitely. Capitalism doesn't work like that.

    It seems to me that if we'd had a sufficient expansion of government debt to prevent the emergence of the MBS market, the most likely causes of the next downturn would have been (a) the rise in oil prices; or (b) a shortfall in domestic demand once the housing boom subsided (since even with easy financing housing demand is eventually satiated, and this is the one area of household expenditure with high intertemporal substitutibility, so a boom in one period leads to a bust in the next. But this would probably have resembled the 2000 recession in terms of severity.

    The US also faces a chronic problem that desired expenditure falls short of income at full employment, due, in my opinion, to a downward shift in investment demand since 1980. Issuing more government liabilities would solve the shortage-of-safe-assets problem, but not (directly) this one.

    ReplyDelete