I have a favor to ask the readers of this blog. I’m looking for articles warning that the US economy is likely to overheat in the next year or two, and that the Fed needs to raise interest rates to prevent such overheating. Please leave a few links in the comment section of this post.
Perhaps some readers are thinking to themselves, “Is this guy crazy? Nobody thinks the economy is about to overheat, or that the Fed needs to raise interest rates. What a silly request!”
Well I may be crazy, but this is a very reasonable request. If the request seems crazy, perhaps it’s an indication that our policymaking apparatus is crazy.
Even in 2009, there were plenty of articles warning that QE would lead to runaway inflation. I’m not sure about you, but right now I’m not seeing any articles warning of economic overheating. And that’s not how things should be.
At any given moment, there will be a distribution of views regarding future growth in prices, NGDP, employment, etc. When the Fed is doing its job, producing a sensible policy consistent with the consensus views of well-informed people, you’d expect roughly equal numbers of people warning that aggregate demand will be too low to hit the 2% inflation target, as those forecasting excessive growth in aggregate demand and high inflation. That’s how it should be.
So why don’t forecasts seem symmetrical right now? Why are so many people currently predicting slower growth ahead and/or requesting a Fed rate cut? Why not a balance of views?
The real problem is something that might be called “monetary policy illusion”. This is actually a set of closely related illusions—the view that:
1. Interest rates are monetary policy.
2. Interest rates should be adjusted infrequently, and by large amounts (at least 25 basis points.)
3. The hurdle to overcome before adjusting interest rates is much higher when the Fed has not been warning the markets to expect such a change, and in that case the Fed should be quite reluctant to change its interest rate target.
Here’s an illusion free monetary regime:
1. Monetary policymakers realize that interest rates are not monetary policy, and that expected NGDP growth best measures the stance of monetary policy. To the extent that interest rates matter at all, it’s the gap between the policy rate and the equilibrium rate that matters.
2. Interest rate targets should be adjusted daily to the closest basis point, not the closest quarter point. The Fed should follow the equilibrium (or neutral) interest rate.
3. Rate changes should be unpredictable a few days ahead, just as changes in market rates are unpredictable a few days ahead. (Of course changes may be predictable given the news of that day.)
The coronavirus has the potential to be a major real shock, and stocks would have fallen significantly this week even under an ideal monetary policy. But I suspect that a significant portion of the decline was due to worry that the Fed would not reduce rates as fast as the equilibrium rate is falling, and as a result NGDP growth would slow, risking a recession.
Some people may disagree, and worry that the economy is about to overheat.
But where are they?
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 28 2020 at 6:16am
I would hold off on doing anything for at least a month to see how the COVID19 outbreak plays out. Clearly supply chains from China are adversely affected and world wide tourism a mainstay of many countries may tank. It’s unclear to me that manipulating interest rates is an adequate solution to a public health crisis. Do you think that interest rates could have done anything against the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak (which was further complicated by the continuing engagement in the first World War)?
Scott Sumner
Feb 28 2020 at 9:56am
Alan, I would keep monetary policy stable until we know what’s going on. You keep policy stable by keeping the target rate aligned with the equilibrium rate. That means cutting the target rate. Holding the target rate stable is sharply tightening monetary policy—is that what you want? Why sharply tighten policy now?
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 28 2020 at 10:35am
Since I’m not an economist, I must be missing the point here. We have very low interest rates by historical standards right now, would this involve a big rate cut; perhaps going to negative rates? If international trade is really disrupted, it’s going to take a long time for that to get repaired. It’s not like the US can immediately start making a lot of things that have been outsourced to China.
Personally, I think the stock market has over reacted and maybe there is a lot of program trading going on. Still it’s more than a bit unnerving to see equities drop so fast. I don’t want to revisit 2007-08.
Brian Donohue
Feb 28 2020 at 12:27pm
Alan,
“We have very low interest rates by historical standards right now…”
I’d say you have a rearview mirror problem.
Here’s something we wrote on February 20th, just prior to falling off the recent cliff…
http://www.octoberthree.com/interest-rates-2020-signal-or-noise/
Scott Sumner
Feb 28 2020 at 4:01pm
Alan, “Historical standards” regarding interest rates are irrelevant. Rates should reflect economic conditions, and right now they do not.
You said:
“If international trade is really disrupted, it’s going to take a long time for that to get repaired.”
That’s exactly my point. Monetary policy cannot fix that problem, and should not try. Just keep policy stable.
thaomad
Mar 1 2020 at 12:48pm
Why bring up rates when talking about policy? Should the Fed shoot for a faster recovery to the 2% PL target? Possibly. I’d be happy just to see them trying
John Hall
Feb 28 2020 at 6:23am
Good point on who is thinking the economy will overhead.
The point about daily changes in the Fed’s target rate is so important in times like this.
John Hall
Feb 28 2020 at 6:36am
Overheat, not overhead.
Michael Sandifer
Feb 28 2020 at 10:49am
Here’s an example of the CIO of Morgan Stanley warning about inflation last week, after virus scare began emerging:
https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/inflation-isnt-missing-you-just-need-to-know-where-to-look-for-it-51582325529
She warns that inflation could spike after the concerns subside and the Fed has cut rates.
Scott Sumner
Feb 28 2020 at 4:02pm
OK, but does she predict inflation if the Fed does not cut rates?
Michael Sandifer
Feb 28 2020 at 8:04pm
I’m on your side on this. If anything, I’m more dovish. I posted her comments, because they’re ridiculous.
P Burgos
Feb 28 2020 at 10:50am
I guess there are a number of Trump officials who believe that the pandemic either will be good for the US economy or not hurt it. Does that count?
Scott Sumner
Feb 29 2020 at 2:09am
But even they seem to want rate cuts.
Brian Donohue
Feb 28 2020 at 11:52am
You defend Powell’s 2019 track record (slow, cautious, lawerly, nuanced), and maybe that works ok in a comparatively stable world, but the guy is pouring gasoline on a fire right now.
Markets are now evenly split between 25 and 50 bp cut in March, with December expectation centering on 100 bps lower than today. Please Jerome, get out in front instead of trailing behind. Just a pinky’s worth of Chuck Norris.
Brian Donohue
Feb 28 2020 at 12:08pm
The 10-year is at 1.17%. Entire market has moved on, Fed look like a bunch of dopes.
Brian Donohue
Feb 28 2020 at 6:10pm
30-year breakeven CPI is 1.41%.
Hell, the 30-year bond yield is 1.65%. Maybe if it drops below IOER…
Market clearly freaking out over inflation.
Scott Sumner
Feb 28 2020 at 4:04pm
Yes, the 2019 policy was appropriate for 2019. That doesn’t mean policy is appropriate right now. And an inappropriate policy right now doesn’t mean policy was inappropriate in 2019.
Thaomas
Feb 29 2020 at 6:39am
Interest rates ARE not monetary policy but what’s wrong with saying they are one possible instrument of policy. Why introduce the concept of stance?
Comments are closed.