
[Disclaimer, this post uses “puritan” as a term for those suspicious of pleasure, not actual members of the Puritan religion.]
Bret Stephens recently had this to say, in defense of Trump’s tweets on issues such as tariffs:
And as an astute friend pointed out to me recently, Trump’s scary tweets even seem to have the effect of tempering market exuberance, acting as a kind of check in lieu of interest-rate hikes.
Stephens’s friend may be astute, but this comment fails on multiple grounds. To begin with, at the moment there is no need for the Fed to hike interest rates, and thus no need for a substitute for rate increases . But the real problem runs much deeper, and centers on the term “market exuberance”. There’s a clear implication that market exuberance is a bad thing, which is not true.
While I often disagree with Trump’s tweets on economics, he’s right about one point. Market exuberance is generally a good thing. More often than not, events that are good for the overall economy are also good for the stock market. Of course there are occasional exceptions. For instance, I could imagine stocks rising due to the enactment of some sort of corporate welfare, say the renewal of the Ex-Im Bank. But those cases are more the exception than the rule. Economic booms are good for average Americans and good for corporate America. The same is true of free trade, private property and deregulation. Countries that close themselves off from the world and adopt statist policies tend to be much poorer than countries with free markets.
Governments should never try to “temper” market exuberance, just the opposite. In September 1929, the “astute” Fed was so suspicious of an exuberant stock market that they raised real interest rates up to 7% (compared with roughly 0% today.) How’d that work out?
The term ‘exuberance’ also reminds me of Alan Greenspan’s famous 1996 prediction that the stock market was exhibiting “irrational exuberance”—a prediction that turned out to be embarrassingly far off base. If anything, 1996 stock prices now seem to have been too low. Unfortunately, Greenspan’s failed prediction has not stopped people from being suspicious of exuberant stock markets.
Trump’s tweets are occasionally problematic, but his interest in creating an exuberant stock market is perhaps the least of his sins.
Like many conservatives, Bret Stephens seems to believe that asset markets are not efficient. That seems odd. If I didn’t believe the efficient markets hypothesis were true, then I would no longer support free market policies.
READER COMMENTS
Todd Moodey
May 10 2019 at 2:45pm
Scott–
Thanks for the interesting post. As a market professional, my wish is that governments should have no view one way or the other about movements, trends or sentiments in the markets. Indirectly, of course, through what one hopes is wise economic policy, government will express a view. But my fear is that as the Federal government looks increasingly to the stock market as a complement to, or substitute for Social Security, it will inexorably be led to adopt policies that make the stock market, in essence, the object of the mother-of-all “Too Big To Fail” efforts.
I enjoy your posts (and am, by the way, somewhat of a neighbor of yours in Dana Point).
Regards,
Todd Moodey
John Hall
May 10 2019 at 3:14pm
“If I didn’t believe the efficient markets hypothesis were true, then I would no longer support free market policies.”
Better watch out Scott, hang around Mercatus some more and you might believe “Markets Fail. Use Markets”. 😉
Scott Sumner
May 10 2019 at 3:59pm
Thanks Todd. Dana Point is a very nice community. I go hiking there occasionally.
John. Yes, that’s a good argument.
Mark Bahner
May 11 2019 at 12:17am
Kept inflation in check! 😉 (Start with a compliment, then move on to the criticism… 😉 )
Scott Sumner
May 11 2019 at 6:16pm
Yes, there’s that. 🙂
Benjamin Cole
May 14 2019 at 12:38pm
Puritans?
My guess is central bankers believe insemination should occur in a test tube.
Andrew_FL
May 15 2019 at 9:42am
Distinctly odd that belief in a theory which rescues market socialism from the ash heap of history would strengthen your support for laissez faire. If the version of EMH you believe in is true, we could have perfect central planning. Why would you be against that?
Comments are closed.