More specifically, what causes non-Covid recessions? Here’s Nick Rowe’s answer:
At some level, Nick and I basically agree. But I am going to answer the question slightly differently. It’s not necessarily wrong to say recessions are caused by money hoarding, or by interest rates being set too high, or by a drop in spending on C+I+G+NX, but I don’t find any of these explanations to be the most useful way of framing the issue.
In my forthcoming book (July 16, 2021), I argue that if monetary policy X is the most reasonable way to prevent recessions, then recessions are caused by not doing monetary policy X. More specifically, I believe the most effective way to prevent recessions (except the Covid recession) is to stabilize 1-year forward NGDP growth expectations at around 4%/year. So in that sense, recessions are caused by sharp declines in NGDP growth.
As an accounting matter, NGDP is the monetary base times base velocity. So you could say that Nick is describing the empirical fact that declines in M*V are mostly due to declines in V. And Nick would probably agree with me that it’s the central bank’s job to offset decreases in velocity by increasing the supply of money during periods where money demand is increasing. (Lower velocity is equivalent to higher money demand.)
The basic monetary model of recessions is symmetrical, and thus falling NGDP could be produced by either an increased demand for money or a decreased supply of money. That raises an interesting question. Are recessions merely “errors of omission”, periods where the central bank fails to accommodate an increase in money demand, or are some recessions caused by declines in the growth rate of the (base) money supply.
Here’s the US monetary base growth rate from 1918 to the mid-1960s:
The sharp drop in base growth seems to have lagged in the 1920-21 recession, but that’s a bit misleading. That recession was quite mild during the first 8 months of 1920, and thus the (plunging) supply of base money actually correlates pretty well with falling NGDP during the short but severe 1920-21 slump. Base growth also turned negative in 1929-30, although velocity also declined sharply during that year. Base growth fell especially sharply before and during the 1937-38 slump. It also turned negative right before the 1949 recession, and the growth rate fell to roughly zero during the three Eisenhower recessions.
Of course this is all very unscientific. I’m pretty sure that in an accounting sense the money demand shocks that Nick refers to played the larger role. I’m not arguing for a simplistic monetarist explanation of recessions. But I’d make two additional points:
1. The various slowdowns in monetary base growth were errors of commission, not errors of omission.
2. To some extent the accompanying slowdowns in velocity were endogenous, caused by the slowing economy, which itself was caused by the slowdown in the growth in the monetary base.
Distinctions between errors of omission and errors of commission are quite fuzzy, and in my view not particularly useful.
Here’s the more recent data:
Now the correlation seems weaker, although in a few cases you can still see money growth slowing slightly during recessions. Perhaps the most interesting case is 2007-08, where base growth slowed to near zero as we fell into recession, before soaring much higher in late 2008. I’d make two points about the latter period:
1. After the Fed began paying interest on bank reserves (IOR) in late 2008, the demand for base money soared much higher. The Fed accommodated that demand with various QE programs, which sharply boosted the growth rate of the monetary base.
2. Even without IOR, the decline in market interest rates to near zero would have led to a big rise in money demand, i.e. a big fall in velocity.
Of course the decision to pay IOR is also an “error of commission”. Thus the Fed triggered the Great Recession in early 2008 with the error of commission of sharply reducing the growth in the monetary base, and worsened the recession in late 2008 with another error of commission—paying IOR. That’s not to say those two errors completely explain the Great Recession; errors of omission also played a big role. Rather it’s important to recognize that the problem was not solely errors of omission.
Of course this is all just accounting. One could also say the recession was caused by the Fed allowing NGDP growth to fall sharply. Or that the recession was caused by the Fed not adopting a regime of 4% NGDP growth, level targeting. Or that the recession was caused by the Fed not pegging the price of one year forward NGDP futures contracts at a level 4% above its current level (in 2008).
PS. Nick lives in Canada, which has a more stable banking system than the US and thus more stable demand for base money. During the Great Depression, the Canadian base fell much more sharply than the US monetary base, as they did not have banking panics. So at least in that episode, the crude monetarist model works better for Canada than the US. Was that an error of commission? Or should we excuse the BOC because they had to reduce their monetary base under the international gold standard? On second thought, I guess I won’t blame the BOC for the fall in the Canadian base during the early 1930s, as the Bank of Canada did not yet exist.
READER COMMENTS
Ahmed Fares
Apr 16 2021 at 4:20pm
This fails to account for the difference between GDP and non-GDP transactions. Here is the money equation:
M*V = P*Q = GDP
Because more money was being borrowed for financial engineering due to the historically low interest rates, then that borrowing did not cause a change in GDP. Velocity (V) then falls as it must by arithmetical necessity.
Here is a quote about GDP and non-GDP transactions:
Scott Sumner
Apr 16 2021 at 5:48pm
You said:
“This fails to account for the difference between GDP and non-GDP transactions. ”
No, it does not fail to account for that difference, it ignores it for a reason. I’m not interested in non-GDP transactions
robc
Apr 16 2021 at 7:37pm
That leads to two interesting questions (actually three):
What percent of GDP is DIY?
How has it changes over time?
Why isnt it included?
Scott Sumner
Apr 16 2021 at 11:03pm
It’s probably sizable percentage, but it doesn’t really matter in terms of modeling the cause of recessions or the appropriate monetary policy.
robc
Apr 17 2021 at 6:43pm
If you had a sizeable move to or away from DIY, couldnt it cause something that looked like a recession but wasnt (or fictional growth)?
What has been the effect of legalized pot on GDP?
Scott Sumner
Apr 19 2021 at 1:32am
Theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely.
robc
Apr 19 2021 at 9:08am
“Extremely” seems too far. All it takes is an anemic economic, running near 0% growth and a small shift to greater DIY, which seems to be a likely scenario in an anemic economy. I would guess home gardening increases during hard times.
How much of the pandemic recession was due to people firing their cleaning service and cleaning their house themselves since they were at home anyway? Or converting a room to office space at home and not paying office rent anymore? Or cooking at home instead of eating out?
Sure, this recession was going to happen anyway, but the failure to count DIY work as part of the product makes it worse than it seems.
Which goes back to the most important question I asked above, question #3. Why isn’t it counted? It is just adding one more term onto the equation.
C+I+G+D+(X-M)
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Apr 16 2021 at 6:22pm
Why does the recommendation of targeting NGDP not work for supply shocks like the pandemic? Wouldn’t the fall in real income have been less if the Fed had held NGDP on course. And the resulting inflation would have brought the price level back closer to its pre- 2009 trajectory?
Nick Rowe
Apr 16 2021 at 6:25pm
Scott: I agree (of course)!
I was just getting ready to object to one point at the end, till I saw your last sentence!
There’s lot’s of counterfactuals, but the policy counterfactual is the most useful one.
Scott Sumner
Apr 16 2021 at 11:03pm
Thanks Nick.
Ken Simpson
Apr 16 2021 at 7:23pm
Excellent. So, what you’re saying is, “incentives matter”?
NGDP Fed policy is needed now more than ever, with so much new money created.
marcus nunes
Apr 16 2021 at 8:04pm
The post linked below shows that going into the GR different central banks behaved differently. Basically, a few did not allow NGDP to drop below “trend”. Later, however, they committed the “original sin”.
The Covid19 “big drop” shows the same qualitative pattern all around and the decision the central banks face going forward. I believe IT (even modified by new “frameworks” will be an impediment for good outcomes.
https://marcusnunes.substack.com/p/central-banks-all-over-face-the-same
Scott Sumner
Apr 16 2021 at 11:04pm
Good comparison.
Alan Goldhammer
Apr 17 2021 at 7:52am
Aside from the fact that I don’t know what the word ‘hodling’ means (yes, I realized it is a typo), how do you reconcile the statement with the well documented fact that the majority of people don’t really have all that much money to spend to begin with and are not holding onto anything. How can they be the cause of a recession if they are not holding any money? Should we just blame the upper 5% of the US populace for all recessions (at least those since the creation of the Fed in the early part of the 20th century).
Does the statement also apply to the US pre-Fed and under the gold standard where there were numerous recessions during the 19th century? I raise these points as a non-economist who enjoys simple solutions but have doubts about the simplicity of this one.
Lizard Man
Apr 17 2021 at 11:28am
Is there a good primer somewhere on the empirical literature on what is correlated with or causes changes in money velocity?
I guess I am trying to understand the argument that Ahmed Fares and Prof. Sumner had above. It seems to me that Fares is claiming that credit extended to folks to purchase paper assets leads to an increase in the money supply without increasing GDP, and so as an accounting matter money velocity must fall, all else equal.
This was offered in refutation of the claim that “To some extent the accompanying slowdowns in velocity were endogenous, caused by the slowing economy, which itself was caused by the slowdown in the growth in the monetary base.”
I am having a hard time seeing what the disagreement is about. I am thinking about it mathematically. If the monetary base is growing, or at the very least not shrinking, but GDP is falling, by definition velocity must have fallen. And if the monetary base is growing, but at a slower rate than before, and the economy is shrinking, than that means velocity must have fallen even more sharply.
Looking at the Fred graph from 1970 to 201x, the only time I see money supply growth going negative before a recession is for the dot com bust/September 11 recession. So wouldn’t that mean by definition that since the 70’s in the US, the correlation is that velocity falls sharply in the lead up/ during a recession even while the money supply grows? I think that is what Prof. Sumner is claiming for that period in time, so maybe Fares is just mistakenly thinking that the quote from Prof. Sumner was supposed to be about the post 1970 period?
One question I have is what caused the change from the pre 1970 period to the post 1970 period? Was it simply the influence of monetarist like Milton Friedman on central banks? Was managing money supply changed by abandoning the gold standard/ending the Breton Woods agreement? Was there some technological development that let central banks measure things more quickly and more accurately and hence lead to more timely changes in policy?
Scott Sumner
Apr 17 2021 at 2:22pm
Alan, Someone has to be holding all the money in circulation.
Lizard, There are many studies of velocity, and these have found that it is positively correlated with nominal interest rates (the opportunity cost of holding zero interest money, such as currency.)
As for post-1970, I do believe that monetary policy has become somewhat more effective over time.
Ike Coffman
Apr 18 2021 at 3:54pm
I hate to make my ignorance so obvious, but just looking at the charts given for the monetary growth make zero sense to me relative to the recessions. The monetary base for the 50 years or so prior to 2008 looks relatively stable, so there had to be large swings in the velocity of money to account for the recessions over that period. However, since 2008 I see huge swings in the monetary base, and since over the period up to the COVID recession our economy was fairly stable there had to also be accompanying large swings in velocity, large swings which prior to that had to be associated with economic instability. It just doesn’t make sense.
I also think there is some stuff not being taken into account as far as recessions go. My simplistic view of the 2001 and the 2007 recessions is that they were caused by people, businesses, and institutions doing stupid things with very large amounts of money, and I don’t see any discussion here of those causes. I see similarly stupid things being done with similarly large amounts of money right now, and I think that despite the best efforts of the Fed we are headed for another recession. I could be wrong, time will tell. I guess that means I think recessions are caused when some critical mass of people are all doing stupid things at the same time, and I don’t think the Fed has enough power to stop people from being stupid.
Scott Sumner
Apr 19 2021 at 1:36am
You said:
“My simplistic view of the 2001 and the 2007 recessions is that they were caused by people, businesses, and institutions doing stupid things with very large amounts of money, and I don’t see any discussion here of those causes.”
There’s no discussion because I don’t believe those things caused the recessions of 2001 and 2008. I believe the recessions were caused by tight money, which reduced NGDP growth.
Joe
Apr 19 2021 at 12:12am
Scott.
It seems to me that the USA has had three major monetary regimes.
1. Pre-fed gold standard
2. Fed + gold standard
3. Fed + fiat
Is it possible that the “cause” of recession would be different under these regimes, or at least the “nature” of the business cycle would be different? For example, you might write down a different model of the business cycle for each regime.
Scott Sumner
Apr 19 2021 at 1:36am
Yes. I wrote a book on the second regime you mention, and my forthcoming book looks at the third.
Michael Sandifer
Apr 19 2021 at 8:03am
sticky wages
Garrett
Apr 19 2021 at 9:10am
Is it correct to think of this as a substitution effect? As in the price of short-term assets (inversely related to interest rate) makes their relative price to cash higher and so increases cash demand?
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2021 at 1:17pm
Yes, I think that’s right.
Comments are closed.