Look at this:
Figure 1: Ratio of M1 to real GDP (blue), of M2 to real GDP (brown), of M3 to real GDP (green), 1959Q1-2020Q3. Quarterly money data average of end of month data. Source: Federal Reserve via FRED, and BEA, 2020Q3 2nd release, and author’s calculations.
The below is a republication of a post from July 19, 2019 entitled “What Does Judy Shelton Believe GDP Growth and Inflation Are in 2019?” in response to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel’s invocation of cloture on the nomination of Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
In a 2015 Cato Institute session, Fed Board Nominee Judy Shelton discusses whether to trust or not official GDP and inflation statistics (she says no — see 1:07:07) (h/t Sam Bell).
Nominal GDP targeting has been advocated in a recent Joint Economic Committee report “Stable Monetary Policy to Connect More Americans to Work”.
The Fed’s new framework, as described by Chairman Powell, mentions “shortfalls” (particularly in employment), instead of deviations of the natural rate. The output analog of this shift is moving from the deviation of output from potential (i.e., output gap) to an output slack measure. If we interpret this as requiring a focus on a Friedman-esque plucking model of maximal output, rather than potential GDP as described in most textbooks, what does this mean for where we are right now? I’d say for the short run, we are still in for a world of pain, economically speaking…
Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. A shorter version appeared in Project Syndicate.
Given the Senate Banking Committee’s approval of Judy Shelton’s nomination to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, it seems like a good time to see what stabilizing the price of gold in US dollars would’ve required in terms of the policy rate (akin to how the exchange rate is managed). Using the policy rate to stabilize the dollar price of gold at February 2020 levels would required the increase of the Fed funds rate by 1.15 percentage points higher than it was at that time. The Fed actually decreased the Fed funds rate by 1.5 percentage percentage points by June 2020.
I keep on getting missives from the IIMR. Here’s today’s, from a Tim Congdon:
Periodically, I get emails from some guy named Tim Congdon of the Institute of International Monetary Research, bewailing the tendency “to shrug off the inflation risks that have in the past arisen from too much monetary financing of large budget deficits.” So…big increases in the Fed’s balance sheet: will they collide with reduced supply over the medium run to produce inflation? TIPS say no…
I was lucky enough to get assigned to coteach a macro course (with Charles Engel) this semester. However, as time passed, it seemed strange to go through the models without referring to current events — in my half of the course, I got to teach one lecture in person, and then had to switch to remote teaching –, so here is my digression from the syllabus, talking about — among other things — why a “V” recovery is not likely, contra Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, et al.
Every recession is different. The recession of 2020 will not be an exception to that rule.
Continue reading