Speculation vs. Actual Investments - The Carrot and the Stick

Paul Krugman takes a stand in support of taxing financial transactions. He mentions activities in the financial sector that Adair Turner referred to as "socially useless", meaning especially speculation. I'm all any means of reducing excessive speculation, if a workable solution can be found.

On the other hand, there could be more talk about encouraging more socially useful activities. Investment must be directed away from speculative secondary markets and into primary markets that create new real assets.

There was a failed attempt at getting tax relief for "angel investors" in Finland. The idea was quite sensibly dropped, because an "angel investor" is not a concept that anybody is able to define in a watertight manner in a legal sense.

So I thought: Why not give a tax relief to all capital gains income from first resales of stock that was bought in an issue. Thus, the original holder of any newly issued equity would have a favorable treatment. This would both create an incentive for participating in stock issues and a disincentive for giving up the original ownership.

This would encourage people to invest in newly started or growing businesses. It would also encourage companies to acquire new capital, thus acting as a disincentive for excessive leverage.

As a bonus, there would be no need to define any ambiguous terms like "angel investor".

Bubbles, Unemployment and Fiscal Stimulus

Paul Krugman, is trying to fight for the usefulness of fiscal stimulus in mitigating unemployment.

Ryan Avent has some fairly harsh words for Arnold Kling’s recalculation theory of business cycles. Tyler Cowen, predictably, thinks Ryan is too snide.

But what none of the participants in the debate seem to realize is that Arnold is basically reinventing 1934 macroeconomics.

[...]

It’s all there: mass unemployment is necessary, because you have to shift resources away from sectors that got too big, stimulus is a bad thing because it slows the necessary adjustment. And now as then, the whole notion falls apart when you ask why, say, a housing boom — which requires shifting resources into housing — doesn’t produce the same kind of unemployment as a housing bust that shifts resources out of housing.

Both booms and busts involve shifting of resources between sectors. This much is self evident. It would be stupid to try to deny that. This doesn't mean that the unemployment should not be alleviated at all.

Krugman unfortunately makes a complete fool of himself in the last paragraph. Of course booms don't involve unemployment. In a boom, the driving force of inter-sectoral adjustment is a surge in demand. In a bust, the cause is a collapse of demand.

In a boom, the workforce moves behind the pull of opportunity. This was clearly visible in the flow of newly minted real estate brokers who were encouraged to leave their prior jobs in search of bubble-induced income. In a bust, the realignment is caused by a push-type phenomenon. (Or is it a kick?)

This is such an elementary thing that I can only wonder what Mr. Krugman has been smoking while writing that last paragraph.

To clarify, my own view is that increasing unemployment can hardly be completely avoided in a major bust of a bubble, but that government projects can (and should) be brought forward to mitigate it, if only to make use of the suddenly cheap labor and raw materials. Busts clearly have effects on people who were not directly involved in the bubble and an uncontrolled collapse is bad for everybody.

Equally, I believe that fiscal measures might even be appropriate in controlling the growth of a bubble. Additional small taxes on house-flippers (say for houses bought and sold within 12 months) could have helped slow down the development of the housing bubble. Additionally, it could have provided a larger cushion for the inevitable fiscal collapse.

In both ends of the boom-bust cycle, monetary policy should be the primary means ahead of fiscal measures. In this sense, the QE policies should go even further, as there is a lot of credit that is (and should be) paid down.

This collapsing credit can be replaced with base money even if the money multiplier has collapsed to unity. Instead of "mopping up the liquiduidity", central banks should bring back meaningful cash reserve requirements (to all bank-like entities) after the economy has recovered from the excess of credit. This would naturally will be fought against tooth and nail by the financial sector.

Rational Expectations in a Recession

Paul Krugman wrote a (bit self-serving) post about the differences of viewpoints between the "saltwater" and "freshwater" economists in the US.

In this article there is one bit of economic orthodoxy that I don't quite get:

Think about the story of unemployment I’ve just described. It’s a story in which a contraction in the money supply can produce a recession – but only as long as people don’t know that there’s a recession! You see, if people do know that there’s a recession, they know that the low prices they’re being offered reflect low overall demand, not specifically low demand for their products.

I'd say that en expectation of a smooth change in the overall price level in a recession is certainly not what anybody would expect in a recession.

When the general population hears the word "recession" they think of an economic disturbance. This disturbance manifests itself as a shock-wave. In this wave, most of the people quite rationally anticipate a possible loss of income, which can be passed on to expenses only with a considerable delay.

This anticipation causes people to cut down on spending, which just reinforces the initial drop in demand. It's the prisoner's dilemma with millions of participants. Betting against the shock-wave would not be too rational.

This phenomenon is not that different from a "traffic wave" that can bring a whole highway to a complete standstill even if there is no apparent reason whatsoever. However, it is quite rational to expect congestion in dense traffic, because it happens.

These kinds of issues make the economic models that assume perfection for human beings quite dangerous. As can be seen in the video of traffic waves below, even small human errors accumulate to drastic disturbances in a tightly coupled system.



To mitigate these problems, "shock-absorbers" should be built into the economy. These absorbers would eat some of the efficiency of the system. On the other hand, so do shock absorbers in vehicle suspension, if the focus is on the short term. (Shock absorbers actually do increase the initial impact of a pothole.) We really have to reach a better trade-off between efficiency and reliability in the financial system.

These economic shock absorbers could take the form of increased transaction costs, or possibly taxation of capital gains that would discourage short-term gains.

Paradox of Thrift, Savings and Investment

There was such a great comment by reader "es" on a post about the paradox of thrift at Paul Krugman's blog that I just have to copy it here verbatim.

Krugman:

The story behind the paradox of thrift goes like this. Suppose a large group of people decides to save more. You might think that this would necessarily mean a rise in national savings. But if falling consumption causes the economy to fall into a recession, incomes will fall, and so will savings, other things equal. This induced fall in savings can largely or completely offset the initial rise.

Which way it goes depends on what happens to investment, since savings are always equal to investment. If the central bank can cut interest rates, investment and hence savings may rise. But if the central bank can’t cut rates — say, because they’re already zero — investment is likely to fall, not rise, because of lower capacity utilization. And this means that GDP and hence incomes have to fall so much that when people try to save more, the nation actually ends up saving less.

"es":

Okay, I admit I don’t really understand this. I always seem to get hung up on S = I (Savings equals Investment). What would happen if you worked from the hypothesis that S = I + W, with W standing for Waste? Sure it muddies things, because it’s hard to weight whatever you are measuring as to its true productivity. But this is reality. When the old paradigm doesn’t work, or leads to paradox, you have to question your basic assumptions. Not all savings lead to purposeful investment. Witness the proverbial gold under the mattress. Witness wheat put by for a bad harvest and then mouldering in a badly maintained storage facility. Check out the over-elaborate plastic toys that over-stimulate and maybe poison our already hyper-active children. Especially pertinent, witness a population underfed and under educated and inadequately protected from disease to guard against the future possibility of debt.

Already in your columns I see you speaking of saving and investment as different entities, and then when you get “wonkish” (I guess you mean mathematical) you fall back to S = I.

I recommend that you assign a graduate student to work on the need to incorporate more variables into the S=I axiom. It might get him a Nobel prize, or save the world, or something.

I just love the snark in that last paragraph.

Of course, the identity of savings and investment doesn't make any common sense, but since when such a thing has been expected of economic theory?

I'm not sure either if it makes any sense to think of this identity in terms of any units of currency, but in addition to the waste term on the right, there should at least be a term for credit expansion on the left. I would also amend the equation to

S + C = I + W,

where C is the net amount of credit creation. Of course this equation is not a real equation. There are severe time lags in all the processes that are part of it. It can only be discussed in a statistical sense:

E[S + C] = E[I + W],

where E denotes the expected value. In addition to a temporal sense for this statistical dependence, one must also think about the ensemble statistics to account for people with different concepts for value, etc.

Credit has the ability to create investment without any net savings. Somebody gets into debt, which is equivalent to negative saving. Somebody else gets the loaned sum of money, and decides to save it. The net savings are zero.

However, there would have possibly been an investment that was made with the borrowed money. All is well, as long as the debtor pays the money back. Credit is a form of delayed savings. Investment is made first, then come the savings, little by little.

Problems occur when too much credit is extended. What if there is no income from which to save? People default on their loans. Oops... Now (nominal) investment has been much higher that the "savings" from which it was supposedly made. Savings are actually smaller than investment.

This is where the identity asserts itself with a lag. The value of savings increases while the value of investment decreases. Result: deflation.