The Fed's Balance Sheet: Size and Composition

Here's an illustration of the Fed's balance sheet from the Cleveland Fed.

A lot of talk has focused on the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet since Sept 2008. The big question: why no inflation? Bob Higgs writes:

Ordinarily, one would have expected this development to produce hyperinflation of the general price level. However, the price level has increased quite moderately, and for a while many analysts warned that deflation was the greater risk. [...] Not only has hyperinflation failed to appear; even garden-variety inflation of prices in general has been extremely low by the standard of recent decades.
[...]
The most obvious answer, of course, is that the banks are simply sitting on the reserves, rather than lending them to customers. And why are they doing so? The usual answer is that since late 2008, the Fed has paid the banks a rate of interest on their reserves at the Fed. This interest rate has recently been in the range 0-0.25 percent. Although this is not nothing, it verges very closely on nothing. And if one notes that the purchasing power of money has fallen at least a bit, it is clear that the banks are realizing a negative real rate of return on their holdings of excess reserves at the Fed.
[...]
Moreover, they are doing so notwithstanding that they appear to have the option of lending at 3.25 percent to their best corporate customers and at higher rates to their less creditworthy customers.

So we haven't seen much inflation yet. But if (when?) banks start lending out reserves, we should see it pick up. Right?

Good question. The standard view is that the Fed can simply sell its assets to keep the money supply from expanding when the money multiplyer picks up. But the Fed's balance sheet ain't what it used to be. It is not only larger, but also differs in terms of composition. Note that traditional security holdings have actually fallen since Dec 2007. The net increase stems from loans to financial institutions in 2008 and 2009 (much of which has already been repaid) and then large scale asset purchase programs associated w/ Freddie and Fannie starting around Jan 2009. The Fed can certainly sell these assets. But at what price? Will they be able to suck up enough money when the time comes? We will soon find out.

Addendum: Check out this Barron's article by Walker Todd and Bill Ford.

The SPEA Research Paper Series

The series is now available online through SSRN. Here is the announcement, but I think they should have led with something about Lin Ostrom's papers being available through the series:

INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON: SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES
View Abstracts: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Indiana-U-Bloomington-Public-Enviro-PUB.html
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Indiana-U-Bloomington-Public-Enviro-PUB

The Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) is a world leader in public affairs and the environmental sciences and is the largest school of public affairs in the United States. In the most recent "Best Graduate Schools" rankings by U.S. News & World Report, SPEA ranked second and was the nation's highest-ranked graduate program in public affairs at a public institution. The School's curriculum and research are distinguished by a vigorous interdisciplinary approach to education and problem-solving. SPEA will celebrate its 40th anniversary in 2012. The SPEA working papers series eJournal contains works in progress from our faculty.

Lucas on the Recovery

Robert Lucas gave a talk recently at University of Washington on Macroeconomic recovery in the US. His slides are available.

Lucas argues that, by imitating European policies on labor markets, welfare, and taxes, the U.S. has chosen a new, lower GDP trend. If this is correct, the weak recovery we have had so far may be all the recovery we will get. He uses these two slides to support his argument. The first shows the spread in growth rates which Lucas describes as the cost of the welfare state--note the lower trend for most of Europe. The second shows the US recovery in the recent recession.

What do you think?

[HT: PJB]

GeoFRED

I just learned about GeoFRED, which allows one to create maps shaded to reflect Federal Reserve Economic Data. (Justin, Matt: Tax collections by state are available in a variety of categories.) This could be a useful addition to classroom or public lectures.

Blockquoting X

X = Ben Bernanke.

The reason the Federal Reserve was founded a century ago was to try to address the problems arising from financial panics, which did, by the way, occur in an unregulated environment in the 19th century.

Discuss.

The Political Economy of Coin Images

This story is old news-- a combination of free shipping on U.S. Mint coins and credits cards giving frequent flyer miles for spending yields free flights-- but this bit was new to me:

Native American coins bear the likeness of Lewis and Clark guide Sacagewea. By law, Sacagewea must appear on one in every five dollar coins manufactured, the legacy of political dealings on Capitol Hill.

The latest example of Luther's Juicing the Mitchell...

...and not a moment too soon!

Line of the Day: China

China has no fewer than 428 think tanks involved in policy formulation—a number second only to the United States.

That's from a bit on China's foreign policy in the Boston Globe.

Math in Sports

Here's a bit from Bill Simmons' new writing project (the piece is not by him). It feels familiar. Some thoughts:

1. I've never understood sabermetrics to be about "solving" sports. It's a tool to gain an edge on some margin by which you generate for yourself an information advantage. Sports and management decisions are not solvable; find an edge, exploit it.

2. Sabermetrics developed with baseball; it's evolution into basketball and football seems to overlook the nature of separability in the baseball production function (and the lack thereof in the production functions for basketball and football). I'm not sure that this is completely intractable but it's a hurdle, and not an insignificant one. "Finding the right metrics" in basketball and football doesn't get at the root issue.

3. Since we're here-- here's the trailer for Moneyball. Jonah Hill playing Paul DePodesta (I understand he's a composite of individuals, but nonetheless) has to be one of the most surprising movie castings in recent memory, though the more I consider it, I think it may work out well. And is it mandatory that Kevin Costner be cast in any and all movies concerning baseball?

Blockquoting Whom?

Can you guess which Nobel Laureate recently penned...errr typed...these words?

The trick, always, is not to take your equilibrium stories too seriously, to understand that they’re aids to insight, not Truths; given that, I don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with using equilibrium analysis.

If the hint didn't give it away, follow the link or check below the fold.

+/-

Paul Krugman

Q & A

Here's a Q & A I did concerning the gambling work I've been doing and will be doing.

A few betting market notes...

Here's a fantastic story-- in 2003, a Mr. Nick Newlife put £1,520 at 66-to-1 odds that Roger Federer would win seven Wimbledon titles. (He currently stands at 6.) Unfortunately, in 2009, our bettor passed away...yet made the appropriate arrangements for his bet to be claimed should it pay off. Should Federer get his seventh, Oxfam benefits to the tune of £101,840.

Also-- here's a brief summary of our latest work on MLB betting markets.

On Hayek's Proposal

My colleague Nick Snow asks, "What's so funny about peace, love, and a free market in money?" He uncovers this 1977 WSJ article, where Hayek presents his Denationalisation of Money proposal to a wider audience.

I have written critically on Hayek's proposal. Nicolas Cachanosky provides a summary of my paper.

Before asking whether there is something funny about a free market in money, a distinction should be made between inside and outside money. Under free banking, private banks provide inside money (banknotes and demand deposits) redeemable for the prevailing outside money (gold and/or silver, historically). Under central banking, private banks provide inside money (demand deposits) redeemable for the prevailing outside money (Federal Reserve notes).

After making this distinction, it is possible to see what is so funny about Hayek’s proposal. He wants private issuers to provide outside money. He wants the monetary system to work without the very constraint that made episodes of free banking successful: a contractual obligation to redeem notes for some scarce commodity. That, I believe, is laughable.

The Future Monetary System of Zimbabwe

I blogged recently about Zimbabwe's now defunct 100-trillion-dollar note. Currently, citizens of Zimbabwe are free to use US Dollars and South African Rand for their transactions. Since inflationary finance and seigniorage are often key political tools in developing countries, one should not be surprised if Zim notes make a return in the near future. New Zimbabwe reports:

Finance minister Tendai Biti says the country needs at least six months import cover and a sustainable track-record of economic growth, inflation stability and above 60 percent capacity utilisation in industry before the Zim dollar can be brought back into circulation.

However central bank chief, Dr Gideon Gono said the country should consider adopting a gold-backed currency.“There is a need for us to begin thinking seriously and urgently about introducing a Gold-backed Zimbabwe currency which will not only stable but internationally acceptable,” he said in an interview with state media.

Whether Zimbabwe will adopt a commodity-backed system remains to be seen. I think it is highly unlikely. But it is encouraging to see that option on the table.

Blockquoting X

X = Hal Varian:

But where to get ideas, that's the question. Most graduate students are convinced that the way you get ideas is to read journal articles. But in my experience journals really aren't a very good source of original ideas. You can get lots of things from journal articles--technique, insight, even truth. But most of the time you will only get someone else's ideas. True, they may leave a few loose ends lying around that you can pick up on, but the reason they are loose is probably that the author thought about them a while and couldn't figure out what to do with them or decided they were too tedious to bother with--which means that it is likely that you will find yourself in the same situation.

My suggestion is rather different: I think that you should look for your ideas outside the academic journals--in newspapers, in magazines, in conversations, and in TV and radio programs. When you read the newspaper, look for the articles about economics...and then look at the ones that aren't about economics, because lots of the time they end up being about economics too. Magazines are usually better than newspapers because they go into issues in more depth. On the other hand, a shallower analysis may be more stimulating: there's nothing like a fallacious argument to stimulate research.

Emily Skarbek on Reason TV

Blockquoting X

X = John Taylor, as quoted in this WSJ article on Zimbabwe's now-defunct 100-trillion-dollar note:

No self-respecting monetary economist goes around without a 100-trillion-dollar note.

Being a trillionaire ain't what it used to be.

[HT: Dan Smith]

Blockquoting X

X = J. Bradford Delong:

The fact is that we need fewer efficient-markets theorists and more people who work on microstructure, limits to arbitrage, and cognitive biases. We need fewer equilibrium business-cycle theorists and more old-fashioned Keynesians and monetarists. We need more monetary historians and historians of economic thought and fewer model-builders. We need more Eichengreens, Shillers, Akerlofs, Reinharts, and Rogoffs – not to mention a Kindleberger, Minsky, or Bagehot.

I am pleasantly surprised that he feels this way.

What I've Been Writing

In my latest working paper, I consider the debate between Friedman and Hayek in the 1970s and 1980s following the publication of Hayek's Denationalisation of Money. Here's the abstract:

Hayek (1976, 1978, 1984, 1990) is often credited with the resurgence of interest in alternative monetary systems. His own proposal, however, received sharp criticism from Friedman (1984), Fischer (1986), and others at the outset and never gained much support among academic economists or the wider population. According to Friedman, Hayek erred in believing that the mere admission of competing private currencies will spontaneously generate a more stable monetary system. In Friedman’s view, network effects, to use the modern term, discourage an alternative system from emerging in general and prevent Hayek’s system from functioning as desired in particular. I offer new evidence provided by recent events in Somalia as support for Friedman’s initial doubts.

As some of you will no doubt recognize, this builds on my earlier work with Larry White.

Did Intrade Forsee Bin Laden's Capture?

Intrade might have foreseen the capture of Saddam Hussein, but it doesn't look like that was the case this time:

And the prediction market doesn't appear to be waiting around for a long-form death certificate to close the deal.