Categories
Economics Humor

[2656] Chinese New Year to cause a recession in Kuala Lumpur

With Chinese New Year being just around the corner, many are expected to leave Kuala Lumpur behind to visit families and relatives who live outside of the city for a week or so. Many of those living or working in the city have left the city.

With the Chinese forming more than 40% of the population of Kuala Lumpur, and possibly with others who may just take the opportunity to travel out, the city is poised to suffer from a massive demand and supply shocks. Without any intervention from the relevant authority, the economy of Kuala Lumpur is expected to go into recession this week and the next.

Keynesian economists are already in panic mode and they are pushing the City Hall to expand government expenditure to combat the expected sudden output loss. The City Hall has indicated that it is prepared to spend more on mobile toilets. In a surprising turnaround, the City Hall has invited Bersih to hold a big clean election rally to boost demand for security and sanitation services.

As a concession to the supply-side economists, the City Hall is incorporating tax cuts within the city. The authority is also prepared to increase immigration quotas to combat the supply shock. Indeed, the City Hall is in close contact with Sabah state government to import excess labor that is prevalent in the state to the east.

The demand and supply shocks are expected to bring about deflation even as unemployment rate remains low. There is a labor shortage in fact.

While the monetarists are silent on the supply side of the problem, they are advocating the central bank to reduce the policy rate as quickly as possible. To avoid complication that arises when the rate reaches the zero lower bound, a group of monetarists calling themselves market monetarists are demanding the central bank to guarantee certain nominal gross domestic product growth. The central bank appears reluctant to set such an explicit target but in a recent press conference, the governor has hinted that the bank is prepared to minimize fluctuation in the aggregate demand.

Amid the calls for government action, there are groups which are vehemently against any stimulus. The real business cycle economists, educated at various freshwater schools, insist that there is nothing the government and the central bank can do. “The economy will be at its optimal path. In fact, the economy has always been at its optimal path. Any attempt by the government will cause the economy to deviate away from its stable state. And after all, a majority of people are going on a holiday. I fail to see why that is even a problem,” said an economist at a domestic bank. He refused to be named in fear of backlash from the establishment which might not take diverging views too kindly.

Meanwhile, Austrians criticize the manipulation of monetary policy and assert that it will cause future recession. “The only real way to prevent future recession is to prevent the central bank from playing with the rates. We should back money with gold and other precious metals,” said an Austrian economist seen holding F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Another proponent of gold standard coming from Islamic school of thought agreed. “Besides, it is haraam that we make money out of money. A gold standard will kill off a system of interest rate by reducing the possibility of inflation.”

A Marxist was quick to add, ”Capitalism is corrupt. This coming recession will see the collapse of capitalism. I have been saying this since 1990s. Some have been saying this since 1930s. Since 1867, in fact. You just wait and see.”

Economists from major schools of economics were seen rolling their eyes. “There are reasons why Marxist, Austrian and Islamic economics are heterodox economics. They’re nuts. We lived through the 1930s but these people are stuck in the past. These people have no idea what they are talking about.”

Private economists expect the domestic economy to recover completely by March as Kuala Lumpur experiences reversed migration flow after Chinese New Year end.

Economists however warned Kuala Lumpur may suffer from another recession in August, when Muslims in the city will celebrate the end of Ramadan. “There are just too many holidays in Malaysia. The government should really stop introducing new holidays every year. The government should stop interfering with the holiday market. It’s recessionary, every time,” said the freshwater economist. He suggested that we do away with holidays. ”But I don’t think it will ever happen. At least not before the election. Everybody loves holidays. Any politician who dares to take away those holidays will lose his or her seat.”

Categories
Economics

[2562] A time for fiscal expansion at no cost, a challenge to minarchism

This economic crisis is a challenge to advocates of small government, especially for those who establish their argument based on finance. Even those who ground their position on something more profound like libertarians are being challenged simply out of the practicality of the situation.

The situation is that the cost of borrowing for several governments with debt considered as flight-to-safety grade like the US Treasuries and the German Bunds are very low now. For some, it is more or less zero.

Risk-averse investors really have nowhere to go and the supply for such fixed-income assets is limited. Demand for such assets will continue to outstrip supply in this situation of widespread economic crisis and yields will likely continue to suffer from downward pressure as individuals, firms, central banks and foreign governments bid the prices of these bonds up.

Cases of negative yields in real terms are aplenty. More profoundly, there have been cases of negative yields even in nominal terms. The Danish and the Swiss bonds are two examples where purchasers pay the government to borrow money from the purchasers. This does not happen too often. The market is saying, just take my money and keep it safe; we will pay you to do that.

In such cases, it is probably optimal for governments to borrow so much money and it does not matter if they actually do not need the money. Just borrow and store it somewhere. And if the relevant government has plan that has been delayed due to funding requirement, then this is the time to do it. With zero yields, financing is free. With negative yields, governments get paid to finance the project.

So, the relevant countries, this trend can be used to massively boost government spending and indeed, this can be a Keynesian case for fiscal expansion. There is no cost to it, at least, in the near future. This suspends the crowding out effect that is embedded in mainstream macroeconomic theories.

With the current situation, advocates of small government have to rely on long-run structural argument. The unfortunate thing with long-run argument is that it is describing a situation so far into the future, that it is hard to capture the imagination of enough persons. To most people, what is real is what they see.

And yields on various governments are zero. And judging from the look of it, increased government spending is unlikely to push yields up by a significant margin.

Categories
Economics Pop culture

[2354] Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

Categories
Economics Education

[2283] Of my issues with introductory macroeconomics

Although normatively one should not judge a book by its cover, positively, first impression matters. The first few lessons in economics are likely to affect a person’s perspective on the roles of government. Those who are familiar with economics and who ended up skeptical with the concept of activist government have to suffer those first lessons that suggest increased government spending in the economy is good.

Introductory macroeconomics at the undergraduate level typically presents the Keynesian consensus quite forcefully. Students tend to spend considerable amount of time studying the mechanics of simple IS-LM. The simplified model, while useful as a primer and for the cultivation of understanding in the workings of the economy, tends to overemphasize the effectiveness of government spending in the economy. In the jargons of macroeconomics for example, increase (decrease) in government spending positively (negatively) shifts the IS curve to increase (decrease) aggregate demand that eventually increases (decreases) economy-wide output, given all else the same.

Other complications do get introduced to shake that ceteris paribus assumption by a bit like the crowding out effect of higher interest rate on other components of the GDP and the dynamic of monetary policy. Here, for the first time, macroeconomics cautions students that sometimes, the effect of change in government spending can be ambiguous.

Add more complications and only then, government spending can be bad. Unfortunately, by adding more and more complications, the pedagogic value becomes marginal, making it wise for teachers of introductory macroeconomics to stop at the level where the lesson of the semester suggests that government spending is largely favorable.

By the time simple complications such as monetary policy are introduced, the perception that government is almighty will already have been ingrained in students. Consider the Keynesian multiplier. Students will learn this concept early, well before greater realism appears in the picture. Specifically, it is the idea that an increase in government spending has amplifying impact on total output, never mind that the rate of the multiplier itself is controversial.

My biggest grip has always been the silence regarding government finance. Increased government spending has to be funded. This concern is only answered at the later stage of introductory course, where Ricardian equivalence is finally mentioned. When it is mentioned however, it sounds like a minor curiosity only.

Given the bias, it is a miracle how anybody could finish undergraduate economics and become skeptical of government spending being the panache to short-term economic fluctuation.

Categories
Economics Humor

[2271] Of Obama is not a Keynesian, he’s an American damnit

Hahaha via Greg Mankiw.

This takes the cake.

Agitated woman: Why, why do you have the sign?

Man: Arr… do you disagree with it?

Agitated woman: …that he’s Keynesian, that he’s like not American. Is that what you’re saying?

Man: Well, we’re… we’re asking a question.