Daily Archives: January 1, 2016

Kalecki plotted Central Banks’ actual course.

The rate of interest, or income tax, is reduced in a slump, but not increased in the subsequent boom. In this case, the boom will last longer, but it must end in a new slump: one reduction in the rate of interest or income tax does not, of course, eliminate the forces which cause cyclical fluctuations in a capitalist economy. In the new slump, it will be necessary to reduce the rate of interest or income tax again and so on.

Thus in the not too remote future, the rate of interest would have to be negative, and income tax would have to be replaced by an income subsidy. The same would arise if it were attempted to maintain full employment by stimulating private investment: the rate of interest and income tax would have to be reduced continuously.”

Political aspects of full employment (emphasis mine). M Kalecki. Spring 1942 lecture.

imagesThe quote above is a great synthesis of the actual state of affairs. Obviously, the easy money FED chairs, Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen (not to forget Arthur Burns, the hawk that morphed to Dove/Nixon-puppet) never read that paper. It’s not that this excerpt hasn’t been used before. Brilliant, it cuts to the chase, and therefore it comes as a surprise that it is not well known by mainstream economists. Really the text says it all -when judging economic policy in the last two decades. You just have to combine Kalecki’s implied prognosis for an easy money policy (lowering rates ends up in increasingly negative rates), with the well-known Von Mises statement about the inevitability of a melt-down after an easy money and credit orgy. Monetary and fiscal policies efficacy, truly revealed.

Seventy-some years after Kalecki wrote that lecture, we are now in the midst of the remote future suggested. We have negative rates spreading around, and income tax is about to be compensated with an entitlement scheme for every single citizen -in countries with an outstanding economic reputation. No other government than Finland is now suggesting a salary for all (employed or unemployed, rich or poor) of around 800 dollars a month, for a final cost of 20% of GDP annually, and coming close to the income levels of public sectors in Japan or the US. We are not far from Kalecki’s prediction of paying out in entitlements more than what we obtain with taxation. Yet this is only the beginning. Helicopter money and nirping of our savings (outlawing the use of cash just to make sure negative rates do their job) are being actively discussed. QE for the people (a nice slogan for a viral strain of “helicopter money”) is increasingly being touted as the new tool of (delusive) economic policy. The apex of economic madness it must all be. If not, what else (hat tip: Nespresso)?

b2ac113cdd5fc256ce2a4e43ecd3da41What’s to follow next? Indefinite incrementally higher negative rates (lower rates again and again), and more and higher out payments financed with helicopter money?  Do we have a roadmap to economic heaven?

To heaven, it sure will not be, but more likely to Dante Alighieri’s description of the reading on Hell’s entrance (“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate“). I must have seen that reading before (maybe in a previous incarnation I can’t remember) because it has been some time now since I ran out of hope that we could gradually solve our economic quandaries. Of course, we can live without hope if we are aged enough. But can millennials do well at that?

freedom of choiceFiscal stimulus (lowering taxes or increasing public expenditure above the government income level), and/or monetary stimulus (more money, cheaper money, or both) are a self-defeating strategy in the long run. By now even mainstream economists begin to grasp the inevitability of the route described by Kalecki. He really thought that fiscal spending stimulus (as opposed to lowering taxes) could do better than tax reduction stimulation. Maybe, but the dead end is equally clear to me. Overspending, relative to public budget income levels (be it lowering taxes or increasing public expenditure), or easy money, always end up somewhere in the Kalecki path. So much for Keynesian stimulus. To corroborate that, just ask the Finns in a couple of years. Continue reading