Scott Sumner  

Larry Summers on NGDP targeting

PRINT
Can Inequality Misperceptions ... 3 Answers from Alex Nowrasteh...

Over at TheMoneyIllusion a commenter named Julius Probst told me that he asked Larry Summers about NGDP targeting, and Summers seemed supportive. After I mentioned this in my blog, Politico decided to ask him directly. Here's what they found:

Did Summers, who is likely to have the ear of the next White House if a Democrat wins in 2016, call for a change in how the Fed does business?

We emailed him to check, and he quickly wrote back: "I didn't quite endorse NGDP targeting. I said that I would prefer a shift to NGDP targeting to a shift up in inflation targets."

What does Summers mean by "a shift up in inflation targets?" Over the past few months, a debate has emerged in economics over whether the Fed's 2 percent inflation target should be raised in light of the persistent low levels of inflation in recent years. A higher inflation target would enable the Fed to lower real interest rates further--to -3 percent, for instance, instead of -2 percent--to spur demand in the event of another recession.

Summers argues that an NGDP target is preferable to a higher inflation target for two reasons. "The lower real growth [is], the lower real rates may need to go and [NGDP] unlike pure inflation targeting guarantees this," he wrote. Summers also expressed concern about measuring inflation. He added, "a target that doesn't depend on inflation adjustments" makes more sense.

While Summers isn't endorsing NGDP targeting, he's tiptoeing awfully close to the line. By parsing Summers's words--in particular, the word "quite"--you can tell he's not far off. Adopting NGDP targeting would be a revolutionary change for the Fed, and Summers's almost-backing is indicative of the speed at which it's gaining supporters.

The NGDP debate stems from the emerging concern that the powerful Fed hasn't quite been powerful enough to sustain a strong recovery. The Fed cut short-term rates to zero, for instance, but that wasn't enough to snap the economy out of its prolonged slump. The Fed also used unconventional policies such as "quantitative easing" -- the purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury bills and mortgage-backed securities to lower long-term interest rates. Those all helped, but the recovery has still been slow.

How would NGDP targeting have changed this? It generally doesn't change the tools at the Fed's disposal, like setting short-term interest rates, but it would let the central bank use them more aggressively. Nominal GDP growth has been around 4 percent for the past five years. Under a 5 percent NGDP target, the Fed would have had to loosen policy even further, perhaps by increasing its asset purchases. If inflation suddenly increased, nominal GDP growth, by definition, would rise as well, requiring the Fed to tighten policy to fulfill its mandate. In both cases, proponents say, the Fed would be creating a more stable macroeconomic environment.

Summers isn't in office, true, but few economists have his academic pedigree and his influence in Washington. In January, he co-authored a report for the Center for American Progress that is widely considered to be a preview of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's economic platform. Summers himself nearly became Fed Chair last year but Obama ultimately nominated Janet Yellen after Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other liberal senators opposed Summers's nomination.

If anyone could move this idea from the classroom to reality, it would be Summers. That might not be too far away.


Comments and Sharing


CATEGORIES:




COMMENTS (6 to date)
Michael writes:

Still missing that one vital word -- "level". It's not clear from Summers whether that is what he meant, but from the third-to-last paragraph it is clearly not what Politico took him to mean.

Benjamin Cole writes:

Print more money.

Mike Sax writes:

Ok, NGDP targeting may be an idea whose time is coming.

Which has never been something I disagreed with in any case-it does seem like it's an improvement over inflation targeting. My disagreements with you are elsewhere.

Just think, Summmers could have been the big man at the Fed.

E. Harding writes:
What does Summers mean by "a shift up in inflation targets?" Over the past few months, a debate has emerged in economics over whether the Fed's 2 percent inflation target should be raised in light of the persistent low levels of inflation in recent years.
-How about starting by meeting the 2% target?
maynardGkeynes writes:

I think the boundary condition is whether the public is getting upset enough to elect another party into power. If inflation is 1% and NGDP is up 5%, you get to hold your seat in the Senate, the HR, or the WH. If inflation is 4%, and NGDP is up 5%, you get to look for a new job. So basically, it's NGDP targeting until inflation gets above the level that voters rebel.(I'll hazard a guess of 3.5%). Which means they can talk all they want about NGDP targeting, buy in the end, it's inflation targeting, because the politics are pretty dismal.

Scott Sumner writes:

Maynard, I think it's just the opposite, the public prefers stable NGDP to stable inflation. See my next post.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top