I have a lot of sympathy for pen-wielding strategists at the moment. Every day the empty white sheet of digital paper is staring at them, the little cursor tauntingly flickering in the top-left corner. The most obvious course of action, to copy-paste their previous note, is just about the only thing they can’t do. We economists at least have a steady flow of new data, however mundane and useless, to write about. In other words, the main questions remain the same, and they remain largely unanswered. Economic activity has collapsed, and is now staging what appears to be a painfully slow rebound. Even in the best of worlds, however, it’s difficult to escape the notion that significant damage has been wrought in on both the demand and supply-side. This puts equities on the spot. A reflexive rebound from the nadir in March was always coming, but could it be sustained, and would we re-test the lows? In a normal recession the answer to those questions would be “no” and “yes”, but there is nothing normal about this recession. U.S. equities have roared higher, and the ubiquitous growth stocks, which outperformed before, are leading the charge again. The S&P 500 growth index is up a cool 32% from its March lows, and is now flat year-to-date. By contrast, the S&P value index is up “just” 21% from the lows, and are still carrying a 20% loss year-to-date.
Read MoreMany investors understandably remain focused on the rally in equities, probably with a mix of satisfaction and astonishment. As interesting as the virus-defying rise in equities is, though, the real story this week has been in U.S. rates, Let me explain. It started with analysts suddenly remembering that trying to shield the economy from the Covid-19 induced lockdowns is going to cost money. Markets’ memory was stirred by the U.S. Treasury announcing that it is planning to place $3T worth of debt in Q2 alone, a cool 14% of GDP, and that’s probably just the beginning. The initial response by many analysts was to extrapolate to a depreciation of the dollar. After all, that’s an awful lot of currency that Uncle Sam will need to produce, assuming that is, that the Fed is going to stand up and be counted. As I argued in my day-job, that reaction was surprising to me. After all, it’s not as if European governments won’t have to dig deep either, and it’s not clear to me that the race to throw money at Covid-19 favours a bet against the dollar. In any case, before we get to currencies, the incoming tsunami of U.S. debt issuance is also, obviously, important for fixed income, and in a world of uncertainty, I am happy to report that the movie currently on offer is one that we have seen before.
Read MoreThe idea of government intervention and demand-side fiscal stimulus was born by Keynes, eradicated by neoclassical economics, lazily reintroduced by the new Keynesians, and is now enjoying a renaissance. It’s fiendishly difficult to judge history in real time, but I would bet that the current shift has momentum, a position that has been strengthened by the response to the Covid-19 crisis. It is perhaps unfair to insist on a marriage between this story and MMT, but it serves as an introduction to the issues at hand. The idea that governments with sovereign Chartalist currencies can’t run out of money, and that this power should be used to achieve full employment, is enticing. It is also, however, naive. MMT easily dodges the main theoretical critique, at least in the current environment. The Phillips Curve probably still exists, but it has also flattened significantly, making it difficult to attack MMT armed with the traditional trade-off between unemployment and inflation. If MMT passes this first test, however, it fails the subsequent trials. The implementation of MMT in today’s economy requires significant shifts in the relationship between fiscal and monetary policymakers and an end to the free flow of capital. My sense is that about half the proponents of the theory don’t have a clue about any of this. The other half understands that MMT requires an end to central bank independence, and a significant reduction in capital mobility. The problem is that this latter group aren’t being honest, and for that reason, I am skeptical about their true motivation. If you want to dial back globalization, the least you can do is to be honest about what this means for households and firms. If you think that an independent central bank is a suboptimal institution, how will the alternative look, and how will it be held accountable?
Read MoreOne of the enduring discourses of our time is the idea that something is terribly wrong, with political and cultural life, with the economy, and with nature itself. The message varies, but the main message is the same. The (liberal) world order—as we have come to know it since WW2, and latterly 1989—is coming to an end, a message usually delivered with a ‘good riddance’ attached at the end, for effect. The edifice, we are told, is imploding under the weight of the decadence and complacency of centrists, citizens of nowhere, and globalists, and other similarly-spirited foul. They have dominated for too long, and must now do one thing, and one thing only; repent, and pay, for their sins. The story looks different depending on the perspective from which it is being told, though I reckon it’s possible to identify two broad categories, which have, by now, become clichés in their own right. The left-wing critique tends to home in on two scourges of our time; inequality and climate change. These can be solved by expropriating the wealth of the haves, which will be distributed to the have-nots, and by halting damaging economic activity to protect the planet. The right-wing version is a nationalist protest, rallying in opposition to hitherto staples of global prosperity such as globalisation, international interdependence and multilateralism. The election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in the U.K. are most often trotted out as examples of this movement.
Read More