The government’s sudden decision on Saturday to substantially close the border seems to have jolted some towards realising just how serious the coming economic dislocation is. But it has also led to a plethora of comments suggesting that the “border closure” is itself the cause of, or trigger for, the dislocation and huge loss of income and output that is coming. It wasn’t. As is well known, willingness to travel internationally was drying up anyway, and was only likely to drop further, amid the progress of the virus and the skyrocketing levels of fear and uncertainty. Only the marginal additional effect of the border closure, over and above what was already happening any way, is really relevant to assessing the cost of that particular policy.
Personally, I’m still a bit sceptical about border closures now, which seem more akin to political theatre than to serious policy (with hindsight the one – simply impossible to conceive – border closure that would have made sense would have been for China to have closed its border, in and out, in November). But unless they distract attention, including media coverage and analysis, from the real and bigger issues I guess at this point they don’t do much harm either.
On the other hand, there has still been a real reluctance to grasp just how deep and long that economic shutdown/dislocation seems likely to be. There was the absurdist extreme this morning of the (overwhelmed?) Reserve Bank Governor who was reluctant to even concede a recession. But if the Prime Minister – who is usually hopeless on matters economic, including in her Q&A interview yesterday – and the Minister of Finance have been less bad than that, they’ve still refused to level with the public, in ways that leave one wondering whether even they have yet grasped what we’ve found ourselves in so quickly.
Thus, it was good on Saturday to hear the Prime Minister articulate the “flatten the curve” strategy, but neither she nor any other public figure I’ve seen or heard from has been willing to recognise that if we do flatten the curve a lot, whether by border closures or (more probably) physical distancing, there is no quick or easy exit strategy: in some form or another, perhaps varying through time, the restrictions and behavioural changes (compulsory or voluntary) have to be in place for a long time, unless/until (say) a widespread vaccine is available. That means a huge economic cost, and huge economic uncertainty, for the (uncertain horizon) future. Perhaps it is the only sensible strategy now – notice the pushbacks against the UK “herd immunity”/cocoon the elderly notions – but how does it feel three months hence? Six months? Nine months? There has been no open discussion of the exit strategy, or the implications economic and social.
It is pretty easy to develop scenarios in which real GDP for the next year could be 25 per cent lower than otherwise. Foreign tourism has evaporated. There’s 5.5 per cent of GDP gone. Perhaps a few more people will holiday locally, but more likely reluctance to travel will keep on diminishing, even if we never quite get to the point of being penned in our homes, even just outside working hours. No new investment project will start, and many of those underway will be halted – whether because of uncertainty, illness, lack of finance, disrupted supply chains or whatever. Housing turnover will dry up. On the expenditure GDP side, investment is about 20 per cent of GDP. Demand for many of our other exports will also weaken – as most every other country battens down and experiences big income losses as well as disrupted distribution channels. Personally, I went to a movie yesterday afternoon, but I doubt I’ll be going to any more for the duration. Restaurant bookings in other countries are plummeting and so on. Lock people down Wuhan style – or have them so fearful they won’t venture out – and of course for a time the losses are even greater.
It is an enormous loss of income and wealth, most of which will never be recouped. Those losses will be borne – the only question is who bears them. That is likely to be some mix of law, canons of fairness/justice, and considerations of economics (what will help us eventually emerge with the least semi-permanent damage).
A key aspect of my approach to this issue is that now is not the time to be encouraging more spending and economic activity. In fact, to do so is likely to run directly counter to the public health imperatives. There will come a time when we do want people to emerge from their shells and be ready, eager, and able to spend. But not only is that time not now, but a realistic take on what “flatten the curve” seems to mean here and abroad, suggests that at best that time will not not be for many months yet.
So talk of stimulus packages is really quite misplaced (much of the Australian package last week will have really just be wasted money). The focus now needs to be on three things in my view:
- basic income support for everyone, whether through companies or through the welfare system,
- throwing all that can usefully be thrown at gearing up health system capability (I have no idea what can actually be done, but the impression so far is that not much has been done, perhaps so as not to muddy the waters of the political message about our “world-class health system”, when it is clear that no health system in the world can cope with very much of this virus at once – another message politicians have not fronted the public with), and
- creating a climate of confidence that in time – as soon as possible, but it won’t be soon – things will get back to normal, including economically, and that the authorities will not stint in helping that happen WHEN THE TIME COMES, which is not now, and cannot be now. Included among the imperatives regarding confidence are things around medium to long term inflation expectations – something the Bank used to like to talk about, until it really mattered – and the assurances it takes to create credit and liquidity available.
So here I want to propose a strategy or framework for approaching the period ahead, the period before there really is light at the end of the coronavirus tunnel. When that light becomes evident, my suggestion of the temporary cut in the rate of GST would be apt, as would a temporary cut in one of the lower income tax bands. A one-off significant lump-sum cash transfer might even have a place. And monetary policy would have been fixed in ways that mean interest and exchange rates strongly accommodate any nascent uptick.
But in the meantime here is something along the lines of what I think needs doing.
First, people keep playing down just how much it matters that monetary policy cannot adjust very much. Even in normal recessions, whether or in the US or elsewhere, cuts in short-term interest rates of 500 basis points or more are quite normal. This economic dislocations seem almost certain to be larger than anything anyone living has ever experienced in countries with their own monetary policy. We simply cannot accept the status quo of an effective lower bound on nominal interest rates not far below zero (let alone the rank incompetence that for now has the RBNZ telling us the floor is 0.25 per cent, because they hadn’t ensured banks could cope with negative rates).
This problem can be solved. The effective lower bound arises because people- and institutions can convert deposits into cash, which yields zero, rather than accept a materially negative interest rate. It isn’t worth doing so – insurance, storage, AML laws etc – for a few tenths of percentage points, but if the OCR were to be set at – 5 per cent (quite plausibly what would be sensible now: there are papers for the US in 2008/09 which suggested -5 per cent would be appropriate then) the general consensus is that such conversion would occur on sufficiently large scale to make it not worth cutting that deeply.
But those restrictions can be eased, temporarily or permanently. If, for example, the banks had to pay a premium of 5 per cent over face value to purchase (net new) notes from the Reserve Bank, they’d be likely to pass that cost on to customers – and particularly to any large customers. If a pension fund (say, and I’m a trustee of two so have thought about these options) considered switching into physical cash and faced a 5 per cent fee, they’d have to think about how long they expected the crisis to last. If they thought it would be largely over this time next year, you’d rather accept a -5 per cent interest rate in a bank that pay the insurance and storage costs on top of the 5 per cent cash fee. It isn’t technically hard to do. It is pretty countercultural – cash and deposits have been essentially interchangeable – but then so is coronavirus and the attendant economic and social disruption. There is a bunch of other ways of achieving much the same effect. They can be done in fairly short order (and announced, for the signalling benefits) even sooner.
Doing so would help ensure we could keep driving the exchange rate down, (as the Governor put it) a standard part of the buffering mechanism in New Zealand. And it would demonstrate to markets, and anyone else paying attention, that New Zealand authorities were absolutely determined to keep medium-term inflation up – in the face, for the next year or so, of an otherwise deeply deflationary shock – which might even lift inflation expectations, but would at least limit further erosion.
This stuff is geeky and may not make much direct sense to the man in the street. But it is a reallly important part of a successful macroeconomic framework. It does not put money in pockets now, but it helps keep the climate right for an effective recovery.
And what it would do is enable us to make a much more brutal and effective start on the appropriate income redistribution to fit the crisis. Interest rates are really a reward for waiting, and for the opportunities used/foregone over periods of time. But for the economy as a whole there really is no value in time at present. And yet we still have deposit and lending rates – even after today’s cut – well above zero. That simply shouldn’t be for the time being.
Of course, there are arguments around negative rates that depositors won’t readily accept negative returns. Those are arguments – mostly about slow adjustment of norms – for relatively stable times, not for the next year or so. What else are the depositors going to do with their money? Extreme risk aversion will deter them from purchasing other assets here, and if they either shift abroad or starting spending either effect works in the macro-stabilising direction.
And on the other hand, in deep recessions servicing burdens for floating rate debt typically plummet. That seems even more imperative than usual (for a recession) now.
In other words, radically lower interest rates would (a) lower the exchange rate, (b) achieve a desirable and typical downturn redistribution from depositors to borrowers, and (c) help create the medium-term confidence in the rate of inflation once we’d emerged. Those are significant gains even if no more overall economic activity is induced right now in the midst of the crisis.
If the Reserve Bank won’t act to do this now – and they’ve shown no sign of any energy thus far, including nothing more than a passing mention in last week’s speech – the Minister of Finance should insist on it, using his existing monetary policy override powers or, if they aren’t enough, passing special legislation.
Consistent with this, the Bank should – and quite possibly will within the next couple of weeks – starting standing in the market offering to purchase any and all government securities at a yield of (for the sake of a round number) 0 per cent. Doing so would not make much difference to short-run economic outcomes – frankly little (other than the virus) will or really should – but it would be a strong signal of how committed the authorities are to avoiding a deflationary shock turned into a deflationary underemployed semi-equilibrium. It would also establish upfront that any bond market disruptions – and there may be more – would not impede the government’s ability to raise whatever it takes over the period ahead. (And for monetary tragics, yes wouldn’t Major Douglas and Bruce Beetham have marvelled to see such an hour).
The second strand of my adjustment package is a proposal for a wage cut, across the board, of (say) 20 per cent for the coming year. Remember that I noted that GDP could easily be 25 per cent lower than otherwise for the year ahead. Someone (lots of people) will bear that loss. Most owners of businesses/shares will take very heavy losses for the time being. Many people face losing their jobs, or being unable to find one (at a mundane level my son, in Year 13, fairly suggested that finding a holiday job next summer, prior to starting university is going to be…..well, challenging). They lose out very heavily (recessions never fall evenly). And at the other extreme, who won’t be losing out at all? That would be the 20 per cent of so of the workforce employed in the public sector, few or whom will face any material risk of redundancy. (And sure, some public sector workers will be working harder than ever, but so will some private sector workers – and in case anyone thinks this is beating up on public servants, our main household income is a public service salary.)
In such a dramatic climate, across the board wage rates seem fair, as a way of distributing the (inescapable) losses and pain. It would have to be done by legislation, which might not be that easy to draft, but it is one of those cases where centralised coordinating devices allow adjustments that couldn’t otherwise readily or quickly occur (the floating nominal exchange rate serves a similar function).
Now, of course the typical high income person can afford to lose 20 per cent of their wage for a year more readily than someone at the bottom. But in a typical recession the labour income losses are concentrated even more heavily on low income people, so that isn’t a particular argument against what I’m suggesting. But frankly most people are likely to be spending less anyway over the next year, even if it is just saving the bus fare if people are coming into the office less often (or not at all), or closed bars or movie theatres etc. But one could tailor the scheme to some extent: perhaps a fulltime equivalent cut of 20 per cent to wage rates, but cappped at $4000 (FTE) for low income workers?
Now one loud objection will be that such a cut will be deflationary: less income, less spending etc. But (a) I have another big strand to come, and (b) recall that this is mostly redistribution – instead of most losses falling on firms, more of them would be borne by workers (being as we are all in this together). And don’t forget that the first strand of my suite of framework policies was a radically expansionary monetary policy, relative to what we have now.
The third strand of my framework – perhaps the most controversial of all – starts from asking the question of what we’d have done 20 years ago if we’d really focused on pandemic risk, including at a macroeconomic level. Presumably the answer is that we would have sought insurance. It would not necessarily have been available on market – especially not from anyone we’d count on to be around to meet the claims – so we’d have self-insured. In fact, in the sort of as-if argument favoured by economists you could mount an argument that that is exactly what we have done, across successive governments, by keeping government debt low (and taxes higher as a result – in effect, the premium). Now is the time to draw on the policy.
I should say that much of what I’m about to suggest sticks in the craw. There are some firms that I really have no sympathy with at all: if you are an airline then after 20 years of 9/11, SARS, H5N1 planning, H1NI, MERS, and the never-long-away risk of major new terrorism, you surely have to plan on the basis that sustained disruption in ability to fly is a core business risk. But, even if politics didn’t mean any such argument would just get ignored anyway, I think we have to set such perspectives aside, in the interests of a timely restoration when the virus fades as an issue/risk.
At a conceptual level, I am going to propose something like an “ACC for the national economy”. ACC, you will, recall typically cover 80 per cent of lost earnings.
So how about committing as a country, and by law now – would be needed to have the effect I’m seeking – that for the tax year 2020/2021 – we would guarantee that everyone taxpayer’s net income would be at minimum 80 per cent of what they received in 2019/2020. That guarantee would apply to firms and individuals, even foreign-owned firms with substantial operations actually here. (For firms, it might be conditional on – and scaled to – maintaining at least 80 per cent of the 31 Dec 2019 workforce.)
I’m not here proposing a mechanism to operationalise the payouts of these guarantees, but I don’t believe that would be necessary now. It would, in effect, be akin to a government bond or guarantee which people and firms could count on and – as important – their banks could count on. With such a guarantee, there would be less reason for banks to be reluctant to keep existing loans outstanding, or indeed to extend further credit to cope with the – often significant cash flow hole. It wouldn’t avert all failures – and nor, generally, would that be desirable – but it would make a huge difference, and provide a high degree of certainty about income floors up front.
The guarantee doesn’t, of course, make people whole (not adversely financially affected) but then all this is on the assumption that 25 per cent of GDP is lost. Those losses have to be borne by someone (and, as noted above, spending opportunities are going to be fewer anyway).
Recall again that the goal isn’t, and should not be, to stimulate new spending at a time when people have to hunker down, be careful, separate etc. It is about minimising the longer-term disruption from a totally unforeseen, genuinely exogenous to the New Zealand economy shock. Done well, firm failures and job losses – at least of permanent employees – should be kept to a minimum (as will inevitably be the case in the core public sector anyway), and keeping up something like the required level of credit (much of any addition, secured by a statutory government commitment). Same applies to household mortgages.
How much would it cost? It is impossible to tell. But here’s the thing. On the OECD net general government financial liabilities series, New Zealand’s net government debt is about 0 per cent of GDP. That’s right, zero.
Suppose we lose 25 per cent of GDP for a year, but decide to pay every New Zealander (individual and firm) just what they got the previous year, what would that leave net government debt at the end of that year? Well, that would be something like 25 per cent of GDP. Not exactly high by international standards, having traversed one of the very worst shocks imaginable outside war. Of course, the lost output could be larger than 25 per cent of GDP (in Wuhan it will almost certainly have been larger than that so far), or the losses could run longer than a year. But worry about the second year when we get closer. For now, an strong demonstrated fiscal commitment should support both credit and jobs. And, as a society, we pay for it in higher taxes over the following 20 or 30 years. It is, essentially, ex post pandemic insurance.
(If you wanted you could add some sort of “windfall profits tax”, levying a higher tax rate this year on anyone whose income in 2020/21 was more than 20 per cent higher than in the previous year.)
And that it is it for a big macroeconomic framework package. It doesn’t obviate lots of short-term issues, including perhaps around sick leave etc. It doesn’t render irrelevant series stimulus effects – fiscal and monetary – to demand and activity as the virus looks to be sustainably behind us. What it is designed to do is (a) share the inescapable) losses fairly, if inevitably a bit crudely, without removing all risk from individuals or firms (b) support the existing level of credit and a secure basis on which existing banks could lend to cover shortfalls, (d) dramatically cut servicing burdens (and returns to depositors) as is normal in a deep recession ,and e) support/create confidence in an absolute commitment to keep medium-term inflation up at around 2 per cent, avoiding seeing real interest rates rising into a savagely. deep and at least somewhat prolonged recession and deflationary shock.
I’m sure there are many detailed pitfalls and issues to address. Perhaps the biggest high level one is the possibility this is all over three or six months hence. Frankly, I don’t even think that is really worth considering very seriously at present, but even if it were to happen (a) the wage cut could be shortened (new legislation) and (b) the net income guarantee is just that: if it isn’t called because incomes recover very quickly, then that is just great for firms, households, individual and governments.
I commend it to your consideration.
20 thoughts on “A radical macro framework for the next year or two”
Much better over-reacting than under-reacting! Great to see a plan that feels it might work. Hope the Government reads this blog Michael – the lack of a plan seems to be getting people panicky even as I write this.
Jacinda Ardern seem to jump from relaxed to draconian in the matter of days. Nothing really much has changed. Big deal we have 8 cases, zero deaths and zero spread so far. We might actually have more. More testing would likely equate to more cases. I am starting to think this Covid19 virus has been around for some years already. The significant level of community spread without being able to identify patient zero suggests that likely the USA with 30,000 deaths relating to normal flu last year may have been the original source of infection with many of those deaths not properly diagnosed.
Guaranteed 80% of last years income – would I bother working at all or does this only apply to the employed not the self-employed? And if last year someone was off work for 8 months because of ill health would the previous 15 years employment by the same employer count? Easy to find such objections but it reminds me of what the manager of a British supermarket said when asked what does he do if all the checkouts stop working? The reply was he asks the customer with a full trolley “what did you pay last week?”. Sometimes rough and ready is good enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The danger I can see is everyone stops spending other than absolute essentials and the impact as this flows through from tourism based enterprises to everything elese. the danger is that the whole economy stops.
I would go the other way – tell people to keep spending, holiday within NZ, keep going to resturants etc.
yes the time may come when the virus becomes pandemic within NZ but we are well away and with at least a year to go hunkering down now feels dangerous.
Hard to tell. Prof Michael Baker was on Q&A yesterday arguing (again) that we almost certainly have silent community transmission that will flare soon, and calling for a LOT more testing to give us some idea of the baseline incidence at present.
I guess on my view, in a couple of weeks time we are likely to be at the point where govts do want people to hunker down, and no one is going to adopt my plan in the next 2 weeks – so think of it as a plan for then.
It is for columns like this one that I keep coming back here – ideas that are completely crazy, that seem to make good economic sense, and that might even be crazy enough to work!
If wages are to be compulsorily reduced as your proposed second strand, then in fairness other forms of fixed income must also be reduced. A sizable chunk of my household income comes from superannuation and Government Super Fund, and these (plus other benefits) will need to be cut – probably with a maximum cut for low-income beneficiaries as you propose for low-wage earners. People who make their living from rents should also share in the pain (dividends will suffer because profits will, which is your starting point). In that case, the striking difference between this and a 25% drop in the exchange rate seems to be that assets and liabilities are not to be cut in proportion. That has its own huge distributional consequences, even with a government guarantee that incomes will not fall too far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I planned to leave general beneficiaries out of this (partly political reasons, partly that the basic benefit isn’t really supposed to leave a buffer), but could certainly see a case for NZS.
One could think of your GSF payment as less an income than a withdrawal of savings, so I don’t feel strongly on that one.
Not sure about rents:I can go either way on the case for cutting or not.
Oh, so you chop the super. I have just had a discussion with my wife about our incomes. We have a business and are in our 70’s as many others are and do.
We decided to reduce our drawings to nil and to live within our pensions. We can and will but if you decide to cut them then we lose.
We have 10 staff who lively hoods depend on us so we made that decision knowing that we want to stay in business longterm. We started suffering from the slow down 4 weeks ago. At this time we have enough work for tomorrow. After that who knows.
Which kinda brings us to Gareth Morgan and his idea of a basic universal income. From what Micheal has suggested it the same beast and to me makes a lot of sense.
Easy to do, easy to manage and fair. Maybe with an upper limit.
During the GFC the anomaly that caused so much angst with people was where there were two incomes and one person lost their job they couldn’t survive, ( were not eligible for a benefit), and that caused more property sales and other financial strife than probably any other single thing. ( Note that people tend to spend what they earn and even those that save may not be able to realise that money currently. What if you had saved by buying shares for example.).
That law has been sitting in a bill waiting to be changed from then until now. If you have been working and paying tax then surely it’s fair that you get unemployment benefit if you lose your job.
Viking – I qualify for full UK pension plus NZ super and as you probably know in that situation NZ super only tops up the UK pension. Since I always get some NZ super it is clear that it is more generous than the UK pension. Certainly living on just NZ Super would never allow any luxury but it is a generous pension by international standards. IMHO they should just leave it unchanged at the end of this month – cutting it without plenty of warning would be unfair to too many people. However a 10% cut to Super would not be as bad as the Air NZ employees losing their jobs – that is a 100% income cut.
I totally agree with you about benefits tied to your partners income – anything that discourages permanent partnerships is wrong.
It is rather a pointless debate because however deserved trimming benefits might or might not be I cannot see it happening before a general election.
Looks like beneficiaries get a payment increase by $25 a week and not a reduction. My mom and dad will be happy indeed.
You make a good point about rents. An arbitary cut by 20% with improved protection of tenancy.
Very interesting proposal, thanks Michael.
Re the 25% wage cut, wouldn’t that in effect be quite a big windfall to bond holders? Would you support some kind of NGDP level target to encourage the price level to return to the original level once the crisis had passed?
I don’t think you need it – the whole point of the radical expansionary mon pol component is to hold up expectations of the future (beyond crisis) path of nominal GDP. NGDP targets still have real problems in commodity economies, but anything to buttress expectations is worth looking at.
I’m genuinely curious why the option of direct payments to every New Zealander funded through monetary policy can’t achieve everything you set out to do at far less disruption and political cost.
Wouldn’t $2000 a month to every adult New Zealander (or whatever figure works) support the price level and cushion the worst-affected people, and keep the dollar low, while avoiding the inevitable reaction to heavily negative interest rates and large compulsory wage cuts?
(As an aside, I agree the biggest risk by far is the virus itself rather than the resulting economic shock. We should do everything we can to limit the spread, and worry about how to manage the economic impact later.)
Very short answer (might try a fuller post tomorrow): direct household cash payments do nothing to address the corporate credit situation in particular. Also no advantage in cash in everyone’s pocket right now.
The underlying assumption in this is that the global economy outlook 3 months or so ago was good and as such will be able to rebound relatively simple. But was it, be it PRC business debt, Global trade wars, pressures of carbon reduction, flat productivity, etc, etc the out look wasn’t great.
We should also ask what our response should be if the global hanger over from this lasts closer to a decade or longer. What if we spend all our money now and it does not work because of external factors. The countries it will hit the hardest are countries we are most likely to trade with (name a country we trade with, with an mean population age of 30 or less).
This pandemic will create will create many unforeseen problems. It is not unlikely for this to result in a period of a elevated number of conflicts around the Globe, we are not reliably remote from these and we currently have nothing of value military wise. Once the pandemic is over, the resulting problems that demand our countries wealth will not just be economic.
The low interest rates in the US have caused concern about zombie businesses that will collapse the minute there is an uptick in the interest rates. If businesses can borrow close to free money what will cause them to use that money wisely because it certainly hasn’t happen in the US post GFC.
Theoretically – really, really interesting. Practically – might be a nightmare to implement?
But wonderful food for thought as radical ideas will need to be explored.
This economic shock (both globally, and hence domestically) certainly does seem different.
Two weeks ago the Federal Reserve had a $4 trillion QE hangover on its balance sheet – an unwound legacy from the 2008 GFC. Last week it added a further $1½ trillion. On the weekend it threatened a further $½ trillion of medicine. That will take it to $6 trillion
The difference is that the US Federal Reserve does have a actual cash reserve to draw on to buy those US treasury bonds. 10% cash reserve is required on 90% of a lending book either held by the bank itself or held at the US Federal Reserve.
Our version of NZ Treasury bond buying by the RBNZ would be completed without an offsetting cash reserve which does mean a much more unstable currency than the USD.
[…] Michael Reddell is a former Board member of the IMF, and Head of Financial Markets at the RBNZ. He sits down with Jordan Williams and Joe Ascoft to discuss his recent and radical proposal for government intervention and taxpayer-funded support for the duration of the COVID-19 downturn. Michael blogs at https://croakingcassandra.com the proposals referred to are available here: https://croakingcassandra.com/2020/03/16/a-radical-macro-framework-for-the-next-year-or-two/ […]