The Times on Taxes

The New York Times’ Sunday lead editorial (12/30) is simply breathtaking. The title is “Why the economy needs tax reform.” It starts well,

Over the next four years, tax reform, done right, could be a cure for much of what ails the economy…

OK, say I, the sun is out, the birds are chirping, my coffee is hot, and for once I’m going to read a sensible editorial from the Times, pointing out what we all agree on, that our tax system is horrendously chaotic, corrupt, and badly in need of reform. Let’s go – lower marginal rates, broaden the base, simplify the code.

That mood lasts all of one sentence.

Higher taxes,…

Words matter. “Reform” twice, followed by paragraphs of “higher taxes,” with no actual “reform” in sight. The Times is embarking on an Orwellian mission to appropriate the word “reform” to mean “higher taxes” not “fix the system.”

Let’s be specific. What is the Times’ idea of tax “reform?”

tax capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income…. a restoration of the estate tax, higher tax rates or surcharges on multimillion-dollar incomes, and higher corporate taxes..

That’s just to get started. Since, as the Times refreshingly admits,

..the new revenue would only slow the growth of the debt in the near term..

before the health care entitlement deluge hits,

… Mr. Obama would be wise to instruct the Treasury Department to start work on tax reform now, exploring carbon taxes, both to raise revenue and to protect the environment; a value-added tax,… and a financial transactions tax…

That’s “reform?”

What will all those taxes do? The Times has a little bit of deficit reduction on its mind,

 More revenue would also reduce budget deficits, helping to put the nation’s finances on a stable path.

But with “reduce,” “help,” and “stable path,” you can tell that eliminating deficits and paying off the debt are not a real high priority here. The Times has bigger fish to fry, starting with a red herring and ending with a red whale.

Higher taxes, raised progressively, could encourage growth by helping to pay for long-neglected public investment in education, infrastructure and basic research…

We’ve been spending more and more on education for years. While performance steadily declines. The trouble with schools is not lack of money.

Yes, infrastructure is crumbling, as a few New Yorkers may have figured out when their power went off, while their politicians – and the Times – instead of talking about burying electric lines and putting in a modern grid, wished instead to stem the rise of oceans and sugar in their soft drinks. But infrastructure spending is a tiny component of the Federal budget; we could support anyone’s wish list without a Federal income tax.  Basic research spending could be doubled on about 10 minutes worth of Federal spending. Red herring.

The whale comes last:

Greater progressivity would reduce rising income inequality, and with it, inequality of opportunity that is both an economic and social scourge. 

The Times is arguing forthrightly for confiscatory taxation of income and wealth, in order simply to  reduce post-tax incomes. This isn’t “redistribution,” it’s “off with their heads!”

Inequality of opportunity? No, President Obama’s kids should not go to Sidwell Friends, they should go to DC public schools like everyone else?  Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s kids shouldn’t go to the University of Chicago Lab school (mine go there too, but I don’t preach this stuff), they should have to go to Chicago public schools like everyone else? These are “economic and social advantages” arising from unequal income. Big ones, that motivate a lot of parents to work hard so they can afford the tuition.  French President Francois Hollande has a better idea: ban homework, so kids with smart parents can’t get an advantage because they get help on homework. Too bad you can’t ban homework in China and India. No concierge medicine either. Stand in line for medicaid like the rest of us.

And to accomplish this leveling, we’ll just take money from “the rich” until all are equally impoverished.

Am I being alarmist? No. Read the sentence again, carefully. Words matter. What else can it possibly mean?

It’s just astounding. When has a society ever grown, become prosperous, and raised opportunities for its citizens–of any background–by confiscatory taxation, transferring wealth to the State, with the deliberate aim of reducing the opportunities of a segment of its population? The examples I can think of – French and Russian revolutions, the whole communist world – ended rather badly.  Even more modest attempts, say postwar Britain, do not augur well. The evidence of Europe’s current high-tax “austerity” (another word Orwellianly appropriated to mean “high taxes”) and the weight of academic research (most recently from the IMF and Alberto Alesina) stand before us: Fiscal retrenchment led by higher marginal tax rates simply does not work.

Moving from outcome to opportunity, as the Times does, when has a society ever accomplished equal and plentiful opportunities by confiscatory taxation and heavy regulation? I can think of lots of societies that by these means became much less equal, with opportunity dependent on political and family connections, and thus out of reach of even the most talented and industrious people without connections. 

What of us naysayers? On taxing “capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income,”  

That is an indefensible giveaway to the richest Americans. Research shows that the tax breaks do not add to economic growth but do contribute to inequality. Currently, the top 1 percent of taxpayers receive more than 70 percent of all capital gains, while the bottom 80 percent receive only 6 percent.

Three more fish and a whopper.

We might start with the interesting assertion that any tax rate is a “giveaway.” Who gives what to whom, dear Times?

“Research shows” is another fascinating choice of words.  “Research shows” means “all research shows,” or “the consensus of research shows,” without actually saying it. The facts are “some research shows,” or in this case, really, “two unpublished papers we found on the web claim.”

The links point to a report by the Congressional Research service and a one-page screed from the Urban Institute.  Both pieces of “research” simply plot the usual pointless correlations ignoring the hundreds of other causes, effects, and things not held constant. Aspirin causes colds you know: Look, there is a strong correlation between asprin-taking and colds. Neither one is even submitted let alone published in a refereed journal, which is no guarantee of anything but at least it’s the minimum standard for “research.” If this were indeed what constitutes “research,"  and "science,"  vast new funding for fundamental research in economics might well be warranted.

Fortunately, that is not the case.  What real research concludes, as much as anything in economics concludes, is that capital gains taxes are about the easiest to avoid (see Buffett, Warren).  Real research shows that when capital gains rates were reduced in the 1980s, revenue increased. Real public finance, the rest of the world’s tax systems, and the broad conclusion of just about everybody until the world lost its head in 2008, was that capital gains taxation is a bad idea.

And the whale: "Receive” capital gains? Dear Times, capital gains are not a check sent by great-grandma’s trust fund. Let me educate you on where capital gains come from: People work, and earn money, and pay taxes on that money.  Rather than blow it all stimulating consumption demand, they save some of it, invest in stocks, or start businesses. When those investments pay off, they sell, and receive capital gains. A vast swath of retirees lives off capital gains, especially from their houses.Small business owners are “high income” in the one year they sell their businesses.

Words matter, again. “Receive” paints capital gains as passive receipts form a mysterious ill-gotten mountain of gold, ripe for plucking with neither tax avoidance, behavioral change, or economic consequence. That’s just not how our world works, but very revealing of the Times’ zero-sum, class-warfare worldview.

What about 

…higher corporate taxes..

Once again, one of the few things real “research shows,” and  economists agree on pretty heartily, is that corporate taxation – already higher in the US than the rest of the world – is a silly idea. All corporate taxes are passed on to people, through higher prices, lower wages, or lower returns to investors, primarily the former two. Tax people when they get the money. And corporations are much better at evasion, lobbying, moving abroad, and structuring operation in silly ways to avoid taxes.

The value added tax – the economist’s favorite, if coupled with elimination of other taxes – is famously “regressive,” the modern term (here are those important little words again) for “everybody pays the same rate."  Value added is, in Europe (along with 30-40% payroll taxes) the middle class tax that pays for middle class benefits. What about that, dear Times?

a value-added tax, coupled with provisions to protect lower-income taxpayers from higher prices, to tax consumption and encourage saving;

This is just incoherent. If you’re "protected from higher prices,” you’re not paying the tax. If we couple the VAT with a vast new income transfer program, adieu revenues.

At least we close with some humor. The VAT is there to encourage saving, while heavy taxation of interest, dividends, capital gains and estates, says just the opposite.

What about spending?

The big obstacle to comprehensive tax reform is the persistent Republican myth that spending cuts alone can achieve economic and budget goals. That notion was sounded rejected by voters during the election. Yet it still has adherents among many Republicans, which will make it that much harder for Congress to grapple with the bigger and more complex issue at the heart of tax reform: how to pay for government in the 21st century.

….All that [long list of taxes] would only be a start, because the new revenue would only slow the growth of the debt in the near term. After 10 years, the pressures of an aging population and health care costs would cause the debt to accelerate again.

Oh those evil Republicans, standing against “reform,” and reusing to grapple with “how to pay for government.” The size and scope of which is not under discussion. No, dear Times, it’s not “the pressures of  an aging population and health care costs.” It is the Federal Government’s promises to pay for it all. Which are, apparently, fixed stars.

Technical regress in any area is sad. Once upon a time, when we talked about taxes, there was a modicum of economics involved. When we thought about raising or lowering a rate, we thought seriously about the inevitable avoidance and distortions.  The first question was, “if we pass this law, will x actually pay more money, or will he simply change behavior to avoid the tax?” The second question was, “will his change in behavior hurt the economy?” Before we talk about what’s “fair” we talked about “what works.”

And we knew the sign of the answer: distorting taxation raises less revenue than you think, and reduces economic prosperity. The only question is how much. We did not indulge in magical thinking that appropriating anyone’s income would actually improve the economy, all on its own. We understood the damage, and tried to carefully balance the benefits of spending against that damage. This is how we got, for a while, to low marginal rates with a broad base (the latter since loopholed away), low capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes, and were headed messily towards a system that taxed consumption more than rates of return. 

As one glorious counterexample of all the Times’ monstrous confusions:

a financial transactions tax, to ensure that the financial sector, whose profits have substantially outpaced those of nonfinancial corporations, pay a fair share

A transactions tax is the easiest thing in the world to avoid with financial engineering.  How do you begin to figure out the “fair share” that financial vs nonfinancial corporations should pay? How about mutual funds whose beneficiaries are impoverished union schoolteachers? 

Orwellian language, blatant mistruths, and magical thinking aside, however, I want to applaud this editorial. No, I’m not kidding.

The Times is saying, out loud, that if we are to have the regulatory and welfare state we have enacted, it must be paid for with huge middle class taxes, as well as confiscatory taxes on anyone who dares to save, invest, or start a business. This is refreshing honesty. Up until about November 3, all we heard from them is that reversing the Bush tax cuts on the rich would pay for it all. At least a few of its readers may wake up and say, “wait, we voted for this?”

Really, my main complaint is that they left out the “if,” and its logical consequence, and any doubts that raising tax rates so massively might not produce the needed long-run revenue growth they hope for.

It is a mistake to dismiss this clear editorial. This isn’t the Village voice, or the Berkeley Free Press. This is the New York Times. This is how a wide swath of our fellow citizens, and majority of our fellow voters, see the world.   This is the agenda. They could not have been clearer if they had said “first we annex Austria and move against Czechoslovakia. Then we invade Poland and swing North and West.” Heed them.

Benefits trap art

Two charts from the UK, admittedly sprayed with too much chartjunk, but illustrating the poverty trap in Britain. (A previous post  on high marginal tax rates for low income people has more charts like this.)

Most of UK benefits are not time-limited, so people get stuck for life, and then for generations.

The original article, by Fraser Nelson, “Why the Poles keep coming” in the Spectator, is worth reading.  The article starts with the puzzling fact that

Britain’s employment figures are strong but most of the rise in employment so far under this government is accounted for by foreign-born workers (as was 99pc of the rise in employment under Labour). 

The author had the same epiphany that led me to economics all those years ago. No, it’s not culture, or “laziness.” Treat poor people as intelligent, responding to incentives, just like you and me, but with a lot bleaker choices. Try to look at the world through their eyes if you want to understand their behavior:

 if I was in a position of a British single mother I have not the slightest doubt that I would choose welfare. Why break your back on the minimum wage for longer than you have to, if it doesn’t pay? Some people do have the resolve to do it. I know I wouldn’t.

…Until our policymakers start to see things through the eyes of those ensnared in welfare traps, nothing will change. 

More great quotes:

If you had designed a system to keep the poor down, in would not look much different to the above.

…the cash-strapped British government is still creating still the most expensive poverty in the world.

Hat tip: Dan Mitchell writing at Cato@Liberty. His post is worth reading, as are the links. (Alas, the Spectator only cites the source of the graphs as “ an internal government presentation,” so I don’t know who to properly credit.)

Fiscal cliff or fiscal molehill?

Four thoughts, reflecting my frustrations with the “fiscal cliff” debate. 

1. Recession

How terrible will it be if we go over the cliff?

Bad, but for all the wrong reasons. If you, like me, didn’t think that “stimulus” from government spending raised GDP in the recession, you can’t complain that less government spending will cause a new recession now. The CBO’s projections of recession are entirely Keynesian. Pay them heed if you still think the key to prosperity is for the government to borrow money and blow it.

There are no “cuts” in sight anyway. “Cut” in Washington means “increase spending less than we previously said we would.” At worst a few programs will have to spend the same amount this year as last before spending increases resume.

It’s not even obvious that the “cuts” will happen. Will Congress really try to pay doctors 1/3 less? (Will doctors take any medicare patients if they do?) Or will they pass an “emergency” bill, exempting doctors just like Social Security? Sequestration has never actually been used.

To an economist, the main worry is that higher marginal tax rates mean more distortions, which are a drag on the economy.  But distortions take a while to kick in. It takes a while for people to change to easier jobs, not start businesses, move businesses offshore, not go to school, choose easier but less rewarding majors, find more tax shelters, and so on. So the danger is not so much a recession, which comes, and then ends, and we go back to growth. The danger is settling in to a decade of (even more) high-distortion, sclerotic growth.

The headline rate people are fighting about – 35% vs. 39.5 % federal income tax rate – is basically irrelevant to the larger issues. If we had a clear, functional, stable tax system, with a total (all taxes) 39.5% top marginal rate, the economy would heave a big sigh of relief and take off like a rocket.

We have instead a horrendously complex, nay corrupt, tax system. It’s chaotic, with teams of lobbyists descending now to carve out everyone’s exemption, deduction and subsidy. Tax reform is, in my judgment, more important than the headline marginal rate. More generally, I think the lessons of growth economics are pretty clear that over-regulation and the consequent politicization of economic decisions is a larger danger to growth than any stable clear and uniformly administered taxes with faintly reasonable marginal rates. If you can start a business and know for sure you’ll keep half the profits, that’s more enticing than never knowing what new holdup you will be subject to from 100 overlapping regulatory agencies.

Furthermore, economics cares about the total marginal tax rate – everything between the extra dollar you earn and the additional goods you receive – including Federal, state and local income taxes, deduction phaseouts, payroll taxes, taxes on rate of return between earning and spending, sales taxes, estate taxes if you leave it to your kids, property taxes if you buy property, excise taxes, and on and on. Some parts of Washington seems to finally have figured out that reducing deductions raises taxes with less distortionary effects on marginal tax rates.  They have not so successfully figured out that every phaseout or income test adds to marginal tax rates. In any case, it makes no sense at all to talk about the Federal income tax rate in isolation.  

Economics cares equally about taxes and benefits. Whether you send the government a check or they send you a check doesn’t matter, what matters is how that check changes based on your behavior. Marginal tax rates are high for lower income people too (earlier post on the subject). Asset tests are just as bad as income tests: If you save, and then an asset test takes away a benefit such as college aid, you might as well not bother saving. It makes no sense to talk about taxes and not benefits at the same time.

Economics cares about the overall impact of the Government on decisions, not just on-budget taxing and spending. If the government says “employers shall provide $15,000 worth of health insurance to every employee,” that does not show up on the budget – but it has exactly the same effect on the economy as a tax and benefit. If the government says “all gasoline shall contain 10% ethanol,” that has the same effect on the economy as a tax and subsidy.

2. Distribution

The same points apply even more to distributional questions – are the “rich” paying “their fair share,” should they “pay more,” and so on.  The headline Federal income tax rate is the tip of the iceberg. Economics tells us to consider the overall effect of the government at all levels on the distribution of individual consumption. (Not household, not income, not wealth.)

Obviously, we have to talk about taxes and benefits in the same breath here. We also need to talk about who benefits from government spending and intervention. There’s a lot of corporate welfare, which ends up in the pockets of some very rich people. If we remove a few hundred billion in green energy subsidies, and the Al Gores of the world can’t make another $100 million bucks on it, that ought to count as reducing the transfers to the rich just as much as raising their taxes.

Economics cares about the burden of taxation, not who pays taxes. This is clearest for gas taxes. It’s clear to everyone that the government is not socking it to those fat-cat gas station owners with gas taxes, they are simply passed on to you and me.

3. Politics (admittedly dangerous speculation for an economist)

What in the heck is going on? Why is our national discussion paralyzed over the tip of an iceberg?

Only one story makes sense to me. President Obama has been saying for four and a half years that he wants to raise taxes on “the rich,” and he means to do it. He wants to raise tax rates on the rich, for symbolic, social, political reasons as much as for anything in an economics textbook. Nothing else explains the Administration’s monomania on this point, especially given that it won’t make a dent in the deficit, the fact that it makes zero economic sense as a central policy to address our economic problems, and given the Administration's refusal to talk about reform – which would raise tax revenue and help economic growth – instead.

“The rich,” need to get with the program, like Warren Buffet. It remains open season for deductions, exclusions, special deals and loopholes. Notice Buffet never asks for removal of all the clever dodges he uses to pay less taxes, and nobody has mentioned that he might do so. Tax on unrealized capital gains anyone? Limit the exclusion of charitable donations, even to family foundations that employ family members to run them, from estate taxes? Boy, that would raise a lot of revenue from some truly “rich” people.

Quid pro quo here, though, rich people and the CEOs who recently visited the White House had better line up and support the Administration if they want their special deal, deduction, credit, Obamacare waiver, and no visits from the NLRB, EEOC, EPA, consumer financial protection bureau, and so on.

High statutory rates, a Swiss cheese of loopholes renegotiated in every annual crisis, and an army of regulators on the prowl, are a recipe for permanent Democratic government. The cliff is beautifully structured to make Republicans look bad. Things happen when they make sense. This path makes enormous political sense.

The amount of magical thinking on the economic left doesn’t help.  They used to claim that that economies like the US in the 1950s can still grow (for a while) despite high marginal tax rates (which nobody paid because of huge deductions). They used to claim that high tax rates wanted for other reasons don’t hurt too much. Now they’ve talked themselves into arguing that high marginal tax rates are actually good for growth.  Why not just say the obvious, this is a policy desired for political reasons, and the political outcome is more important than the economic damage?

4. The future (admittedly dangerous prognostication for one who says things are hard to predict)

The discussion around the cliff  sounds like we are finally settling some large issue. We are not. This is the fiscal molehill, not the fiscal cliff. This is Harpers Ferry, not Gettysburg. It’s the Anschluss, not D-day. It’s… Ok, I’m overdoing the military analogies, you get the point. This is the prelude to what looks to me like 10 years of constant crisis.

Here is the big issue. The US has already enacted European welfare and regulatory state with American characterstics – the bloated inefficiency, legalism, and red tape that is our specialty. We have not enacted the taxes to pay for it. We will either dramatically cut back the former, or rather dramatically raise the latter. On the table now is at most $100 billion out of a $1 trillion deficit, and likely much less. The fiscal molehill.

US Federal, State and Local spending is 40% of GDP. Pay attention to state and local, that’s a lot more than the 24% Federal we talk about a lot. Europe is more like 50% of GDP, so it sounds like we’re behind. But our government is bigger than it looks.

We have about a trillion dollars of “tax expenditures,” including the deduction for employer-provided health insurance, deduction for mortgage interest, and (small but annoying) credits for all sorts of things like checks to silicon valley CEOs too subsidize the electric cars they drive down t their private jets. These are no different than a trillion dollars of tax and another trillion dollars of spending, or another 6% of GDP. We’re at 46% right here.

Our government likes mandates and rules, which affect behavior and soak up the economy’s taxing capacity just as much as on-budget taxing and spending, but hide the fact. Europeans tax gas and energy, and people choose small cars and turn down the heat. We have mileage standards, energy efficiency standards, carpool lanes, electric-car sales mandates, and so on. Same real size of government. And so on.

Before the ACA, our government was paying for health care for about half the country, in our inimitably inefficient style, including medicare, medicaid, schip, and current and retired government employees. Under the ACA, we’re basically all in a European style system, funded by explicit or implicit (mandates) taxes. With those uniquely American characteristics.

The fact that government overall is about half of GDP matters to our tax debate. Properly measured, the average American must then pay about half his or her income in taxes. For every dollar taxed at a lower rate, another dollar has to be taxed at a higher rate. When we tax the average dollar at 50%, any progressivity  has to shift a lot of marginal rates well into the territory that destroys incentives and reduces revenue.

Europe pays for this stuff, and its middle class pays for this stuff. 30- 40% payroll taxes, 20% value added tax, $9 a gallon gas, 50% income taxes extending down to what we would call lower-middle-incomes, property taxes, estate taxes, wealth taxes. Sorry, Europe can’t quite pay for this stuff, even with those taxes.

But this is our choice. European taxes to pay for the regulatory and welfare state we’ve already enacted. With the European growth and eventually southern European corruption they entail. Or a sharp cutback in that state. We can decide before or after we experience the European debt crisis.

So, the fiscal cliff is just the beginning. This will be a long hard road, and my guess is that we will lurch from crisis to crisis, with patchwork last minute deals, for another decade. It doesn’t have to be so – the economic choices are clear. But given the size of the question at hand and how little anyone is talking about the real issues, it’s hard to see another way.

I think the deck is stacked towards the large-state camp.  There were two theories: “Starve the beast” said, cut taxes and eventually the size of the state will have to shrink. “Vote the benefits” said, increase spending and regulation, and eventually taxes will have to be raised to try to pay for it all. The latter seems to be winning.

I guess it’s appropriate that the Grumpy economist is playing the Grinch for Christmas!

The Fed's great experiment

So now you have it. QE4. The Fed will buy $85 billion of long term government bonds and mortgage backed securities, printing $85 billion per month of new money (reserves, really) to do it. That’s $1 trillion a year, about the same size as the entire Federal deficit. It’s substantially more each year than the much maligned $800 billion “stimulus.” Graph to the left purloined from John Taylor to dramatize the situation.

In addition, the Fed’s open market committee promises to

“..keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to ¼ percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-½ percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored." [Whatever "anchored” means.] 

This is a grand experiment indeed. We will test a few theories.


First, just how much of the labor market’s troubles are the result of an ill-advisedly long maturity structure of government debt? How much is the result of 2% long term rates (negative in real terms) being too high and strangling credit? (If, in fact the Fed’s purchases have any sustained effect at all on long rates, which I doubt.) At zero interest rates does the split between reserves (which are, in the end, nothing more than floating-rate, overnight, electronic-entry US government debt) and other forms of government debt mean anything at all? In short, is monetary policy of the buy-bonds, print-money sort completely ineffective at zero rates, yes or no? At a trillion bucks a year we will soon find out. I bet no. (The WSJ calls this the “more cowbell” approach to policy.) But nobody can say it wasn’t big enough to test the theory.

Second, just how much is the economy suffering from a lack of promises from appointed officials? “Oh, well, sure, now I’ll build that new factory and start hiring people. I just wanted to hear that Bernanke ‘anticipates’ that he will think low rates are appropriate until until unemployment hits 6.5%, not just into the 6th year of the Biden administration.”

Fashionable new-Keynesian models give a big role to such pronouncements. I’m dubious.  Does the average Joe understand the difference between, say, the Administration’s promises that sure, next year we’ll cut entitlements, and the Fed’s promises?

One big hole in the argument:  Charlie Evans (Chicago Fed president) calls this “Odyssean” policy, after Odysseus who had himself tied to the mast so as to hear the sirens. But notice a big difference between Odysseus and Bernanke. Odysseus did not “anticipate that remaining near the mast will remain appropriate so long as the call of the sirens is not too beautiful, the sea not too rough, the sailors manning the rigging doing their jobs, and no other ships we might crash in to.”  Odysseus made an irreversible decision. Cortez burned his ships.

If you want people to believe you about the unemployment trigger, you have to remove the discretion to change your mind tomorrow if, say, the dollar crashes, Spain defaults, long term interest rates spike, the Chinese dump their bonds or whatever.  Otherwise, we know it is all hot air. If they can decide in this meeting 6.5% is the right target, they can decide in the next meeting, “whoops, no, we’ll print money until China starts buying Chevys.” (Sorry, that will be mumbo jumbo about “illiquid conditions in sovereign credit markets and global imbalances..”)

I’m not such a fan of new-Keynesian models (here, with hard academic article warning) so this lack of real commitment doesn’t trouble me that much. I don’t think we would get immediate benefit even from a completely credible tied-to-the-mast commitment to buy trillions of dollars until unemployment hits 6.5%. (I do think rules-based policy in general is a good idea, not this sort of discretionary commitment-making. But  I can think of a lot better rules, like “the price level shall be CPI=130 forever, period.”)

But we certainly will test whether this kind of open-mouth operation has any effect. My forecast: continued sclerosis, and, whatever happens, no evidence that these policies had any effect whatsoever.

Which puts me rather less critical of the Fed than many skeptics. I think money and bonds are perfect substitutes at the moment, so “no effect” means no hyperinflation either. The problems are not monetary, so the Fed is just trying to seem important though it’s powerless. The major damage that I see in current policy is the implied shortening of the maturity structure of debt: If markets force interest rates to rise to 5%, the deficit doubles due to interest payments, and the US experiences a Greek death spiral. But nobody is even talking about that.

ECB dilemma

It was announced yesterday that  Europe will have a new, central bank supervisor run by the ECB, much as our Fed combines monetary policy and bank supervision. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

One big unified central agency always sounds like a good idea until you think harder about it. This one faces an intractable dilemma.

Here’s the problem. Why not just let Greece default?“ is usually answered with "because then all the banks fail and Greece goes even further down the toilet.” (And Spain, and Italy).

So, what should a European Bank Regulator do? Well, it should protect the banking system from sovereign default. It should declare that  sovereign debt is risky, require marking it to market, require large capital against it, and it should force banks to reduce sovereign exposure  to get rid of this obviously “systemic” “correlated risk” to their balance sheets. (They can just require banks to buy CDS, they don’t have to require them to dump bonds on the market. This is just about not wanting to pay insurance premiums.) It should do for the obvious risky elephant in the room exactly what bank regulators failed to do for mortgage backed securities in 2006.


Moreover, it should encourage a truly European market. Greek, Spanish, Italian banks failing is no problem if large international banks can swoop in, pick up the assets, and open the doors the next day. Bankruptcy is recapitalization.  Greece needs a national banking system as much as Chicago (same population) does.

All well and good. And all diametrically opposed to the ECB’s “crisis-fighting” agenda. The right arm of the ECB should be protecting the banking system in this way. But the left arm of the ECB is using banks as sponges for sovereign debt.

In trying to manage the sovereign debt crisis, the ECB has bought huge amounts of sovereign debt. It has lent  euros to banks that in turn have bought large amounts of sovereign debt (often, I gather, with not so subtle pressure from their governments).  It has lent more euros to the same banks to replace deposits that are quite wisely fleeing out of those banks.

How can the right arm protect the banking system from sovereign default, while the left arm wants to stuff the banking system with sovereign debt?

Converesely, how can the left arm do anything but print euros like mad, now that the right arm has responsibility for the banking system?  Lending to banks who buy sovereign debt was always excused by the idea that the bank shareholders bear the credit risk and national supervisors take care of that problem. Now it’s in the ECB’s lap. Politically, can the ECB really shut down national banks, stiff the creditors, and let them be taken over by big pan-european banks?

I bet on the outcome: print euros like mad, keep pretending sovereign debt is risk free, and prop up existing banks. Let’s hope I’m too cynical. For once.

Billing codes

A while ago, an acquaintance saw her dermatologist for an annual check. She said, “oh, by the way, take a look at the place on my foot where we removed a wart a while ago.” The doctor looked at her foot, said everything is fine, then finished the exam. Checking the bill, there was a $400 extra charge for the wart examination!

This nice audio story from NPRs “third coast festival"  tells the story of billing codes. Answer: As insurers and medicare/medicaid reduce payment for services, doctors respond by writing up every billing code they legally can. There are whole conferences devoted to billing code maximization. It’s a lovely unintended-consequences story. Good luck with that "cost control.”

The piece quotes the Institute of Medicine that there are 2.2 people doing billing for every doctor, at a $360 billion dollar cost. I couldn’t find the source of these numbers. If any of you can, post a comment.

Of course, being NPR, the program leaves the impression that all this will be fixed in our brave new world of the ACA. But it wasn’t even that heavy handed on the point. Perhaps experience is gaining on hope.