Is prudential tinkering our salvation?

 
Mark Carney Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England

We live in a developed western world where the heuristics of economics, the normal policy responses learned through past experience, seem irrelevant.

As just two examples, neither the US or UK economies have bounced back in the way history has suggested they should have done since the financial crash and shock of 2007-8. In the UK for example, GDP (national income) is a fifth lower than it would have been, had the pre-crisis trends resumed.

But, as the governor of the Bank of England reminded us last night in a speech in New York, if the unemployment rate had risen as it has done in previous periods of recession and stagnation, it would today be 14% in the UK, as opposed to the current 7.6%.

Or to put it another way, there is good and bad news in our recent economic performance. That said, economists being economists don't always see the ostensible good news as benign. So, for example, the growth of employment at a time of anaemic recovery is seen by some as evidence that there has been a permanent reduction in productivity, which reduces our long-term growth prospects.

As it happens, that pessimism isn't shared by the Bank of England, though the government's Office of Budget Responsibility appears more prone to the glass-half-empty view.

The background to Mark Carney's speech last night was the recent short address by the former US Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, which raised the prospect that the rich West entered a period of secular or semi-permanent stagnation several years before the 2007-8 debacle.

Summers' evidence is that in spite of the mother of all lending splurges in the early years of this century, there was no dramatic boom in output, and conventional inflation remained relatively low.

Now the fundamental causes of this secular stagnation would be a permanent diminution in the competitiveness of economies such as the UK's, caused by the rise and rise of the likes of China, and the failure of consumers in places like China to spend like we do and buy our stuff.

Larry Summers Larry Summers

All of which is plausible, and was the stuff of academic and political argy-bargy long before global financial capitalism cracked.

But it carries a striking implication for the behaviour of central banks such as our own Bank of England.

Here is one way of looking at the structural problem.

Because the Chinese and German and Japanese and oil-producing Arabs saved (and save) so much, and because the majority of western consumers spent (and spend) so much, our debts rose to unsustainably high levels.

Or to put it another way, intractable global imbalances - to use the ghastly jargon - remain the root of all our woes.

It all means that the so-called equilibrium interest rate required to keep us spending and the economy moving forward is less than zero.

And what's worse, that equilibrium interest rate may be negative for years and years and years to come.

You may by now be holding your head in some pain and wondering what on earth I am going on about.

Surely interest rates cannot be less than zero.

Well they can in two senses.

First they can be negative when inflation is taken into account, as is demonstrably the case in the UK.

Here is what Carney said last night: "The Monetary Policy Committee judges that the equilibrium real interest rate has been and continues to be negative."

And, as it happens, central banks have the ability to, in effect, tax banks that put money on deposit with them, by charging a genuine negative interest rate, in order to dissuade the banks from keeping their money safe at the central bank and incentivise them to lend it to households and businesses.

As it happens, the Bank of England has never done this, largely because it is not clear whether it would have the desired result. Banks might, for example, end up charging more for loans, to compensate for their losses at the central bank.

However, the reduction in the rate for central bank deposits to less than zero is under active consideration by the European Central Bank - which shows, as if you didn't know, that the eurozone's long bitter credit winter shows no sign of ending any time soon, and that further evasive action is needed.

As for the UK, Carney faces both ways.

On the one hand, he does not reject the idea that the UK is suffering from endemic, secular stagnation - although it is not his preferred view.

Bank of England

Which is why, in his words, the Bank of England and other central banks have "set monetary policy at emergency levels by reducing short-term interest rates to their lowest feasible levels, undertaking large-scale asset purchases and pursuing targeted interventions to ease funding and credit conditions".

Carney is less pessimistic than Summers. He believes that the exceptional monetary stimulus being provided by the Bank of England will - in time - lead to a return to growth of a sustainable sort that isn't so different from what we enjoyed in the past, and would allow interest rates to eventually return to "normal" levels.

In that context, he is bullish about the strength and durability of the current recovery in the UK.

But here is what matters. In spite of the UK economy currently growing at an annualised rate of more than 3% - the "natural" rate before the Crash - he says that "it is unlikely that equilibrium interest rates will return to historically normal levels any time soon".

Start Quote

Prudential tinkering, to prevent a consumer-led economic revival collapsing rapidly into financial mayhem, may well be smart and imaginative”

End Quote

Because if interest rates did rise, the indebtedness of consumers and government, and the absence of compensating demand for UK goods and services from abroad, means that recovery would be precipitately choked off.

Isn't all this rather scary, given that Carney acknowledges that the debts or leverage of households remain high by historical standards, and that spending by consumers is simultaneously fuelling the recovery and undermining the repair of households' balance sheets?

Or to put it another way, a consumer-led recovery is simultaneously doing good and bad.

Not to worry, says Carney. He and his colleagues saw this coming, and they have a cunning plan to nurture the fledgling recovery while warding off the dangers that it will lead to a dangerous amplification of debts that would see us return to 2008-style banking crisis.

That plan is to see the Monetary Policy Committee and the new Financial Policy Committee, created by the Chancellor, working in tandem - with the MPC setting negative real interest rates, and the FPC making sure banks don't allow consumers and businesses to become dangerously indebted.

Sold sign The FPC recently acted to divert Bank of England funds away from mortgages

So, for example, the FPC has already modified the Funding for Lending scheme, so that cheap Bank of England funds are diverted from mortgages - where there has been a revival of supply - to small business lending, where there is still a bit of a drought.

And in the future the Bank of England's FPC could tighten underwriting standards for loans and force banks to undertake more stringent affordability tests. Or it could stem the pace of lending by obliging banks to hold more expensive capital relative to the loans they make. Or it could advise the government to reduce the supply of guarantees for mortgages under its Help-to-Buy scheme.

Here is what I think is striking.

Much of this feels like the prudential equivalent of the kind of fiscal tinkering - short term modifications of taxing and spending to stimulate or rein in growth - that was so beloved of government in the 1960s and 1970s.

Fiscal tinkering became discredited because it was seen to be creating too much uncertainty for businesses and households, which found it harder to make rational investing and spending decisions.

Fiscal tinkering was seen to be undermining the UK's long-term rate of growth.

Which at a time when Summers worries the long-term rate of growth in the UK is close to zero is not - maybe - a danger we need to worry about.

Prudential tinkering, to prevent a consumer-led economic revival collapsing rapidly into financial mayhem, may well be smart and imaginative.

But it is not impossible to think of it as ultimately becoming a deterrent to sensible, wealth-creating lending and investing.

Or to tell you what you probably know, each era's solution to an economic crisis contains within it the causes of the subsequent crisis.

 
Robert Peston, economics editor Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Why Coe is set to win BBC race

Why Lord Coe is likely to be next chairman of the BBC Trust, but he may be its last chairman (at least of the Trust as currently configured).

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 18.

    Most of the jobs created in the last 3 - 4 years has been done by forcing people to go self-employed (classed as small businesses, supposedly your budding entrepreneurs) most of these jobs a not viable, hence the reason why most of the people in poverty are in work. The rest are on zero hour contracts. Very few of these jobs will ever make enough money to pay tax let alone live on.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 17.

    "Prudential tinkering ... may well be smart and imaginative."

    Well that's fine then. We all know that the money men are so clever. That's why they're paid so much to avoid horrible meltdowns like the one we're still trying to fix.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 16.

    400 chars just isn't enough!

    Even a brief trawl through economic history brings up a brutal enough list to show that making something as ephemeral as ultra-low interest rates the foundation of an economy is an idea that's lifespan is limited "until the next time"… and "the next time" is never all that far away. IMHO, "if rates need to rise then we're stuffed" == "the only question is when".

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 15.

    The systems need wholesale change Robert, not tinkering.

    But if anyone thinks the global elite will let you take away their control of the money supply and hence the associated debt slavery, then they are mistaken.

    There will be no change, and that's just the way they want it.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 14.

    4.GSTT
    One important point : the coalition have failed (deliberately) to reign in the banks.
    It was bankers that broke the world economy
    ~
    Except by your reasoning it was not - it was the fault of Government. You cannot have it both ways! ;-)

    [BBC R4 News yesterday & today: Govt (SA) corruption, UK football corruption, UK pensions corruption ... ]

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 13.

    'A cunning plan really,RP? A cunning and subtle one? As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University? '
    well I'm not the only one using old TV quotes...the Vulcan on the Starship BOE doing the mindmeld in the photo is promising sub warp speeds for the housing market...
    hysterical crying as young relative has been offered £300000 mortgage 10xsalary!!!

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 12.

    Sticking all politicians in the houses of parliament, sealing the doors, and then blasting the building to Mars is one solution to the problem

  • rate this
    +22

    Comment number 11.

    1. There is no debt crisis at a national level - there is a looming debt catastrophe at the consumer level.
    2. The reason why growth is anaemic and why productivity remains low despite unemployment falling is because modern jobs are rubbish, often part-time, and traps for long-term poverty when not time-limited by contract.
    3. Capitalism is a building without doors and windows, and it's on fire.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 10.

    Productivity generally only rises when humans are replaced with machines, or they are made to work like relative pit ponys like at Amazon.

    With Scots independence & also EU referendum, what major company wouuld want to invest in new major UK manufacturing plants, (exluding extensions to ones already here).

    UK buying habits are also detrimental to manufacturing investment, no UK loyalty

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 9.

    No, it will not. Arresting and prosecuting people who broke the law will. Every day there is a new scandal, and nobody is ever held to account. Is it any surprise that they keep stealing on a massive scale if they keep getting away with it?

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 8.

    We are told that when our economy is in trouble its all down to world events. It follows that any improvement can only be due to world events so tinkering is neither here nor there.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 7.

    It was a mess before, it's still a mess and it will be a mess in the future. End of.....

  • rate this
    +16

    Comment number 6.

    To keep doing the same thing while expecting a different out come is madness. That is, in effect, what we are doing, too many vested interests. Take the creation of money away from the banks, then we might have some hope. Otherwise we are only headed for another boom and bust, likely bigger than the last.

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 5.

    RP "the normal policy responses learned through past experience, seem irrelevant"

    Like not continuing to create endless amounts of fictitious money out of thin air, to avoid a similar fate as befell the Weimar Republic?

  • rate this
    +45

    Comment number 4.

    One important point : the coalition have failed (deliberately) to reign in the banks.

    It was bankers that broke the world economy.

  • rate this
    +14

    Comment number 3.

    How much of a problem is Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron's being poiliticians - and overly concerned about winning elections, as opposed to taking tough decisions that might upset their financial backers? Is the objective of using the crisis to reduce the size of the state a good idea?

  • Comment number 2.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +51

    Comment number 1.

    RP ' neither the US or UK economies have bounced back in the way history has suggested they should have done'
    ~
    No, of course not. You would normally expect after a shock like that to make changes, to re-calibrate, to weed out problems & fix faults but EU, UK & US Govts have instead opted for yet more of the same.

 

Page 36 of 36

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.