Has Greg Mankiw Jumped the Shark?

You be the judge. From his "Economic View" column in the New York Times yesterday, "It May Be Time for the Fed to Go Negative":

Imagine that the Fed were to announce that, a year from today, it would pick a digit from zero to 9 out of a hat. All currency with a serial number ending in that digit would no longer be legal tender. Suddenly, the expected return to holding currency would become negative 10 percent.

That move would free the Fed to cut interest rates below zero. People would be delighted to lend money at negative 3 percent, since losing 3 percent is better than losing 10.

Of course, some people might decide that at those rates, they would rather spend the money — for example, by buying a new car. But because expanding aggregate demand is precisely the goal of the interest rate cut, such an incentive isn’t a flaw — it’s a benefit.

Would your first response to this scenario be to buy a new car? I bet a lot of people would decide instead to buy gold, or to exchange their U.S. dollars for the currency of a country less likely to pick a number out of a hat and invalidate a tenth of its currency.

Later in his column, Mankiw offers a more reasonable way that the Fed could create negative real interest rates, by committing to a certain level of inflation (presumably one higher than the Fed's current 2% target). Is this the best way to spur aggregate demand though? If this is a balance sheet driven recession, as some observers have termed it, and the problem is that many consumers can't service their debts, why not deal with that more directly?

For those whose mortgages are underwater, restructuring them using John Hussman's idea of property appreciation rights might make make sense. That would lower monthly borrowing costs for those mortgagers and enable them to increase their discretionary spending. For mortgagers who aren't currently underwater, the idea of Glenn Hubbard and Christopher Mayer, to use the GSEs to lower mortgage rates down to their historic spread of about 1.6% above 10-year Treasuries might make sense. According to Yahoo! Finance, the average rate on 30-year fixed rate, conforming mortgages today is 4.88%; since 10-year Treasuries currently yield 2.75%, under the Mayer and Hubbard plan mortgage rates might average 4.35%. Refinancing higher-rate mortgages at 4.35% would also lower borrowing costs and enable tens of millions of Americans to increase their discretionary spending.

The image above, of the Happy Days character Fonzie (played by Henry Winkler) jumping the shark¹ comes from Media Bistro.

¹For those unfamiliar with the phrase, see the Urban Dictionary's definition of "jumping the shark".

Has Nassim Nicholas Taleb Jumped the Shark?

That's a question¹ that came to mind when reading his op/ed in today's Financial Times, "Ten principles for a Black Swan-proof world", parts of which seem strikingly simplistic. Below are a few examples, with commentary.

4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks. Odds are he would cut every corner on safety to show “profits” while claiming to be “conservative”. Bonuses do not accommodate the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system that got us here. No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.

I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear plant managers do have some sort of incentive bonuses -- and why wouldn't they? The lesson here should be that bonuses need to be structured so the interests of shareholders and managers (and, yes, taxpayers) are aligned, not that bonuses need to be eliminated. In the case of a nuclear plant manager, for example, his bonus might be tied to meeting certain goals for safety, efficiency, etc. Obviously, a bonus that encouraged him to ignore safety would be stupid, but there's no reason to structure a bonus that way.

6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning. Complex derivatives need to be banned because nobody understands them and few are rational enough to know it. Citizens must be protected from themselves, from bankers selling them “hedging” products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic theorists.

Why deprive investors of the means to hedge their risks? You could argue, as Soros has, that certain derivatives (e.g., credit default swaps) should be limited to those who have an insurable interest, but why ban them altogether?

9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement. Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).

Where to begin with this one? If citizens shouldn't depend on financial assets for their retirement, on what should they depend? On defined benefit pensions (which, aside from being scarce in the private sector, are themselves dependent on financial assets)? Taleb seems to be suggesting that business owners put all of their assets into their businesses instead of putting some into passive investments, but what of the majority of citizens who don't own their own businesses?

10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. Finally, this crisis cannot be fixed with makeshift repairs, no more than a boat with a rotten hull can be fixed with ad-hoc patches. We need to rebuild the hull with new (stronger) materials; we will have to remake the system before it does so itself. Let us move voluntarily into Capitalism 2.0 by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, shutting down the “Nobel” in economics, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties.

Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.

"Clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here" makes some sense, but does Taleb really believe our economy ought to have "no leverage"? Does he envision people buying homes for 100% cash, with no mortgages? Wouldn't the more reasonable suggestion be that we have less leverage instead of no leverage?


The image above, of the Happy Days character Fonzie (played by Henry Winkler) jumping the shark comes from Media Bistro.

¹For those unfamiliar with the phrase, see the Urban Dictionary's definition of "jumping the shark".