|
I think everyone knows that for some years the Japanese economy has been very
sluggish. In response to this situation a number of eminent economists suggested
the usual Keynesian nostrum of spend, spend and spend. As expected, Krugman
was one of them -- as was Milton Friedman. (Most economists do not know that
Chicago was Keynesian before Keynes). Friedman claimed that Japan could climb
out of recession by inflating the money supply. According to Friedman the answer
lay with the central bank. All it needed to do was
[b]uy up government securities. It can keep on buying them. It doesn't matter
whether the interest rate is 1.2 per cent, 1.1 per cent or 1 per cent. If
it buys those securities it will increase the monetary base. It will do more
in the short run to help Japan resolve its banking crisis than any short-term
reforms. (Barron's, 24 August 1998).
The thinking behind Friedman's advice is very simple. When the central bank
expands the money supply it raises nominal incomes which in turn increases
spending. This additional spending will drive economic growth and hence bring
about economic recovery. Moreover, the rise in nominal incomes will raise the
demand for financial assets which will raise their prices and so lower their
yields. This process, or so it is argued, will strengthen economic growth by
raising the demand for capital goods. (If this thinking strikes you as being
Keynesian, then you are absolutely right).
Thomas E. Nugent pointed out that in March 2001 the Bank of Japan (BOJ) implemented
a policy of monetary expansion (NRO, Print
More Money, Create Higher Inflation?, 7 September 2006). The result
was a rapid increase in the monetary base (cash). This was followed by falling
prices and collapsing interest rates, "with short-term interest rates moving
to virtually zero".
Two years later the BOJ reported that the economy was still deteriorating.
Keynesians responded by arguing that the monetary expansion had not been big
enough. Yet in 2002 the monetary base, as Nugent pointed out, was up by 28
per cent. However, M2 (cash plus bank deposits) was up by only 1 to 2 per cent.
So why didn't the economy boom and prices pick up?
Let's start with interest rates. If Keynes were right interest rates would
be at their lowest at the peak of a boom and at their highest at the bottom
of a bust. In fact we find the exact reverse. Sir Dennis Robertson, a far shrewder
economist than Krugman or Galbraith Jr can ever hope to be, was keenly aware
of the Keynesian confusion on interest rates, causing him to cleverly write:
Thus the [Keynesian] rate of interest is what it is because it is expected
to become other than it is; if it is not expected to become other than it
is, there is nothing left to tell us why it is what it is. The organ which
secretes it has become amputated. And yet it somehow still exists a grin
without a cat.
Interest is the price of time. It is in this role that it brings into balance
the supply of capital goods (future goods) with the demand for capital goods.
In doing so it allocates these goods through time, so to speak. This is what
gives capital its time structure.
By forcing the rate of interest below its market rate capitalists are deceived
into thinking there are more real savings available than actually exist. This
causes them to invest in projects for which the complementary factors of production
will be available. This phenomenon will be particularly pronounced in the higher
stages of production. In other words, manipulating the rate of interest generates
malinvestments that have to be liquidated.
This brings us to the value of money. First and foremost money is a medium
of exchange the value of which is determined by supply and demand, with demand
consisting of two components: The exchange or pre-income demand. This is where
people offer goods and services, including their labour, for money. The second
component is the post-income demand or money balances.
The first component is what interests us here. An economy progresses by accumulating
capital. (The Austrian School, which also stresses the role of the entrepreneur,
describes this process as one in which the capital structure is lengthening).
The effect of capital accumulation is increased productivity accompanied by
falling prices. From about 1874 to 1896 Great Britain experienced falling prices
even though the world's supply of gold was increasing by about 2 per cent per
annum.
This secular price trend was clearly the result of increasing productivity.
When productivity increases on a gold standard more and more goods are being
offered for the same unit of gold. In other words, the purchasing power of
gold, meaning money, is continually rising. On a paper standard, however, we
usually find that many of the benefits of increased productivity are vitiated
by slack monetary policies.
The above reasoning leads to the conclusion that falling prices brought about
by increased productivity are really goods-induced changes in purchasing power.
A situation like this has no effect on profit margins because these are being
maintained by falling costs of production. This leads to the conclusion that
the fall in the prices of Japanese manufactures is the result of increased
productivity.
Real estate is a different matter. There is no doubt that Japan's inflationary
policies of the 1980s raised real estate prices to preposterous levels, making
a severe adjustment inevitable. This brings back to malinvestments (the result
of misdirected production) and profit margins. If a government succeeds in
preventing the necessary liquidations profit margins will continue to be squeezed
and savings drained away from potentially profitable enterprises. When this
happens one should expect the banks to accumulate excess reserves, even when
the cash base has been significantly increased.
Japan has been here before. World War I triggered a boom in Japan that was
fuelled by cheap credit policies. In 1913 the wholesale price index stood at
100: by March 1920 it had risen to 322. This leap in prices was a sure sign
that credit expansion was out of control. It was also in March of 1920 that
commodity prices broke.
The boom came to an abrupt end and by April 1920 a monetary contraction had
driven the price level down to 190. Even so, this rapid and steep drop of 132
points was insufficient to bring Japanese prices in to line with those of her
trading partners, whose prices had fallen even further.
Then, as now, the Japanese authorities had arrested the adjustment process,
causing Japan seven years of economic stagnation that helped fuel Japanese
militarism. This locked-in the boom-created malinvestments, freezing maladjusted
costs and prices thus trapping capital in unprofitable lines of production,
denying other lines of production the necessary capital for expansion.
Something had to give -- and it did. In 1927 the internal contradictions of
this economic policy were finally resolved by what was probably the severest
financial crisis in Japanese history. The crisis brought down industries and
wiped out many branch bank systems.
Thus ended Japan's first New Deal policy, all because she did not follow the
American example of the time* and allow market processes to fully liquidate
her unsound investments and eliminate excess inventories. Nevertheless, the
1927 crisis finally eliminated the war-time boom's malinvestments resulting
in about 18 months of consolidation.
The lesson for Japan is to follow the American example of allowing markets
greater flexibility in eliminating malinvestments.
*I am referring to the 1920-21 financial crisis. Unfortunately, when the
1929 crisis broke Hoover's destructive meddling arrested recovery. His ad
hoc interventionist policies were adopted by Roosevelt who was even more
of an interventionist than Hoover.
|