Why talk about inflation?

Prices will not spike in the United States for years, maybe decades. In fact, they are falling at record pace. So why talk about inflation? Why risk an economic depression and a painfully slow recovery over the improbable?

The obsession with inflation is here again. Some members of Congress, market analysts, and economists are forcing the debate. Pure politics. They did not learn from the Great Recession. They did not learn from the Great Depression. They do not admit their past errors, and they will sink us again.

Ten years ago, 23 economists penned an “Open Letter to Ben Bernanke.” They told then Federal Reserve Chair that its accommodative policies risked ”currency debasement and inflation.” I remember that stupid letter as a macro forecaster at the Board. How could they? One year after the recession ended, when consumers , were struggling to come back. When the letter ran the unemployment rate was nearly 10%. The Fed stayed the course to help Wall Street: they bought more assets; keep interest rates low; and stock prices rose rapidly. (The inflation the wealthy enjoy.) Political risks and inflation fears stopped the Fed from saving Main Street. They did not have the courage to act.

The letter writers were prominent then and remain on the scene. Among them, John Taylor, namesake of a rule for monetary policy; Kevin Hassett, a key adviser to President Trump now; David Malpass a former Treasury and World Bank official in this Administration; and Kevin Warsh, an integral actor in the Federal Reserve bailouts in the financial crisis. They were wrong. Inflation never exceeded the Fed’s target of 2%. The recovery dragged on for years. No surprise: they never admitted their error. They did not learn.

Fast forward to today and the inflation posse is back. They are peddling the same tired inflation fears by retrofitting them to Covid-19. They claim that with many workers furloughed and businesses closed that money from Congress will overheat our economy, causing prices to shoot up. Too little to buy and too much deficit spending. My life in past three months is nonstop shouting match, trying to convince others that we have the “mother of all demand shocks.” More deficit spending, trillions more, is all the stands between us a depression.

Inflation fears are ideology not economics. Not one letter signatory expressed alarm in 2017 when President Trump’s massive tax cut blew out the federal debt. Then they peddled supply-side snake oil, driving in reverse from 2010. They promised that lower taxes in the longest expansion on record would bring growth and tax revenues, leaning on the flimsy Laffer curve. Wrong. Covid-19 is their new crutch, rebranded it as a supply shock. Wrong and dangerous.

What are the facts? Consumer prices, excluding food and energy, are falling. They will tell you official statistics “might be meaningless” today. What? The personal consumption index, the Federal Reserves target series, adjusts its weights as consumers change what they buy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses a technique called chained prices, international standard for measuring inflation. US statistical agencies addressed many concerns of the Boskin Commission in 1996. Even so, Michael Boskin signed the letter to Bernanke.

The facts are the facts. Inflationists ignore facts. Americans pay the price.

Far more than the signatories to the open letter are sounding the alarm. Economists across the profession join them. Last week Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, started asking questions. He offered three ways that inflation “might surprise on the upside:” soaring public debt-to-GDP ratios (discredited trope); jump in interest rates (after declining for decades); and fiscal policy overriding monetary policy (Fed cannot do it alone, listen to Jay Powell).  Of course, Blanchard stands by this intellectual exercise. To be clear, most of his arguments were against inflation. Even so, after a decade answering questions as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve, I know that the questions we ask are a window to our thinking.

Tyler Cowen, the Director of the Mercatus Center, applauded the Financial Times piece and he said we should worry about inflation now. He took his troll style further and castigated economists who push back as “dogmatic” and “yappers.” Who is name calling now? So goes the debate among professional economists. So goes the repeat of the Great Recession. “Serious economists” as Paul Krugman says must accept economist whose models build in supply side disruptions from Covid-19. Wow, exclusionary.*

Arin Dube and Casey Mulligan, professors at University of Massachusetts-Amherst and University of Chicago respectively, could not be further apart in economic policy today. (Dube earned his PhD at Chicago, so they do have common training.) Yet, Dube has concerns with the $600 per week extra jobless benefits. He raised concerns (along with may economists) that weekly checks higher could discourage people to return to work, even when it’s safe. To be clear, Dube is working tirelessly for better jobless benefits and higher minimum wages. Mulligan dishes out harsh (and bad) criticism of jobless benefits. Too few workers, as demand returns, will require that employers to raise their wages (dare to dream). Wage inflation would pass to price inflation. Wrong.

Over 36 million and counting claimed jobless benefits since March. At 20% unemployment and with family income in free fall, wage inflation is distant. In fact, 2019 with unemployment at or below 4% led to moderate wage growth. inflation never made it to 2%. I am watching the train wreck of the Great Recession again and it hurts.  I am terrified that we are falling into a deflationary spiral, a brewing economics that the Fed cannot fix.  

Basically, every defunct model of economics is rearing its ugly head. Larry Summers a few days ago, drew attention to to how the unemployed are spending their time at home. Unemployed men “drinking beer, playing video games, and watching 10 hours of TV a day” will not be ready to return to work. Inexplicably, he predicts (people gainfully employed in February, many written off in the last recovery as unskilled) are lazing away after a few beers and Tiger King. Again. The subtext I see (again I watched this train wreck in the last recovery) will lead to too few skilled workers. That will drive wages and prices higher.

Summers, my empty tequila bottles are not a sign of laziness or eroding my skills. Millions of us are trying push the tragedies of today from our thoughts for a few hours. I drank half a bottle by myself after a friend’s grandmother died from Covid-19. And about as much after I read your “Cape-Cod in winter” description of our crisis. You have fans among the cowardly economists on a cesspool forum . They said I am wrong. I am not.**

None of these arguments are new. I have had to listen to them for almost twenty years. With hundreds of economists at the Board, I wasted countless hours on memos explaining why inflationists were wrong. Six years ago, our inflation experts told the Federal Open Market Committee that they would not achieve their inflation target without more effort. They told them trend inflation was below 2%. Deb Lindner, our top inflation expert wrote a memo saying as much. Fed officials attacked it in the Boardroom. The worst offender had to apologize to her afterward for being disrespectful. She did not want an apology; she wanted the FOMC to listen to the staff, to listen to the facts. They did not. Year after year Fed officials expected inflation at 2%. Wrong.

Members of the economics profession—those who signed the open letter and those who did not—are falling into the trap of ideology again. It is intellectually defensible to ask questions and to use abstract models to think through the economy. Inexcusable to use falsified models. Bad models cause suffering. Bad models empower Congress and the President. They will cut off relief this summer. They want to cut capital gains taxes. Bond holders over workers, again. Economists deliver, again.

I created the Sahm rule, highly accurate recession indicator. I have a highly accurate bullshit detector too. Both are flashing red.***

Additional End Notes

* Paul Krugman is consistently on point in his economics and his uncovering of the politics behind the arguments. Of course, his views are wrong sometimes. (Mine are more often and I clueless about DC politics.) My problem with him bestowing a “serious economist” label stems from my crusade (see my first macromom post) to make economics more diverse, inclusive, and equitable. Every women economist, including myself, has had a man colleague walk in their office to tell them they are not a “serious economist” or the equivalent. When a hero joins in the exclusion, even if unintentional, it hurts. Yes, I am sensitive. They hurt me. and many others in the profession.

** My argument here involving Larry Summer center on his policy mistakes and his disregard for the suffering of people without his privilege. Two men journalists at major publications and a handful men economists called me out (using a respectful tone) for connection his words to the “skills gap.” His arguments against basic income (namely the sloth of others) align closely arguments against the skills gap. In addition, I have been around the block and know, in recessions, it is best to pull weeds before they take over.

*** Bill Dudley, the President of the New York Fed wrote me an email last fall as I was packing up at the Board. In the subject line (of course, all the words I got were in the subject line), he told me he had a recession indicator years before me. He pointed me to a Goldman newsletter in his spin through Wall Street. Screenshot of the page and the indicator highlighted in yellow. I have a PhD and over a decade of experience in real world economics. I can read, sir. Why did he say it? Kate Davidson wrote an piece about the Sahm rule, “Are We in a Recession? Experts Agree: Ask Claudia Sahm.” Can you imagine, at a high point of my professional career, a man I have never met, a man who had more stature in economic policy than I ever will, took the time to take me down a notch.

Dudley joined a long list of men who have done the same to me and worse to others. I wrote Ben Bernanke, past President of the American Economics Association, a month ago after an aspiring black woman economist was viciously disrespected, two months before that a black woman professor was referred to as a “monkey.” I told Bernanke, “economics is a disgrace.” For years, our leaders have tolerated bad behavior. They have looked away. For years, economists have been hurt For years, bad actors have taught new economists how to be like them, to exclude and demean others. This post is about bad economics. My passion is making economics better.

If you have read this far or follow me on Twitter, you know I am a pain in the ass and take professional risks that are insane. It is worth it.

**** My views here post are my own. They do not reflect the views of my employers: past, present, and future. I own my words.

next steps, these won’t be easy

Whew! this macromom has been busy and not writing here recently. Never fear, the survey is out (do watch the video, and use the data) and my research is humming along  (eight coauthors really can span sets) and I’ve got a few hours before my kids get back home today.

#icymi I want to share some recent developments on diversity in economics. AND to talk about the (tough) next steps ahead of us.

“The AEA Executive Committee recently adopted the AEA Code of Professional Conduct as revised by the Ad Hoc Committee to Consider a Code based on more than 200 comments received from the AEA membership. “

The American Economics Association now has a professional code of conduct. If you are an economist, read it and LIVE IT:

The American Economic Association holds that principles of professional conduct should guide economists in academia, government, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.

The AEA’s founding purpose of “the encouragement of economic research” requires intellectual and professional integrity. Integrity demands honesty, care, and transparency in conducting and presenting research; disinterested assessment of ideas; acknowledgement of limits of expertise; and disclosure of real and perceived conflicts of interest.

The AEA encourages the “perfect freedom of economic discussion.” This goal requires an environment where all can freely participate and where each idea is considered on its own merits. Economists have a professional obligation to conduct civil and respectful discourse in all forums, including those that allow confidential or anonymous participation.

The AEA seeks to create a professional environment with equal opportunity and fair treatment for all economists, regardless of age, sex, gender identity and expression, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, health condition, marital status, parental status, genetic information, political affiliation, professional status, or personal connections.

Economists have both an individual responsibility for their own conduct, and a collective responsibility to promote professional conduct. These responsibilities include developing institutional arrangements and a professional environment that promote free expression concerning economics. These responsibilities also include supporting participation and advancement in the economics profession by individuals from all backgrounds, including particularly those that have been historically underrepresented.

The AEA strives to promote these principles through its activities.

See my earlier blog posts (here and here) on the proposed code of conduct. Happy to see a few of my suggestion made it into the final draft, though it is largely in the original (very good) form. Kudos to the 200 economists out of 20,000 AEA members who sent in suggestions. (Seriously, to the rest of you, I love you but come on … public goods don’t create themselves.) See the final report in April from this ad hoc committee (#5 made me smile, “fair treatment” is essential, and “equal” is not always “fair”). Thank you to the committee: John Campbell, Marianne Bertrand, Pascaline Dupas, Benjamin Edelman, and Matthew D. Shapiro.

From this effort, the AEA has formed two new ad hoc committees: 1) on Professional Climate in Economics see their report in April and  2) on Economists’ Career Concerns …and a new standing committee on Equity, Diversity, and Professional Conduct. Thanks to everyone involved. I am doing my small part (and you can too). I spoke at the Women in Economics conference in St. Louis, noted in the report. I am happy to add my two cents on these topics but it makes me a bit uneasy … I have not unlocked the secret to success. I worry A LOT that I am giving bad advice. I want to believe that economics is getting better, more inclusive and welcoming to diverse viewpoints but reality smacks me in the face from time to time.

So next steps. I am in favor of surveys of economists, since I know how much economists LOVE data … but these are not going to be the objective data that we want. He said / she said accounts do not fit well in the representative agent framework and I have seen subjective data criticized more than once. plus HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO WE NEED TO DETERMINE A PROBLEM? The end of this latest CSWEP newsletter account from Jennifer Bennett Shinall, broke my heart:

“But to my knowledge, the one party who did not get punished was my harasser. He remains out there, unscathed due to the loopholes in our current system, free to harass other victims.”

Remind me again, why I am encouraging young women to enter the economics profession? How much “data” do you all need? And then read the anonymous accounts in that newsletter. AAARGH. You all know how hard economics is. The data, the identification, the communication. And then you’ve got jerks who think of you as boobs or as competition to knock off the platform. Ah, yes, but I should keep an open mind.

I want to close this post with an excellent point from Abigail Wozniak. She nailed the next steps, in my opinion. As a profession we have some very difficult conversations ahead of us. No amount of data can spare us. Read this discussion (with the Arrested Development cast) and find yourself.

“TAMBOR And I have, and am continuing to do. And I profusely have apologized. Ms. Walter is indeed a walking acting lesson. And on “Transparent,” you know, I had a temper and I yelled at people and I hurt people’s feelings. And that’s unconscionable, and I’m working on it and I’m going to put that behind me, and I love acting.

BATEMAN Again, not to belittle it or excuse it or anything, but in the entertainment industry it is incredibly common to have people who are, in quotes, “difficult.” And when you’re in a privileged position to hire people, or have an influence in who does get hired, you make phone calls. And you say, “Hey, so I’ve heard X about person Y, tell me about that.” And what you learn is context. And you learn about character and you learn about work habits, work ethics, and you start to understand. Because it’s a very amorphous process, this sort of [expletive] that we do, you know, making up fake life. It’s a weird thing, and it is a breeding ground for atypical behavior and certain people have certain processes.

SHAWKAT But that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. And the point is that things are changing, and people need to respect each other differently.

WALTER [THROUGH TEARS] Let me just say one thing that I just realized in this conversation. I have to let go of being angry at him. He never crossed the line on our show, with any, you know, sexual whatever. Verbally, yes, he harassed me, but he did apologize. I have to let it go. [Turns to Tambor.] And I have to give you a chance to, you know, for us to be friends again.”

Personally, I alternate between Walter (still dealing with the anger in my earlier post) and Shawkat (trying to convince macro men they are hurting others, regardless their intentions). I have also been Bateman on occasion, making excuses for others and the profession. And I cannot tell you HOW MANY Batemans I have spoken to. It’s me, being too sensitive. Me, not understanding how our field works. Me. needing to cut some jerk slack. Me, not appreciating how rough it was thirty years ago. Okay. But what about them? I would MUCH rather be doing economics. I do not like personal conflict, and frankly there are much bigger problems out in the world. And it hurts to see my ‘economics heroes’ being so callous. Even so, we have to have these discussions, or else the code of conduct will be a hollow victory. And nothing will change.

PS. Let’s not make this too hard. We all have had the experience of going all in on a conclusion to then realize its not the right one. Thanks for Beatrice Cherrier for this Paul Samuelson revelation. Look “Ruefully, yours” is not the optimal outcome but it’s way better than digging your heels and being an idiot. Don’t be stupid.

 

 

from the comments … mine on the AEA’s code of conduct

This afternoon I submitted my comments on the AEA’s proposed code of conduct and interim report. You have until March 15th to do the same here.  I thought I would go ahead and share my comments below. Maybe this will spur other ideas for you to submit to the AEA … or you are welcome to reply with “what Claudia said” if you like.

Please, please take time to submit your comments.

___________________________________________

Thank you to everyone who got us to this point of submitting comments on specific proposals. I had expressed pessimism on my blog last summer and am encouraged by the response of the economics community so far. Even so, for the code and other proposals to lead to meaningful change, we will need sustained, broad-based efforts.

Comments on the code:

  • I agree with spirit of the first three paragraphs of the code, setting it squarely within the mission of the American Economic Association. Some have argued that the AEA is not in a position to push back against behavior on a private website or that civil discourse can be sacrificed. It is important for the code to clearly rebut those arguments.
  • I am concerned that the “equal treatment” and “equal opportunity” section will be used to defend the status quo. For example, Antecol, Bedard, and Stearns (2018) found that gender-neutral tenure clock adjustments benefited men over women. It would also be helpful in this section to state clearly that economics is currently far from this goal. In addition, the listing of “protected groups” could be counterproductive. Some may argue for additional groups like gender identity or political party affiliation. An alternate approach would be to simply state the goal: economic arguments should be evaluated respectfully on their scientific merits and not on the personal characteristics or affiliations of the economist.
  • The code ‘nailed the landing’ with its final paragraph. It is essential that we accept both individual and collective responsibility as professional economists. The silent bystanders need to speak up when they see problematic behavior.

Comments on the report:

  • The intention to make sure that AEA journals follow the code is a good one. It might be useful to run experiments at one of the journals or with a portion of the ASSA sessions. Empirical evidence on what works and what doesn’t would likely increase buy-in from economists and could establish best practices for other journals and conferences.
  • It is important that the leadership of the AEA is more representative of its members, including liberal arts colleges, government, and private sector economists, not just a handful of research universities.
  • A survey of the AEA membership is a good first step to assessing the status quo and the room for improvement. Please utilize experts in survey methodology as well as those with experience running surveys of economists and diversity efforts. A well-designed survey could be used both to survey members in general and to establish a baseline in specific environments that run experiments. Cognitive interviews and pre-testing can insure that the questions are working as expected before fielding the survey. Administrative, objective data is important to collect but so are more subjective, qualitative data. Please make sure the survey is run through the AEA and not pushed down to one of the diversity subcommittees. It is important to make sure response rates are high across various sub-populations of economists. One idea to raise participation would be to make it mandatory for registration at the ASSA meetings or for submitting to an AEA journal.
  • An assessment of seminar culture is important and should be done scientifically. The effect of the climate on participants is important, not just the outward interactions. The design of the study needs to be aware of the Hawthorne effect and confirmation bias of the data collectors. Please engage experts in communication outside of economics.
  • The steps to address bias are a good starting point. Please utilize resources like Diversifying Economic Quality and existing research. To encourage and support further research in reducing bias, the AEA could set aside publication space in one of its journals and/or have a standing session at the ASSA on bias.
  • Addressing and replacing EJMR is going to take concerted efforts in education and in providing alternate outlets for sharing information. An anonymous, online message board is not good for the economics profession. Personnel information is sensitive and sharing it without authorization runs afoul of most employers’ human resource policies. Accusations of intellectual dishonesty should be taken seriously not turned into sport. Finally libelous speech, harassment, and stalking on a website and in personal interactions is a very serious concern. Telling those affected to ignore the comments or to have a thicker skin is not a solution. Punishments for continued bad behavior need to be spelled out. Experts in mediation and legal treatment of harassment should help in crafting the new policies.

___________________________________________

PS To keep my comments under the 750 word limit, I had to trim back some. For example, I had written in my intro: “Also after many years of turning a blind eye to bad behavior in the economic profession, an apology from the AEA to those who have put up with the crap and to the ‘missing economists’ who have left the profession would be welcome.” On reflection, ‘we are sorry’ is not enough … we have to do better. Recently I have been encouraging other women to enter economics and I simply want better for the next generation.

economists learning to code, together

UPDATE: The AEA has posted its report and draft of the professional code of conduct. Open for comments until March 15.

honesty and integrity in our work, civil and respectful dialogues in any forum, responsibility for own and collective conduct …

Friday night as I heard John Campbell describe plans for a new professional code of conduct for economists, my mind was a jumble of thoughts and emotions. Above all, was a weary hallelujah. This is the clearest high-profile recognition I have heard that economics has a problem here. I also took comfort in being wrong: back in September on this blog, I had staked out an expectation of being disappointed by the AEA’s response to Alice Wu’s findings. In my defense, it doesn’t take a DSGE model to tell you how hard it is for economists to set their sights on a new equilibrium.  This outcome was not a given; it took many voices (see, weary above). The AEA received a petition with over 1,000 economist signatures, an #EJMinfo hashtag was set up by two concerned economists, and countless discussions followed. I know many of those voices personally and my PhD advisor was on the code’s committee, so I sat there feeling immensely grateful.

Of course, not every thought I had was positive. At the start of the business meeting, I shot off a grumpy tweet: “true, lots of women here … but none at the head table, not encouraging.” I am sure AEA President Al Roth was trying to lighten the mood by referring to the “largest crowd ever” in the room, but frankly I wasn’t in the mood for jokes.  One surprise (to me) by having spoken up about the culture in economics is how people now come to me with their painful experiences. It SUCKS, hurts, makes me angry, and tests my love of economics. Roth’s joke made me think how we could have filled the Grand Ballroom (it wasn’t really a big crowd) with all the “lost economists” … the men and women who got hurt by our culture and walked away or who never felt invited in. Of course, if they had been assembled, we would have heard an apology, right? I did not hear an apology.

Setting aside, what a mess my internal wiring is … the code of conduct and the next steps outlined by Peter Rousseau at the business meeting will take a lot of work, from everyone. More diversity among the AEA officers (did you know an economist from a liberal arts college has never been elected?), a survey of the professional climate in economics (reminder: data are endogenous), AEA promoting best practices to end harassment and supporting victims (it’s about time), a new Job Wiki run by the AEA (thanks #EJMinfo for showing it can be done non-anonymously), and a moderated online forum for economists (thanks EJMR for showing how asymmetric info is in the profession and how much we need moderators). Inspiring words from a new AEA committee are not enough, ask CSWEP (founded in 1971) how hard it is to move the dial on presence of women in economics (no progress in last 20 years).

I’ll close with some backward induction. Look up again at the new goals for professional conduct … go to that new equilibrium in your mind and then solve backward to today. Think of all the tough conversations, sticking points (even defining terms will be hard), and tears between where we are now and where we want to go. I know. My Twitter is littered with my clumsy (but patient) attempts on this topic, like this two-day convo on seminar culture or this on diversity in macro panels. And I am not going to stop. I also got a head start on the tears (cried Friday night back in my room) … but I LOVE the idea from this code that we are in it together. Each of us taking collective responsibility for economics is a tall order but essential for real progress.

It will be glorious. Let’s get to it.  #ASSA2018  #thankyou

Addendum: I wrote this post from notes I took at the AEA Business Meeting. Here is related news coverage in the WSJ and Bloomberg. Look for the AEA to publish its proposals for member comment soon. And please, when they do, take time to send them your comments. I will.