There are a lot of things we don’t know about Russia’s attempt to invade Ukraine, but there are also some things we do know. Mr. Putin’s gamble, and the West’s response, has brought into view one of the few existential tail risks that isn’t a Black Swan, which is to say, it is a known unknown: The risk of an escalation into war between Russia and NATO, and the exchange of nuclear weaponry. The continued call on NATO from Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to impose a no-fly zone his country is an alarming case in point. I have no idea how to quantify such a risk, and it is fair to assume that markets don’t either, at least not with any accuracy. BCA’s suggestion that you might as well be long stocks on a 12-month basis, even if you think an ICBM is headed your way is probably a fair reflection of the level of analysis you can expect from your favourite sell-side researcher. Take everything you read with a heap of salt.
Read MoreThe idea of government intervention and demand-side fiscal stimulus was born by Keynes, eradicated by neoclassical economics, lazily reintroduced by the new Keynesians, and is now enjoying a renaissance. It’s fiendishly difficult to judge history in real time, but I would bet that the current shift has momentum, a position that has been strengthened by the response to the Covid-19 crisis. It is perhaps unfair to insist on a marriage between this story and MMT, but it serves as an introduction to the issues at hand. The idea that governments with sovereign Chartalist currencies can’t run out of money, and that this power should be used to achieve full employment, is enticing. It is also, however, naive. MMT easily dodges the main theoretical critique, at least in the current environment. The Phillips Curve probably still exists, but it has also flattened significantly, making it difficult to attack MMT armed with the traditional trade-off between unemployment and inflation. If MMT passes this first test, however, it fails the subsequent trials. The implementation of MMT in today’s economy requires significant shifts in the relationship between fiscal and monetary policymakers and an end to the free flow of capital. My sense is that about half the proponents of the theory don’t have a clue about any of this. The other half understands that MMT requires an end to central bank independence, and a significant reduction in capital mobility. The problem is that this latter group aren’t being honest, and for that reason, I am skeptical about their true motivation. If you want to dial back globalization, the least you can do is to be honest about what this means for households and firms. If you think that an independent central bank is a suboptimal institution, how will the alternative look, and how will it be held accountable?
Read MoreIt has been three weeks since I last updated these pages, and as I leaf through my charts, I am tempted to conclude that nothing substantial has changed. In the global economy, headline leading indicators signal stable and relatively robust growth. The first chart below shows that my diffusion index of macroeconomic leading indicators is rising gently, indicating that the pace of industrial production growth in the major advanced economies will rise to slightly above 4% year-over-year in the next few months. The two following charts show individual leading indicators in the large economies. They are all rising year-over-year, and momentum has accelerated, with the notable exception of the U.K's leading index still stuck below zero. Finally, I throw in charts of real M1 growth—arguably the best single macroeconomic leading indicator—and these data also are constructive. We have to watch the slowdown in China, but M1 growth rose in July, which does not suggest a liquidity crunch, at least not in Q3.
Read More