Thursday, February 11, 2016

Stanislaus on monetary hydraulics — guest post

Tom here: Stanilaus has been working on figuring out MMT for some time and has come up with the following post as a comment at Modern Monetary Mechanics hosted by Senexx. I offered to put it up here to introduce him and get some feedback. Please encourage him with constructive criticism. He has been working hard to figure all this out. His background is in psychology.

********************************************

As an amateur MMTer, I’ve arrived at the stage where I regard the economy somewhat from a holistic point of view.

 Briefly (heh, heh) I focus on an equation that concerns the level of money in circulation (not ‘existence’, folks), that is, money readily available and being used in exchange transactions of goods and services for money. It’s not the ultimate equation of everything economic, but it gives us a perspicuous view of an important part of the economy.

ΔC = INF – EXF

where
C – quantity of money in circulation
ΔC – change in quantity of money in circulation
INF – quantity of money flowing into circulation
EXF – quantity of money flowing out of circulation

We can expand INF and EXF somewhat along lines of equations for GDP, but not the same as these equations.

INF = [X + G + I + L]

X – quantity of export money coming into circulation
G – quantity of money entering circulation from government
I – quantity of money entering circulation as investments
L – quantity of money entering circulation from bank loans

EXF = [M + T + S + P]

M – quantity of money leaving circulation in buying imports
T – quantity of money leaving circulation as taxes
S – quantity of money leaving circulation as saving
P – quantity of money leaving circulation in payback of bank loans

In other words,

ΔC = [X + G + I + L] – [M + T + S + L]

This equation is inspired by a basic equation in hydrology concerning the change in level of water in a reservoir as a function of the difference between inputs and outputs of water into and out of the reservoir. Or you can think of swimming pools and beautiful girls…. and various sources of
water coming into the pool and draining water from the pool.

If ΔC is positive, the quantity of money in circulation is increasing.

 If ΔC is negative it is decreasing.

Note that because money is fungible we can substitute different amounts of different sources of money flowing in and flowing out of circulation and get the same change in the quantity of money in circulation.

 For example an economy may be heavily deficit spending (beyond taxes taken in) and
one could counter that imbalanced effect on the level of money in circulation by liberalizing importing with low or no tariffs so that M = D where D is the deficit component of G, i.e. D = G – T.

Anyone we know did this? What about Dick Cheney’s remark that deficits don’t matter. He was saying this in the context of heavy deficit spending on the war in Iraq while people were being encouraged to buy inexpensive imported goods from China at WalMart. No need to balance the budget fiscally, i.e. G = T.; what we need to balance is inflows against outflows from circulation.

But when? We don’t want to force inflows of money to always be equal to outflows of money to and from circulation.

It would be folly to seek the balance when the economy is in deflation.

When that is the case INF should be greater than EXF, and INF > EXF held for some time until C rises to the level C’ where there is full production and employment at stable prices. At that point we should seek to make INF = EXF.

But there may be many ways to achieve this with different mixes of the quantities in these expressions. So, this equation allows a government using it to have considerable flexibility in its policy on spending.

The equation also shows what must be done to to avoid inflation once we reach full production and employment at stable prices. Essentially, we will have inflation when C > C’, that is, more money is circulating than needed to maintain full production and employment at stable prices. Prices will begin to rise as excess money is used by those who acquire it to outbid others for goods and services, which cannot be increased by more INF.

Once we arrive at full employment and production and prices start to rise generally across the board, that is the time we must make INF < EXF so as to lower the level of money in circulation C. The goal then is to get back to C'. Increase buying imports (sending money out of circulation in the nation).

Encourage savings and discourage investment by raising interest rates.

Clamp down on bank lending and encourage borrowers to pay up.

 Have the Central Bank or Treasury sell more bonds to take money out of circulation into time deposit saving accounts known as bonds or securities. These can be the same kind of bonds or securities used to acquire money for deficit spending. But deficit money is going to increase money in circulation if spent back into circulation, while sequestered money from sale of govt. bonds and securities drains money out of circulation.

So, this equation shows us that hyperinflation is not inevitable. No more is it than a reservoir not flooding when inflows are managed by adjusting outflows to keep the reservoir full but not overflowing.

 The CB does not have to always "print more money". There is a time and place for everything. And the equation shows us what must be done in each circumstance.

28 comments:

The Arthurian said...

I like it. It is original and well thought out. And obviously a lot of work went into it.

The focus on circulating money is important, and the distinction between money in circulation and money in existence. Because money in existence is a pretty good measure of debt. And money in circulation is what is used to pay down debt.

The part about beautiful girls was good, too.

NeilW said...

"X – quantity of export money coming into circulation

...

M – quantity of money leaving circulation in buying imports"

That is incorrect in a floating rate economy. It fits with the standard mappings used in economics but is fundamental an incorrect view in terms of flows.

The correct view is that people buying imports don't actually buy the imports. They buy somebody else's local currency denominated goods, services or asset and then swap the real purchases with their counterparty in the foreign domain. The FX system neatly sorts that process out for us without us having to think about it.

So nothing ever really leaves circulation via the foreign domain. It's just another form of leaving as saving.

Similarly money flows into circulation *from* prior savings as well as bank loans - and I don't see that on the list.

Foreigners are little different from local people in a floating rate system.

Matt Franko said...

Stop using the word "money" its a metonym if not a metalepsis...

Use USD...

NeilW said...

"until C rises to the level C’ where there is full production and employment at stable prices"

Again that isn't strictly true. You can raise C until the level of employment hits the *matching limit*, but that isn't full employment - because there will remain a list of people for whom there isn't a job match and a list of jobs for which there can be no match. The job matching problem doesn't clear automatically. It has to be made to clear.

The difference between true full employment - where everybody that wants a job at the living wage has one, and the point at which the 'free market' runs out of the ability to create more jobs without inflation is entirely down to the job matching problem.

The neo-classical think you should turn dustmen into brain surgeons by removing their food and shelter until they borrow enough money and take enough course to become brain surgeons.

Those of us here have a more realistic view - you have to have something that creates jobs that match the people as they are.

The Arthurian said...

Neil: "The correct view is that people buying imports don't actually buy the imports."

You're a funny guy, Neil.

The Arthurian said...

Neil: "The neo-classical think you should turn dustmen into brain surgeons ... Those of us here have a more realistic view [of full employment] - you have to have something that creates jobs that match the people as they are."

Keynes: "a realistic interpretation of [frictional unemployment] legitimately allows for various inexactnesses of adjustment which stand in the way of continuous full employment: for example, unemployment due to a temporary want of balance between the relative quantities of specialised resources ..."

Keynes would not consider your definition of full employment "realistic". I agree with Keynes.

Brian Romanchuk said...

Why reinvent the wheel? If you get your hands on Godley and Lavoie, you can see well-defined stock-flow consistent (SFC) models, which takes into account all of the major drivers of economic growth. MMT incorporates SFC models.

For the private sector, "money" mainly consists of short-term private sector liabilities - bank deposits, commercial paper. Those liabilities are created by private sector borrowing, which is mainly driven by trends in investment. Expectations of profit growth drive investment, and hence "money creation". Most of the time, this effect dominates other drivers of money creation.

Random said...

"your definition of full employment "realistic"."

It is. Just offer a government job at the living wage to anyone who wants one *fitted* to them. Bang. Done. Full employment until the end of time.

There is no need for unemployment.

NeilW said...

The realistic view of full employment is everybody that wants a job has one.

That's it.

Anything else isn't full employment.

And I don't really care what people interpret Keynes as saying - particular something that clearly relates to wait unemployment. I always refer such people to his quote:

“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back"

NeilW said...

"Neil: "The correct view is that people buying imports don't actually buy the imports."

You're a funny guy, Neil."

They don't. They have the wrong sort of money to do that. What FX does is set up the exchanges so that the process I describe is conceptually what happens.

If you believe otherwise then you are stuck in a convertible currency paradigm.

The Arthurian said...

Neil: "If you believe otherwise then you are stuck in a convertible currency paradigm. "

What I believe is that your remarks are always forceful but seldom actually explain anything, and that you often make sideways comments about the people to whom you are replying. I believe you're a bully. But hey, let's give it another chance. Let's go back to the sentence after the funny sentence. You said:
"The correct view is that people buying imports don't actually buy the imports. They buy somebody else's local currency denominated goods, services or asset and then swap the real purchases with their counterparty in the foreign domain."

What does that even mean? Let's say I'm the guy buying imports. I don't actually buy imported beer, you are saying. I buy domestic beer and then swap it for imported beer? "Swap the real purchases," you said. Swap six packs? Barter? With whom? And how is this simpler than just saying I buy imported beer?

Random said...

"Let's say I'm the guy buying imports. I don't actually buy imported beer"

The imported beer is in the real circuit i.e. stuff. Seperate the real and financial circuits, similar to induction circuit in electricity.

OK. This is my understanding of it so it might be wrong as I am new to MMT. You buy beer from some company that accepts the USD Balances. That's similar to buying beer from someone in the US who is in the currency zone. The exchange of USD for whatever happens when the company has to pay wages and taxes in local currency.

If you go to Canada for the first time, you'll buy CAD and suddenly you're part of the CAD currency zone.

If you're in Argentina and swap all your savings into dollars, then suddenly you're no longer part of the ARS currency zone, but have become part of the USD currency zone.

You can view the world as currency zones not necessarily the side of a country.

Unknown said...

WRT FX exchanges. Neil's point is that the beer exporter from Mexico is receiving Dollars when the sell the product in the US currency zone, now when that beer exporter wants to swap dollars for pesos to pay their local taxes, workers, and suppliers, what effectively needs to happen is either

a) The Mexican CB has to stand by ready to swap those currencies for the Belgium Beer exporter

or

b) The Mexican beer exporter needs to find a private counterparty to swap currencies with, and this often-times will take the form of say an American gadget company who wants to export to Mexico.

IOW The American gadget company acquires Pesos when they sell their product in mexico and the Mexican beer company acquires dollars when they sell their product in the USA. So if both companies want to get back into their domestic currencies, they will swap their accumulated unwanted foreign currencies with each other. This is why when people talk about real terms of trade that might conceptualize the process as swapping beer for computer gadgets. So how many bottles of beer are equivalent to an American computer gadget? Well thats when FX rates come into play. This is why Matt Franko like to talk about how fx rates are driven by price and quantity.

P.S. of course this is an extremely simplified view. In reality, this stuff would most like take place with banks and other financial institutions as intermediaries. So the Mexican beer company is not directly trading currency with the American computer gadget maker, its most likely their respective banks that make the transaction happen as banks that do this type of thing operate with currency buffers so they have market making desires. They do this for speculative reasons, hedging reasons, etc.

Unknown said...

price NOT quantity

PoorMan said...

I'm not sure if I've missed something (sorry if I have)but

You have derived
ΔC = [X + G + I + L] – [M + T + S + L]

Re-arrange to

ΔC = [X-M + G-T + I-S] and according to the derivation at http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29403

(I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0
Thus making ΔC = 0 always, which is clearly not true, so something somewhere must be wrong;
or have I got something wrong, again sorry if I have

PoorMan said...

I have just realised that there is a typo I hadn't picked up.
I copied the expression ΔC = [X + G + I + L] – [M + T + S + L] directly from your post
The final term should be P (not L)giving

ΔC = [X + G + I + L] – [M + T + S + P]

Thus ΔC = L-P
This basically says to me that ΔC depends entirely on bank lending

Matt Franko said...

Auburn can you look at this:

http://www.chemteam.info/Solutions/Osmosis.html


Few thoughts to go with it:

Trade inventories are financed
Banks are REGULATED (semi-permeable membrane in U-tube is a regulated boundary) in that they are allowed only to lend AGAINST capital at a constant maximum ratio
Over short term (delta T converges to zero), total bank system capital is CONSTANT like the water in the U-tube is CONSTANT...
Prices are changed by someone with authority to do so in a foreign currency terms like someone could add solute to one side of the U-tube (while water volume on that side of the regulating membrane is held CONSTANT...)
Water level changes in response to the change in concentration (price)

etc...

NeilW said...

"I believe you're a bully."

Very good. Straight for the ad hominem.

Really adds to your argument that does.

Interesting how others get the alternative viewpoint, but you're apparently struggling. So is it actually my explanation that is at fault here I wonder?

NeilW said...

"IOW The American gadget company acquires Pesos when they sell their product in mexico"

Generally they don't. That's the point.

If I buy a product from Germany I don't pay Euros for it even if the item is priced in Euros. The deduction from my bank account or credit card is in Sterling.

From the other side the credit to the German company is in Euros (generally) regardless of whether the item is priced in Euros or Sterling.

What is happening is fairly easy to see when you overlay another transaction coming in the opposite direction - a German buying an item from the UK. There the deduction is in Euros on the German side and the credit is in Sterling on the UK side - again regardless of the currency the item is priced in.

So, via the magic of the banking system, what is happening is that the deduction in Euros on the German side is credited to the selling German firm. So the German purchaser effectively 'bought' the item I wanted. At the same time on the Sterling side the deduction from my bank account 'bought' the item wanted by the German purchaser. The banking system has looped back the currencies within their own currency zone.

Effectively I paid for the German's product, and the German purchaser paid for my product - which ensures the seller got the currency they actually wanted. But we didn't want those products our money actually paid for. We wanted the other product.

So you have the separation between the financial and the real sides of the transaction. The real side is delivered in one direction, and the financial is delivered in a different direction, with a swap transaction linking the two.

You can look at it either from the financial payment side, where the real items are the subject of the swap, or the real side where the financial elements are the subject of the swap. They are equivalent operationally, but from different viewpoints. It all depends which flow you're trying to understand.

Matt Franko said...

Neil wouldnt the German firm have already pre-positioned inventory for the product in the UK?

And arranged for local finance in GBP and been paid for the product in EUR when the product shipped to the warehouses in the UK?

So the bank financing the inventory in GBP is the one at risk of getting stuck with it if it doesnt sell?

Unknown said...

"Effectively I paid for the German's product, and the German purchaser paid for my product - which ensures the seller got the currency they actually wanted. But we didn't want those products our money actually paid for. We wanted the other product. "

Maybe I didnt explain it very well, but I thought this was the exact point I was making:

"This is why when people talk about real terms of trade that might conceptualize the process as swapping beer for computer gadgets."

The American computer making is selling gadgets for pesos in their store in Mexico City and then using those pesos to buy dollars whereas as the Mexican beer company is selling beer in Chicago for dollars and using those dollars to buy pesos.


Unknown said...

"If I buy a product from Germany I don't pay Euros for it even if the item is priced in Euros. The deduction from my bank account or credit card is in Sterling."

Thats going to depend on the type of transaction. When I lived in Germany and I used my debit card to buy something, you are right that I was technically buying something with my dollar denominated account. But the only reason it worked like that was Bank of America (very convenient I thought) settled the trade however it was they do it and all I saw was a note in my account ledger summarizing the FX exchange.

It was a couple of years ago now but I think the entry was something like

(10 Euro x $1.33) So even though the product was listed for 10 Euro, without having to do any exchanging myself, I had $13.33 deducted from my account. So I see what you're saying, I just dont think its a universal truth. Maybe I'm wrong.

PoorMan said...

One bit of information missing is the exchange rate that the bank actually used, ie what it really cost them; it was almost certainly different from the one you were charged. That was where they took their fee/profit. They were happy to do this as they knew you could pay and you couldn't argue. Its certainly the way I've been charged when abroad out of the UK. Over a week's trip, the rate changed every day and for those rates I could check, it was not the rate quoted in the financial papers. It was always in the bank's favour by a small margin.

The Arthurian said...

Neil: "The correct view is that people buying imports don't actually buy the imports. They buy somebody else's local currency denominated goods, services or asset and then swap the real purchases with their counterparty in the foreign domain. The FX system neatly sorts that process out for us without us having to think about it."

So #1, I buy somebody else's local currency denominated goods, and #2 apparently somebody else buys the beer that I want, and #3, we swap the real purchases, and #4, the FX system neatly sorts that process out for us. There are at least four transactions here. Probably more.

That's fine. What's not fine is to think of it as one transaction, because then you end up saying things like people don't really buy imported beer. The insanity of such statements is a red flag that tells you something is wrong.

Rather than bundling several transactions into one and calling it simple, I prefer to see each separate transaction as a separate transaction, and reduce the analysis to include only the transactions that are absolutely essential so that I can drink my damn imported beer.

Neil: "What is happening is fairly easy to see when you overlay another transaction coming in the opposite direction"

No! A complicated story does not get simpler when you add more complication. The correct approach is to reduce the number of transactions to a minimum, and deal with it.

//

I note that Neil says "people buying imports don't actually buy the imports."
But Random says "You buy beer from some company that accepts the USD Balances."
And Auburn Parks talks about the Mexican beer company selling beer in Chicago...
And Neil himself says "If I buy a product from Germany ..."

Everybody knows people buy imported stuff. It makes no sense to claim that we don't "actually" buy imports. That argument must be set aside, and a better argument found.

The fact that an argument is complicated is not evidence that the argument is correct.

Calgacus said...

Arthurian, you are right of course. Without more context and qualification, "people buying imports don't actually buy the imports" is not good explanation imho. As you say, "bundling" is usually not a good idea until after one has broken down things to as simple transactions as possible or necessary. Not breaking down enough or not doing it correctly is a usual source of errors. Another one is doing everything right but not taking the conclusions seriously enough.

Random said...

"people don't really buy imported beer"

They do, but not in foreign currency. There isn't a difference between buying the imported beer and beer in Alaska, both require acceptance of USD.

If you analyse the currency zone and ignore the largely meaningless political borders then you get a better idea where things are.

This 'over importing' nonsense goes away when you start analysing entities based upon the currency zone(s) they operate in.

You can't 'over import' because for the imports to have happened somebody somewhere has to have got what they wanted at precisely the same time or the deal would not have taken place. If that is financial savings, then that is fine. If that turns out to be a bad deal in the future, then that's just business.

It doesn’t matter whether the supply that goes up comes from a domestic or foreign source. Given the scrabble for export demand generated by neo-liberal thinking there will be plenty of takers.

Always remember that your currency is ‘foreign currency’ to another state, and the neo-liberals are desperate to earn it and hoard it for its own sake.

The persistent viewpoint of a single state when assessing economies leads to a load of bad thinking. No more so than the obsession with imports and exports. Switch the viewpoint to a whole world view and stimulation of real activity wherever it happens to be leads to less artificial anxiety.

Random said...

"Everybody knows people buy imported stuff. It makes no sense to claim that we don't "actually" buy imports. That argument must be set aside, and a better argument found."

Maybe, but I hope we got the point across. Could you help contribute to a better way? It is hard to discuss this stuff in words - maybe a moving model?

Tom Hickey said...

Summing it up, the exchange of goods across borders in international trade can create an illusion that the associated payments cross borders too, which is only true in a fixed rate convertible system where international payments are settled in gold or silver, for example. In a floating rate system non-convertible system, currency remains in its own zone. The only thing that moves is entries on different parties' books.

The balance of payments always remains in balance through out the system internationally. The current accounts and capital account are always equal by identity.

Those who choose to increase holdings of foreign reserves are accumulating credits in a foreign jurisdiction that are in demand there because of legal (tax) obligations imposed in that currency zone payable only in the currency of the zone.

If there were no saving in other's currency, international trade could be accounted for as barter of goods with payment just a "veil" — a convenience for keeping score. But on account of the possibility of saving in others' currency, there is not a one-to-one exchange of goods within a period, and stocks of financial credits accumulate that ultimately can only be used in that currency zone.

The currency zones of global reserve currencies is global, which differentiates them from non-reserve currencies. This means that global reserve currencies are saved internationally and even used in countries other than the issuer. Several countries either have been or now use the US dollar.

The US presents an interesting case regarding trade and balance of payments as a federation of "sovereign states" that have all agreed to use the USD. There is never balance of payments or internal trade issues among the states in that the federal government is empowered to ensure that such problems do not arise, and federal law superseded state law. But the US doesn't extend the same treatment to territories like Puerto Rico, or to other countries that use the dollar as their currency but are not member of the federation. Those places are on their own unless the US chooses to get involved federally.

The euro is used as a common currency by the countries of the EZ currency zone but without a federation like the US. This leads to balance of payments issues, trade issues, and internal issues that are supposed to be addressed country by country through "discipline" (austerity) and cross-border flow of labor. An overriding rule is that all debts incurred must be repaid in full. But there is no organization in place to ensure that this is possible monetarily. The ECB closed off the possibility for Greece, forcing external management on Greece.

The result is that a lot of potential economic activity doesn't take place for monetary or financial reasons having to do with either ignorance or poor organizational design. It seems that the problems that the euro was purportedly designed to solve either have not been resolved, or have been exacerbated.