BEE Partner, South Africa Economy Watch

The endogenous determination of the interest rate

In a boom, banks will lend more and will seek to create new deposits or issue additional notes. To support these activities, they will have to attract additional reserves. This will lead them to bid up interest rates, as they seek to attract idle reserves from one another and from hoards. In a slump, they will issue less and lend less, and will seek to shed reserves, lowering interest rates. In other words, while long-term average rates are determined by costs and competition, current interest rates reflect the balance of supply and demand in the market. They move pro-cyclically.

This is illustrated by a simple model. On the one hand, the rate of interest (in relation to the rate of profit), is likely to affect investment inversely, and investment, in turn, will have an impact on prices and employment. Changes in prices and employment will call for changes in reserves. Read the rest of this entry »

The government budget tends to move counter-cyclically. In a slump, incomes will be reduced and spending curtailed, so tax collections will fall, but welfare and related spending to support the unemployed will tend to rise. Other government budget items are likely to be unaffected. Hence, the overall effect will be to throw the budget into deficit. By contrast, in a boom, tax collections will rise and welfare spending will tend to decline, so a surplus will tend to emerge. In short, in an economy with demand-based cyclical fluctuations, the central government budget will tend to move in a counter-cyclical fashion.

Now consider the monetary implications of deficits and surpluses. A deficit arises when the government spends more than it receives in taxes; this means a net increase in money in the system. Such money will appear as excess reserves in the banking system. If allowed to remain, it will drive down interest rates. Looked at another way, it will drive up security prices. A surplus is just the opposite; it arises when the government spends less than it takes in, and it creates a reserve deficiency, tending to force interest rates up. Read the rest of this entry »

In the older economy, the monetary system did provide a constraint, and this constraint helped stabilize the economy; changes in the value of reserves worked in conjunction with the price mechanism. By contrast, the modern monetary system offers no constraint, and, in fact, inflations and asset price booms are self-financing, since price rises increase the value of collateral, on the one hand, and raise the value of bank capital on the other. The modern monetary system also allows for a creative use of the central government’s budget. The shift in money from real to nominal, following the changes in technology, has brought a new role for the government. The government budget is both much larger and plays a stabilizing role in the way it affects the economy. Read the rest of this entry »

In Australia, despite the paradigm shift in macroeconomics from Keynesian demand management to the monetarist supply-side approach, empirical evidence still supported the use of expansionary fiscal and monetary policy and public sector job creation (for example, Mitchell, 1987a, 1987b, 1994, 1996; Mitchell et al., 1995). The solutions proposed, however, relied heavily on income policy guidelines and were not, in retrospect, comprehensive enough. Further, the stimulus that would be forthcoming was not conceived to be adequately focused to support environmental sustainability, a goal usually ignored in orthodox macroeconomics. In this context, the Job Guarantee reflects work that was conceived when this author was a fourth-year student at the University of Melbourne in the late 1970s. Read the rest of this entry »

What would happen if the Job Guarantee were introduced to solve the problem of unemployment in this economy? For simplicity of argument, we assume the Job Guarantee wage is set at the bottom of the private sector wage structure although not low enough to enforce poverty on full-time workers. If there were poverty level wages being paid in Sector B, then there would be pressure on Sector B employers to restructure their jobs in order to maintain a workforce. The Job Guarantee wage sets a floor in the economy’s cost structure for given productivity levels. The dynamics of the economy change significantly. The elimination of all but wait unemployment in Sector A and frictional unemployment does not distort the relative wage structure so that the wage—wage pressures that were prominent in the upturn in the NAIRU economy are now reduced. But the rising demand softens the product market, and demand for labor rises in Sector A. The Job Guarantee introduces no new problems faced by employers who wish to hire labor to meet higher sales levels. They must pay the going rate, which is still preferable to appropriately skilled workers than the Job Guarantee wage level. The rising demand per se does not invoke inflationary pressures as firms increase capacity utilization to meet higher sales volumes. Read the rest of this entry »