Are we moving toward fiscal dominance?

A recent Bloomberg article suggested that we may be moving toward a regime characterized by fiscal dominance, at least part of the time:

In their paper, three economists from New York University, Stanford and London Business School argue that the US is moving from a regime of “monetary dominance” to one of “fiscal dominance.” In the former, the Fed controls inflation by adjusting short-term nominal interest rates. The government supports these efforts by committing to increase future taxes, ensuring that other interest rates don’t change too much and debt doesn’t overwhelm markets. Under a monetary dominance regime, interest rates and inflation are low and relatively stable.

I don’t agree with the claim that monetary dominance implies low and stable interest rates or inflation. We clearly had monetary dominance in the 1960s and 1970s, when budget deficits were small as a share of GDP. And yet inflation was high and unstable. Both in the Great Inflation, and in the more recent bout of high inflation, the problem was the Fed’s misguided belief that easy money is a good way to create jobs.

The regime changed during and after the pandemic, when wartime-sized debt was issued with no care of paying it back. . . . Under such a [fiscal-dominance] regime, the Fed is less powerful.

I wouldn’t say the Fed “manages” bouts of inflation, as that term makes them seem like an innocent bystander. The Fed created the high inflation of 2021-22 with a highly expansionary monetary policy. And the Fed was no less powerful than before, as it had plenty of “ammunition” to adopt a tighter monetary policy if it had wished to.

Not only is its job harder, but its tools are less powerful — it has less influence over interest rates.

Its power doesn’t come from control of interest rates; it comes from control over the gap between the target rate and the natural rate. And it has just as much power over that gap as before deficits became large.

After spending moderated and monetary policy became more restrictive, the US returned to a monetary policy regime. But the nation’s debt trajectory risks a future turn to fiscal dominance.

It moderated only relative to the Covid period. In absolute terms, fiscal policy is currently highly irresponsible, especially if compared to the Great Inflation of 1966-81. If the fiscal dominance model were true, the US would currently be experiencing very high inflation. On the other hand, I agree that our current path does impose at least some risk of slipping into fiscal dominance. That’s what tends to happen in banana republics.

Fiscal policy, which has become more ambitious in recent years, is finally doing the job it’s supposed to do. Both parties have been vocal in supporting policies that aim to shift production from services to manufacturing, either through tariffs or with industrial policy. There are also goals related to improving infrastructure, lowering the cost of housing, and reforming the immigration system. These policies change the supply side of the economy . . .

In a recent Econlog post, I pointed out that tariffs might end up shifting output toward services, by increasing the relative price of manufactured goods. (Tariffs might reduce the trade deficit, but probably won’t.) And those three goals sound fine, but I don’t see much action.


Tags:

 
 
 

5 Responses to “Are we moving toward fiscal dominance?”

  1. Gravatar of steve steve
    1. September 2024 at 11:52

    It seems to be an article of faith among a lot of people that our high rates of debt will cause inflation. They manage to ignore our current circumstances, our history and the history of the rest fo the world. I think the amount of debt we are running up is irresponsible and bad management but it does look like giving people free stuff, either by decreasing taxes or increased spending, is popular with voters. Still, I think that some point the debt has to cause some pretty bad effects. Certainly seems possible inflation might be one of those bad outcomes, but I dont know what level of debt that would take.

    Steve

  2. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. September 2024 at 14:18

    I also think higher taxes might be one of the bad effects.

  3. Gravatar of John Hall John Hall
    2. September 2024 at 16:47

    The article is kind of frustrating in not linking to the paper…or including a footnote to it or anything, no names of the author or the title, as far as I can tell.

  4. Gravatar of James Alexander James Alexander
    18. September 2024 at 11:18

    I don’t expect you are reading comments here anymore but if you I really appreciate it when you discuss monetary Vs fiscal policy. The concept of offset, either fiscal or monetary, I find very useful. Here in the UK our current central bank chief is one of the least independent of the fiscal policy makers for a long time. It’s a shame he can’t or won’t speak out against the constant fiscal spendthriftness and weakening of real growth it almost always brings about. Government enterprises (eg our biggest employer, the NHS) are almost always less efficient than competitive than private ones.

    Off that bugbear, the BoE is also very confused in it’s messaging, wanting to ease monetary policy by gradually cutting rates, while tightening it by accelerating its QT sale if government bond holdings. Help!

    PS good luck on Substack. Do you think pessimism about the future increases with age?

  5. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    19. September 2024 at 18:09

    Thanks James. Hope to see you at the new blog.

    I haven’t followed the UK very closely, but it seems like the “Conservative” government has not followed particularly conservative economic policies.

Leave a Reply