The Original Mandate of the Federal Reserve

Writing on his recently launched blog, my colleague Perry Mehrling traces the evolving mandate of the Federal Reserve from its founding to the present day:

From a longer historical perspective, populist targeting of the Fed, both from the right and from the left, is nothing new. Big Finance and Big Government are perennial bogeymen in American political discourse. Coupling the two in the institution of a central bank is at the heart of current debate about the role of the Fed during the crisis.

In 1913, at the founding of the Fed, legislators directly confronted both bogeymen. The whole idea of the Federal Reserve System, so the language of the Act made clear, was to channel credit preferentially to productive uses. Section 13(2) makes clear who was supposed to get the credit: “Discount of Commercial, Agricultural and Industrial Paper”, not speculative financial paper and not Treasury paper. The new Fed was about reversing the upper hand enjoyed by Big Finance, and without replacing it with the hand of Big Government.

Exigencies of war finance soon shifted the focus of the newborn Fed, and the Act was accordingly amended. During both World War I and World War II, the Fed pegged the price of Treasury debt, and expanded its balance sheet as necessary to absorb any excess supply that was not taken up by private buyers.

Does that kind of emergency intervention sound familiar? It should.

So-called QE1, back in early 2009, involved the Fed pegging the price of mortgage-backed securities by taking $1.25 trillion worth onto its own balance sheet. This is war finance. Actually it started even earlier, back in September 2008, with the collapse of Lehman and AIG. The initial balance sheet expansion occurred as, in addition to its domestic lending, the Fed lent $600 billion to foreign central banks, as well as other billions directly to foreign private banks, financing the loans simply by expanding its own monetary liabilities. This again is war finance, but without the war.

What troubles critics of the Fed is the use of the powerful tools of war finance to support private capital markets, and to support foreign bankers. For some, a similar unease arises from the latest QE2 twist, which has the Fed buying $600 billion of Treasury debt. There is no doubt in my mind that the Fed’s actions were legal under the “unusual and exigent circumstances” provision of the Act. But what everyone wants to know is whether the Fed did the right thing, and what the transformation of the Fed over the last few years portends for the future.

As it happens, one of the many responses of the Fed to the financial crisis was a return to its original mandate as an active participant in the commercial paper market: "funding purchases of commercial paper... to improve liquidity in short-term funding markets and thereby increase the availability of credit for businesses and households." But this was done in late October 2008, after a massive expansion of its balance sheet in support of failing financial intermediaries, and after TARP had been signed into law.

The main justification for these extraordinary measures in support of the financial sector was that perfectly solvent firms in the non-financial sector would have been crippled by the freezing of the commercial paper market. But as Dean Baker has consistently argued, had the Fed's intervention in the commercial paper market been more timely and vigorous, it might been unnecessary to provide unconditional transfers to insolvent financial intermediaries. While I do not subscribe to Baker's view that Ben Bernanke "deliberately misled" Congress in order to gain approval for TARP, his main point still stands: if the Fed can increase credit availability to non-financial businesses and households by direct purchases of commercial paper, than why is any financial institution too big to fail?

It's a question that the most ardent defenders of the bailouts would do well to address. The impressive numerical estimates of the effects of these policies on output and employment rely on a comparison with a "scenario based on no financial policy responses." But this is obviously not the proper benchmark. If output and employment could have been stabilized by direct support of the non-financial sector, then we would currently be faced with a different distribution of claims to this output, as well as a different distribution of financial practices.

Among supporters of the government's financial market policies, Bill Dudley has been especially forthright in acknowledging their flaws:

[It] is deeply offensive to Americans, including me, and runs counter to basic notions of justice and fairness, that some of the very same individuals and financial firms that precipitated this crisis have also benefited so directly from the response to the crisis. This has occurred at the same time that many Americans have lost their jobs and hard-earned savings. The public outrage this situation has produced is understandable. In the context of actions taken to support the financial system, the Federal Reserve and other government agencies have provided considerable support to banking organizations and other large systemically important financial institutions. The employees and executives of those institutions have benefited from our intervention. In a perfect world we would be able to prevent those individuals and institutions from benefiting; we would have a better way to penalize those who acted recklessly. But once the crisis was underway, one goal took precedence: keeping the financial system from collapsing in order to protect the nation from an even deeper and more protracted downturn that would have been more damaging to everyone.

In a perfect world, according to Dudley, we could have done much better. But even in our very imperfect world, might we not have been able to stabilize output and employment by returning quickly and forcefully to the original mandate of the Federal Reserve, to channel credit preferentially to productive uses?

Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot

Although I started this blog more than eight years ago, it lay largely dormant for most of this period and this has been my first full calendar year of (somewhat) regular posting. The experience has been consistently rewarding but occasionally exhausting. As the year draws to a close I'd like to acknowledge my debt to a few of the individuals whose writing I have enjoyed and learned from over the past twelve months, and to reflect upon some of the main ideas that have been explored in these pages.

Macroeconomic Resilience began the year as an anonymous blog but was subsequently revealed to be the creation of Ashwin Parameswaran, whose ecological perspective on behavior and markets is very close to my own. Every post of his is worth reading in full, but there is one on the trade-off between resilience and stability that remains an absolute favorite of mine.

Steve Randy Waldman's posts on interfluidity are generally so compelling and self-contained that there is usually very little left to add. I have been especially appreciative of a sequence of recent posts in which he argues that technocratic arguments, regardless of their merits, are unlikely to be persuasive if they are not consonant with our moral intuitions. It is the neglect of this important point that has so many commentators wondering why a policy that allegedly saved the financial system from collapse at negligible cost to the taxpayer is so deeply unpopular.

Along similar lines, Yves Smith on naked capitalism has been relentless in her criticism of TARP (and the unseemly self-congratulation of its architects) on the grounds that superior alternatives were available at the time. While there is plenty of room for debate on these points, it's a conversation that must be had, and one that has to consider the impact of the policy on the distribution of financial practices, as well as the outrage generated when moral intuitions are offended. It is essential that Yves (and her guests) continue to challenge the emerging academic consensus on the policy. 

One of the defining events of the year for me was the flash crash of May 6. Contrary to initial media reports, this was not the result of a fat finger or computer glitch -- it was the consequence of interacting trading strategies, most of which involved algorithmically implemented rapid responses to incoming market data for very short holding periods. In understanding the mechanics of the crash I benefited from comments posted by RT Leuchtkafer in response to an SEC concept release. One of these was published three weeks before the crash and turned out to be remarkably prescient. 

Viewed in isolation, the crash might be considered fairly inconsequential, and a recurrence could probably be prevented by implementing rule changes such as trading halts followed by call auctions. But the crash ought not to be viewed in isolation. Like the proverbial canary in a coalmine, it's importance lies in what it reveals about the manner in which trading strategies interact to produce major departures of prices from fundamentals from time to time. These more routine departures take longer to build and correct, are difficult to identify in real time, and leave their mark in the form of value and momentum effects, volatility clustering, and the fat tails of return distributions.

This view of speculative asset markets as a behavioral ecosystem in which the composition of stategies is a key determinant of market stability has also been advanced by David Merkel on The Aleph Blog. David's sequence of posts on what he calls "the rules" is well worth reading, and it was in response to his tenth rule that I wrote my first post on trading strategies and market efficiency. That was just a couple of weeks before the flash crash occurred and brought these ideas suddenly to life.

I am convinced that the non-fundamental volatility induced by the trading process has major effects on portfolio choice, risk-bearing, capital allocation, job creation and economic growth. Some possible mechanisms through which such effects can arise have been explored by David Weild and Edward Kim, and I thank David for bringing this work to my attention. I am also grateful to Terry Flanagan of Markets Media Magazine for an invitation to attend their Global Markets Summit where I witnessed a fascinating and combative debate on the broader economic effects of exchange-traded funds. 

On the issue of market efficiency I have tangled with Scott Sumner on multiple occasions. But his anniversary post on The Money Illusion really struck a chord with me. Scott has a talent for making complex ideas intelligible, and an ability to maintain a clear distinction between a model and the empirical phenomenon that it is designed to explain. His vision of the economy is coherent and he is a formidable intellectual adversary. His post made me even more optimistic about the ability of blogs to shape economic discourse in constructive ways.

My window to the world of economics and finance blogs is Economist's View. Mark Thoma somehow manages to be both comprehensive and highly selective in his choice of links, virtually all of which are worth following. But more importantly, his site is a wonderful clearinghouse for open debate on economic methodology, especially in relation to macroeconomics. His post on the dynamics of learning (featuring a video presentation by George Evans) was especially memorable, as was Brad DeLong's diagrammatic discussion of the topic.

Despite the recent flowering of behavioral and experimental economics, I believe that the level of methodological homogeneity in our profession is stifling. But the time may finally be ripe for the introduction of agent-based computational models into mainstream discourse. A problem with simulation-based approaches is that there are no commonly accepted criteria on the basis of which the robustness of any given set of results may be evaluated. This will change once there is an outstanding article in a leading journal that sets a standard that others can then adopt. Where will it come from? Based on my reading of ongoing work by Geanakoplos and Farmer, I suspect that it may emerge from this recently funded initiative at the Santa Fe Institute. That would be nice to see.

Although my posts here have dealt largely with economics and finance, I also have a deep personal interest in social identity and group inequality, especially in the American context. On this set of issues I have found no voice more incisive than that of Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose freshness of perspective and formidable powers of expression I find breathtaking. His post on Robert E. Lee was one of several spectacular pieces this year, and prompted me to respond with my own thoughts on cultural ancestry. Related themes have been explored in a series of fascinating dialogues between Glenn Loury and John McWhorter.

Finally, I am thankful for the numerous extraordinary comments that have been left here, many by individuals who manage superb blogs of their own. Joao Farinha on economic development, Barkley Rosser on bubbles and agent-based models, Kid Dynamite on the flash crash, Economics of Contempt on TARP, Nick Rowe on learning, Adam P on equilibrium, Andrew Gelman on dynamic graphs, 123 on exchange traded funds, Andrew Oh-Willeke on private equity and cultural founder effects, and JKH on maturity diversification come immediately to mind, but there are many, many others.

I could go on, in a futile attempt to acknowledge all those who have influenced me and taken the time and trouble to  respond either in comments here or on their own blogs. But this post has to end before the calendar year does, and this seems as good a time to stop as any.

A very Happy New Year to you all.

Perspectives on Exchange-Traded Funds

Are exchange-traded funds good or bad for the market?

That was the title of a lively and interesting session at Markets Media's third annual Global Markets Summit last Thursday. The session was organized as an old-fashioned debate between two teams. On one side were David Weild and Harold Bradley (joined later by Robert Litan on video), who argued that heavily traded funds composed of relatively illiquid small-cap stocks were responsible, in part, for the sharp decline in initial public offerings over the past decade, with devastating consequences for capital formation and job creation.

Responding to these claims were Bruce Lavine, Adam Patti and Robert Holderith, all representing major sponsors of funds (WisdomTree, IndexIQ and EGShares respectively). The sponsors argued that they are marketing a product that is vastly superior to the traditional open-end fund, provides investors with significant liquidity, transparency and tax advantages, and is rapidly gaining market share precisely because of these benefits. From their perspective, it makes as little sense to blame exchange-traded funds for declining initial public offerings and the sluggish rate of job creation as it does to blame them for hurricanes or influenza epidemics.

So who is right?

Bradley and Litan have previously argued their position in a lengthy and data-filled report, and Wield has testified on the issue before the joint CFTC-SEC committee on emerging regulatory issues. Their argument, in a nutshell, is this: The prices of thinly traded stocks can become much more volatile as a result of inclusion in a heavily traded fund as a consequence of the creation and redemption mechanism. For instance, a rise in the price of shares in the fund relative to net asset value induces authorized participants to create new shares while simultaneously buying all underlying securities regardless of the relation between their current prices and any assessment of fundamental value. Similarly a fall in the fund price relative to net asset value can trigger simultaneous sales of a broad range of securities, resulting in significant price declines for relatively illiquid stocks. This process results not only in greater volatility but also in a sharply increased correlation of returns on individual stocks. The scope for risk-reduction through diversification is accordingly reduced, which in turn influences the asset allocation decisions of long term investors. The result is a reduction in the flow of capital to the smaller, more innovative segments of the market, with predictably dire consequences for job creation.

The sponsors do not deny the possibility of these effects, but argue that any mispricing in the markets for individual stocks represents a profit opportunity for alert fundamental traders, and that this should prevent prolonged or major departures of prices from fundamentals. But this is too sanguine an assessment. Fundamental research is costly and its profitability depends not only on the scale of mispricing that is uncovered but also on the size of the positions that can be taken in order to profit from it. Furthermore, since a significant proportion of trades are driven by the arbitrage activities of authorized participants, mispricing need not be quickly or reliably corrected. Both illiquidity and high volatility serve as a deterrent to fundamental research in such markets.

The problem, in other words, is real. But what I find puzzling about Bradley's position on this issue is that he seems unable (or unwilling) to recognize that precisely the same effects can be generated by high-frequency trading. As was apparent in an earlier session at the conference, he remains among the most vocal and fervent defenders of the new market makers. His justification for this is that spreads have declined dramatically, lowering the costs of trading for all market participants, including long term investors.

There is no doubt the costs of trading are a fraction of what they used to be, but a single-minded focus on spreads misses the big picture. It is worth bringing to mind John Bogle's wise words:

It is the iron law of the markets, the undefiable rules of arithmetic: Gross return in the market, less the costs of financial intermediation, equals the net return actually delivered to market participants.  

If spreads and costs per trade decline, but holding periods shrink to such a degree that overall trading expenditures rise (due to significantly increased volume), the net return to long term investors as a group must fall. Furthermore, if increases in volatility and correlation induce shifts in asset allocation that have the effect of reducing financing for small companies with high growth potential, then even gross returns could decline.

I have been arguing for a while now that the stability of an asset market depends on the composition of trading strategies and, in particular, that one needs a large enough share of information trading to ensure that prices track fundamentals reasonably well. But changes in technology and regulation have allowed technical strategies to proliferate, and high frequency trading is a significant part of this phenomenon. The predictable result is a secular increase in asset price volatity and an increased frequency of bubbles and crashes.

The flash crash of May 6 was just a symptom of this. Viewed in isolation, it was a minor event: prices fell (or rose, in some cases) to patently absurd levels, then snapped back within a matter of minutes. But the crash was the canary in the proverbial coal mine -- it was important precisely because it made visible what is ordinarily concealed from view. Departures of prices from fundamentals are routine events that, especially on the upside, are not quickly corrected. Some of the proposed responses to the crash that were favored at the conference -- such as trading halts followed by call auctions -- are cosmetic changes. They will have the effect of silencing the canary while doing nothing to lower toxicity in the mine.

It is the unremarkable, invisible, gradually accumulating departures of prices from fundamentals that are the real problem. These show up in the magnitude and clustering of asset price volatility and, through their effects on the composition of portfolios, leave their mark on the path of capital allocation, employment, and economic growth.

---

I am grateful to Terry Flanagan of Markets Media Magazine for the invitation to attend the summit.

I would also like to mention that the Kauffman report contains a number of assertions with which I disagree. For instance, Bradley and Litan endorse the claims of Bogan, Connor and Bogan that an exchange-traded fund with significant short interest could collapse with some investors unable to redeem their shares. This has been refuted very effectively by Steve Waldman in his comments on the Bogan post, and by Kid Dynamite. It is unfortunate that most responses to the report have focused on this dubious claim, rather than the more legitimate arguments that are advanced there.

---

Update (12/11). David Weild writes in to say:

I think we are seeing capital leave the microcap markets for a variety of reasons including:

• Loss of liquidity providers
• Emergence of ETFs (they don't buy IPOs and most don't buy follow-on offerings)
• Indexing displacing fundamental investing (again, when this occurs, the funds stop investing in IPOs)
• Loss of the retail broker as a stock seller.

If you don't have access to sufficient capital then capital formation, innovation and economic growth will suffer. That is clearly where we are.

I have also heard from someone who was once active in convincing the SEC to expand approval of ETF applications (and prefers to remain anonymous). He asserts that "the effects now being debated were certainly not an anticipated consequence. I can't remember a single conversation externally or internally at the SEC about whether the creation and redemption mechanism would increase correlations."

In hindsight it seems obvious that returns would become more highly correlated, but the fact that it was completely unanticipated at the time illustrates the enormous challenge of regulatory adaptation to financial innovation.

Building a Computational Model of the Crisis

A team of four researchers affiliated with the Santa Fe Institute has secured a grant from the Institute for New Economic Thinking to fund the development of an agent-based computational model of the financial crisis. The model will explicitly consider "housing and mortgage markets, banks and other financial institutions, securitization processes and hedge fund investors, manufacturing and service firms, and regulatory agencies," with the goal of discovering "the essential elements needed to reproduce the crisis, while investigating alternative policies that may have reduced its intensity and strategies for recovery."

It's an interesting and multidisciplinary group, composed of Doyne Farmer, John Geanakoplos, Peter Howitt and Robert Axtell. Genakoplos and Howitt are two of the most creative economists around, and I have discussed the work of the former on leverage and the latter on learning in earlier posts. Axtell is the co-author (with Joshua Epstein) of a fascinating book called Growing Artificial Societies, in which they develop an elaborate computational model of the interaction between a renewable resource base and the human population that depends on it. The model reproduces spatial patterns of resource depletion and recovery as well as population growth, migration and decline. Farmer is a physicist by training but has been working on finance for as long as I can remember. I discussed some of his work in an earlier post making a case for greater methodological pluralism in economics in general, and agent-based modeling in particular.

The team is looking for a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow to join them for a couple of years. For a young researcher interested in finance, the microfoundations of macroeconomics, and the agent-based computational methodology, this could be a fantastic opportunity.

Global Health and Wealth over Two Centuries

Here is a story in four minutes of remarkable divergence followed by rapid convergence in health and wealth across nations over the past two centuries (h/t David Kurtz)

Where the entire world was clustered in 1810 only sub-Saharan Africa remains. But even here there are profound stirrings of change.

I suspect that someday soon animations such as this will replace the soporific tables and charts than now appear as motivating evidence in economic papers.

---

Update (12/6). Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin argue that over the past decade and a half, the nations of sub-Saharan Africa have experienced a dramatic and broad-based decline in poverty and inequality (h/t Mark Thoma):

African poverty reduction has been extremely general. Poverty fell for both landlocked and coastal countries, for mineral-rich and mineral-poor countries, for countries with favourable and unfavourable agriculture, for countries with different colonisers, and for countries with varying degrees of exposure to the African slave trade. The benefits of growth were so widely distributed that African inequality actually fell substantially...

It has often been suggested that geography and history matter significantly for the ability of Third World, and especially African, countries to grow and reduce poverty... Since these factors are permanent (and cannot be changed with good policy), they imply that some parts of Africa may be at a persistent growth disadvantage relative to others.

Yet... the African poverty decline has taken place ubiquitously, in countries that were slighted as well as in those that were favoured by geography and history. For every breakdown... the poverty rates for countries on either side of the breakdown tend to converge, with the disadvantaged countries reducing poverty significantly to catch up to the advantaged ones. Neither geographical nor historical disadvantages seem to be insurmountable obstacles to poverty reduction... even the most blighted parts of the poorest continent can set themselves firmly on the trend of limiting and even eradicating poverty within the space of a decade.

This is consistent with recent observations by Shanta Devarajan, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and even the much-maligned Gordon Brown.

I have argued in a couple of earlier posts that sub-Saharan Africa may have entered what might be called a zone of uncertainty in which optimistic growth expectations can become self-fulfilling:

History can matter for long periods of time (for instance in occupational inheritance or the patrilineal descent of surnames) and then cease to constrain our choices in any significant way. Once reliable correlations can break down suddenly and completely; history is full of such twists and turns. As far as African prosperity is concerned, I believe that a discontinuity of this kind is inevitable if not imminent.

Foley, Sidrauski, and the Microfoundations Project

In a previous post I mentioned an autobiographical essay by Duncan Foley in which he describes in vivid detail his attempts to "alter and generalize competitive equilibrium microeconomic theory" so as to make its predictions more consonant with macroeconomic reality.  Much of this work was done in collaboration with Miguel Sidrauski while the two were members of the MIT faculty some forty years ago. Both men were troubled by the "classical scientific dilemma" facing economics at the time: the discipline had "two theories, the microeconomic general equilibrium theory, and the macroeconomic Keynesian theory, each of which seemed to have considerable explanatory power in its own domain, but which were incompatible." This led them to embark on a "search for a synthesis" that would bridge the gap.

This is how Duncan describes the basic theoretical problem they faced, the strategies they adopted in trying to solve it, the importance of the distinction between stock and flow equilibrium, and the desirability of a theory that allows for intertemporal plans to be mutually inconsistent in the aggregate (links added):

My intellectual preoccupation at M.I.T. was what has come to be called the "microeconomic foundations of macroeconomics." The general equilibrium theory forged by Walras and elaborated by Wald (1951), McKenzie (1959), and Arrow and Debreu (1954) can be used, with the assumption that markets exist for all commodities at all future moments and in all contingencies, to represent macroeconomic reality by simple aggregation. The resulting picture of macroeconomic reality, however, has several disturbing features. For one thing, competitive general equilibrium is efficient, so that it is incompatible with the unemployment of any resources productive enough to pay their costs of utilization. This is difficult to reconcile with the common observation of widely fluctuating rates of unemployment of labor and of capacity utilization of plant and equipment. General equilibrium theory reduces economic production and exchange to the pursuit of directly consumable goods and services, and as a result has no real role for money... The general equilibrium theory can accommodate fluctuations in output and consumption, but only as responses to external shocks to resource availability, technology or tastes. It is difficult to reconcile these relatively slowly moving factors with the large business-cycle fluctuations characteristic of developed capitalist economies. In assuming the clearing of markets for all contingencies in all periods, general equilibrium theory assures the consistency... of individual consumption, investment, and production plans, which is difficult to reconcile with the recurring phenomena of financial crisis and asset revaluation that play so large a role in actual capitalist economic life...

Keynes' theory, on the other hand, offers a systematic way around these problems. Keynes views money as central to the actual operation of developed capitalist economies, precisely because markets for all periods and contingencies do not exist to reconcile differences in agents' opinions about the future. Because agents cannot sell all their prospects on contingent claims markets, they are liquidity constrained. In a liquidity constrained economy there is no guarantee that all factor markets will clear without unemployed labor or unutilized productive capacity. Market prices are inevitably established in part by speculation on an uncertain future. As a result the economy is vulnerable to endogenous fluctuations as the result of herd psychology and self-fulfilling prophecy. From this point of view it is not hard to see why business cycle fluctuations are a characteristic of a productively and financially developed capitalist economy, nor why the potential for financial crisis is inherent in decentralized market allocation of investment...

But there are many loose ends in Keynes' argument. In presenting the equilibrium of short-term expectations that determines the level of output, income and employment in the short period, for example, Keynes argues that entrepreneurs hire labor and buy raw materials to undertake production because they form an expectation as to the volume of sales they will achieve when the production process runs its course... But Keynes offers no systematic alternative account of how entrepreneurs form a view of their prospects on the market to take the place of the assumption of perfect competition and market clearing. This turns out, in detail, to be a very difficult problem to solve.

Given the supply of nominal money, a fall in prices appears to be a possible endogenous source of increased liquidity. Keynes argues that the money price level is largely determined by the money wage level, but offers no systematic explanation of the dynamics governing the movements of money wages.

Though money is the fulcrum on which his theory turns, Keynes does not actually set out a theory of the economic origin or determinants of money. As a result it is difficult to relate the fluctuations in macroeconomic variables such as the velocity of money to the underlying process of the circulation of commodities.

On point after point Keynes' plausible macroeconomic concepts raise unanswered questions about the microeconomic behavior that might support them.

Thus economics in the late 1960s suffered from a classical scientific dilemma in that it had two theories, the microeconomic general equilibrium theory, and the macroeconomic Keynesian theory, each of which seemed to have considerable explanatory power in its own domain, but which were incompatible. The search for a synthesis which would bridge this gap seemed to me to be a good problem to work on. From the beginning the goal of my work in this area was to alter and generalize competitive equilibrium microeconomic theory so as to deduce Keynesian macroeconomic behavior from it.

In the succeeding years I approached this project from two angles. One was to fiddle with general equilibrium theory in the hope of introducing money into it in a convincing and unified way. The other was to rewrite as much as possible of Keynesian macroeconomics in a form compatible with competitive general equilibrium.

This latter project came to fruition first as a close collaboration with Miguel Sidrauski, and resulted in a book Monetary and Fiscal Policy in a Growing Economy (Foley and Sidrauski, 1971)... Our joint work... sought to develop a canonical model with which it would be possible to analyze the classical problems of the impact of government policy on the path of output of an economy... Following my notion that the price of capital goods are determined in asset markets, and the flow of new investment adjusts to make the marginal cost of investment equal to that price, we assumed a two-sector production system, so that there would be a rising marginal cost of investment. The asset equilibrium of the model is a generalization of Sidrauski's (and Tobin's) portfolio demand theory, which in turn is a generalization of Keynes' theory of liquidity preference. One of my chief goals was to sort out rigorously and explicitly the relation between stock and flow variables, so that we analyzed the model as a system of differential equations in continuous time, a setting in which the difference between stock and flow concepts is highlighted. At each instant asset market clearing of money, bonds, and capital markets in stocks together with labor and consumption good flow market clearing determine the price of capital, the interest rate, the price level, income, consumption and investment. Government policies determining the evolution of supplies of money and bonds together with the addition of investment flows to the capital stock move the model through time in a transparent trajectory. The book considers the comparative statics and dynamics of this model in detail...

Monetary and Fiscal Policy in a Growing Economy had a mixed reception... The fact that we did not derive the asset and consumption demands of households from explicit intertemporal expected utility maximization turned out to be an unfashionable choice for the 1970s, when the economics profession was persuaded to put an immense premium on models of "full rationality." Sidrauski and I were quite aware of the possibility of such a model, which would have been a generalization of his thesis work. At a conference at the University of Chicago in 1968, David Nissen presented a perfect foresight macroeconomic model that made clear that this path would lead directly back to the Walrasian general equilibrium results. Since I didn't believe in the relevance of that path to the understanding of real macroeconomic phenomena, I thought the main point in exploring this line of reasoning was to show how unrealistic its results were...

The project of a macroeconomic theory distinct from Walrasian general equilibrium theory rests heavily on the distinction between stock and flow equilibrium. In Keynes' vision, asset holders are forced to value existing and prospective assets speculatively without a full knowledge of the future. Our model represented this moment through the clearance of asset markets. In the Walrasian vision this distinction is dissolved through the imaginary device of clearing futures and contingency markets which establish flow prices that imply asset prices. The moral of Sidrauski's and my work is that some break with the full Walrasian system along temporary equilibrium lines is necessary as a foundation for a distinct macroeconomics. Once the implications of the stock-flow distinction in macroeconomics became clear, however, the temptation to finesse them by retreating to the Walrasian paradigm under the slogan of "rational expectations" became overwhelming to the American economics profession....

In my view, the rational expectations assumption which Lucas and Sargent put forward to "close" the Keynesian model, was only a disguised form of the assumption of the existence of complete futures and contingencies markets. When one unpacked the "expectations" language of the rational expectations literature, it turned out that these models assumed that agents formed expectations of futures and contingency prices that were consistent with the aggregate plans being made, and hence were in fact competitive general equilibrium prices in a model of complete futures and contingency markets. Arrow and Debreu had made the assumption of the existence of complete futures and contingency markets to give their version of the Walrasian model the appearance of coping with the real-world problems posed by the uncertainty of the future. To my mind, the rational expectations approach amounted to making the perfect-foresight assumptions that I had already considered and rejected on grounds of unrealism in the course of working with Sidrauski... What the profession took to be an exciting breakthrough in economic theory I saw as a boring and predictable retracing of an already discredited path.

To my mind the most appealing feature of the Foley-Sidrauski approach to microfoundations is that it allows for the possibility that individuals make mutually inconsistent plans based on heterogeneous beliefs about the future. This is what the rational expectations hypothesis rules out. Auxillary assumptions such as sticky prices must then be imposed in order to make the models more consonant with empirical observation.

In contrast, the notion of temporary equilibrium (introduced by John Hicks) allows for the clearing of asset markets despite mutually inconsistent intertemporal plans. As time elapses and these inconsistencies are revealed, dynamic adjustments are made that affect prices and production. There is no presumption that such a process must converge to anything resembling a rational expectations equilibrium, although there are circumstances under which it might. The contemporary literature closest to this vision of the economy is based on the dynamics of learning, and this dates back at least to Marcet and Sargent (1989) and Howitt (1992), with more recent contributions by Evans and Honkapohja (2001) and Eusepi and Preston (2008). I am not by any means an insider to this literature but my instincts tell me that it is a promising direction in which to proceed.

---

Update (11/20). Nick Rowe (in a comment) directs us to an earlier post of his in which the importance of allowing for mutually inconsistent intertemporal plans is discussed. He too argues for an explicit analysis of the dynamic adjustment process that resolves these inconsistencies as they appear through time. It's a good post, and makes the point with clarity.

Some of the comments on Nick's post reflect the view that explicit consideration of disequilibrium dynamics is unnecessary since they are known to converge to rational expectations in some models. My own view is that a lot more work needs to be done on learning before this sanguine claim can be said to have theoretical support. Furthermore, local stability of a rational expectations equilibrium in a linearized system does not tell us very much about the global properties of the original (nonlinear) system, since it leaves open the possibility of corridor stability: instability in the face of large but not small perturbations. (Tobin made a similar point in a paper that I have discussed previously here.)

---

Update (12/13). Mark Thoma and Leigh Caldwell have both posted interesting reactions to this. There's clearly a lot more to be said on the topic but for the moment I'll just link without further comment.

Herbert Scarf's 1964 Lectures: An Eyewitness Account

In the fourth volume of The Makers of Modern Economics is a fascinating autobiographical essay by Duncan Foley that traces the arc of his career as an economist and reflects upon developments in the discipline over the past four decades. Duncan describes his first exposure to economics at Swarthmore, his interactions with Tobin as a graduate student at Yale, the introduction in his doctoral dissertation of a concept of equity (now called envy-freeness) that does not depend on interpersonal comparisons of utility, his enormously fruitful collaboration with Miguel Sidrauski at MIT on the microfoundations of macroeconomics, his disillusionment with the rational expectations revolution, and his growing interest in heterodox economics at Stanford and subsequently at Barnard and Columbia.

There's enough material there for several interesting posts, but here I'll confine myself to reproducing Duncan's vivid recollection of a two semester course in mathematical economics taught by Herbert Scarf in 1964 (links added):

After the free pursuit of individual learning fostered by the Swarthmore Honors program, I found the return to traditional classroom teaching at Yale a difficult transition... I was frustrated in these courses not just by the tedium and ineffciency of the class lecture style, but by the tendency for instructors who knew a great deal about the substance and practice of their subjects to waste time rehearsing mathematical and theoretical topics they did not understand very well and often misconstrued...

The great exception to this pattern of misdirected pedagogy was Herbert Scarf's year-long course in Mathematical Economics. Scarf knew this material as well as anyone in the world, and had the gifts of patience, clarity of exposition, and personal charisma to convey it brilliantly and effectively. Scarf's teaching was a revelation to me of what could be accomplished in the classroom, with the appropriate attention to systematic organization, consistently careful preparation, and a judicious balance of lecture and discussion to maintain contact with the level of students' understanding. My notes from this course comprise a better and more complete reference for the topics than any book that has since been published.

The passage of time has revealed that the content of Scarf's course was just as remarkable in its depth and insight as the presentation. Remaining mostly within the realm of finite-dimensional spaces, and emphasizing duality and practical algorithms for the construction of solutions, Scarf gave a thorough tutorial on the mathematics of optimization, starting with linear programming via the simplex method and continuing through Kuhn-Tucker theory, dynamic programming, turnpike theory through Roy Radner's algorithmic approach, and integer programming. Since a huge proportion of economic models boil down to an optimization problem, this survey effectively unified and clarified an immense range of economics for the student. When Peter Diamond was working with James Mirrlees on the problem of optimal taxation (Diamond and Mirrlees, 1971a,b), for example, Scarf's approach helped me to grasp the relation between the complexity of their comparative statics results and the nonconvex structure of the constraint set (the intersection of the set of allocations that are resource and technology-feasible and those that can be supported by distorting taxes) in this problem. The study of these formal problems also convinced me that most economic theory depends on strong assumptions of convexity to assure the tractability of the resulting optimization problem, and that in situations where convexity is inherently absent or implausible it is very difficult to make much progress by traditional methods.

Scarf's course continued with a systematic review of general equilibrium theory, starting from the separating hyperplane approach to the Second Welfare Theorem, and including Gérard Debreu's proof (1959) of existence of a competitive equilibrium, the first presentation of Scarf's algorithmic approach to the calculation of competitive equilibria (1973), the theory of the core and its asymptotic equivalence to competitive equilibrium, and Scarf's own crucial counterexamples to the stability of competitive equilibrium under tâtonnement dynamics with more than two commodities (1960). The critical lesson Scarf emphasized in this discussion was the fact that the competitive equilibrium cannot, except in special cases such as representative agent economies, be represented as the solution of a mathematical programming problem. In other words, the Walrasian system does not generally admit a potential function. As a corollary to this observation we see that the comparative statics of competitive general equilibrium theory inherently lacks the organizing structure of convex programming, so that, for example, equilibrium prices are not in general monotonic functions of endowments. These observations planted the seeds in my mind of what grew to be grave doubts about the Walrasian system. These doubts do not focus on the logical consistency of the system, but on its adequacy as a useful representation of real economic relations...

In retrospect we can see that Scarf's course mapped out the whole development of high economic theory for the next twenty or twenty-five years. The theoretical literature of this period has largely been concerned with generalizing the concepts he taught to more sophisticated commodity spaces (such as infinite-dimensional spaces and spaces of stochastic processes), and rediscovering the general properties and limitations of competitive equilibrium theory in these contexts. This has been a source of both wonder and concern to me. I am amazed at how prescient a mind like Scarf's can be about the future development of a field, guided purely by superb mathematical instincts. But what does this imply about the theoretical fertility of economics during this period? If the core theoretical ideas that have dominated the field since were all present in the Yale classroom in 1964, it suggests that economic theory has been in a scholastic, formalistic phase of development during this period, primarily focusing on working out increasingly esoteric implications of well-established concepts.

Duncan tells me that he still has his notes from this course and that Scarf, who recently retired from teaching, remains full of vigor.

In subsequent posts I hope to discuss Duncan's reflections on the microfoundations of macroeconomics, his work with Sidrauski, his concern that the rational expectations revolution was a step backwards in the development of the theory, and his view that "some break with the full Walrasian system along temporary equilibrium lines is necessary as a foundation for a distinct macroeconomics." (The Hicksian concept of temporary equilibrium allows for asset market clearing in the face of heterogeneous beliefs and mutually inconsistent intertemporal plans.) These are themes that I have touched upon in previous posts and would like to revisit soon. In the meantime, let me repeat my plea to the fellows of the Economteric Society to nominate Duncan for election to their ranks.

---

Update (11/18). Glenn Loury writes in to say:

I never had much interaction with Scarf, but his pedagogic virtuosity and mastery of mathematical economics circa 1970 reminds me of... Stanley Reiter, whom I encountered as a raw assistant professor at Northwestern in the 1970s. Stan, a close friend and occasional collaborator with Leo Hurwicz, was director of the Math Center at Northwestern (forerunner of MEDS), and in the late 1970s had a huge impact on young scholars like Paul Milgrom, Bengt Holmstrom, Mark Satterthwaite and Roger Myerson...

I don't think I agree with the claim that much of "high economic theory" since the 60s has been dotting "i's" and crossing "t's". That was true through the mid-seventies, perhaps, but the asymmetric information, mechanism design, incomplete contract theory revolutions (Hurwicz/Myerson/Maskin, eg.) -- and the emergence of deeply insightful applied theory in a variety of fields from labor and I/O to money, finance and trade suggest otherwise to me.

I basically agree with Glenn on this latter point but, in Duncan's defense, the focus of his essay was on the microfoundations of macroeconomics and the futility of simply aggregating the Walrasian system. And on this dimension I think that progress has been limited at best.

---

Update (11/18). A wonderful comment by Jonathan Conning:

I too sat in Herb Scarf's Yale Micro Theory classroom and still remember the stunned awe that I and my classmates felt at the end of his first lecture with us, which happened to be on the simplex algorithm.

My only regret is that that semester at Yale (1990) we only got a handful of micro lectures from Scarf and so did not get the full "systematic review of general equilibrium theory" that Foley mentions.

I have little to say to improve on Duncan's glowing description of a Scarf lecture except to note that by 1990 the Hillhouse basement classroom had smooth sliding blackboards (which I do not imagine they had in 1964). This meant that there were always three blackboards in use, as he could fill one blackboard full of equations and slide it to conceal or reveal what had been written before. One of the things I recall most vividly is how artfully and efficiently Scarf used those boards, and how rarely he used the eraser. A lecture which might have started with definitions and theory that might have taken a detour through an expertly chosen example to reinforce intuition would in the end always return, with the smoothest glide of a hand to reveal again exactly the right portion of the board to bring the lecture full circle back to the climactic point he wanted. Everything seemed expertly choreographed and timed down to the very last second.

I hope that other former students of Scarf will somehow stumble upon this post.