Sunday, March 13, 2016

Real vs Money Incomes – the one thing we need to understand during deflationary times (with an illustration from Greece and Cyprus)









by Yanis Varoufakis




How can real income growth reflect a deepening recession?

Real National Income (or Real Gross Domestic Product) is the ratio of (i) Money National Income (or Nominal Gross Domestic Product) and (ii) an index of Average Prices.

In short, R = N/P (where R = real income, N = money income and P = an index of average prices)

Clearly, real income is a metric created so that, if all prices (P) and all money incomes (N) change by the same proportion, real income (R) does not change, thus reflecting the real of constant purchasing power. By construction, therefore, R only rises (falls) when money income grows faster (more slowly) than average prices.

It is easy to show that an economy’s real income growth rate is equal to the growth rate of money income minus the proportional rate of change in average prices (i.e. of the inflation rate) – See this Appendix for the proof.

In short, g = m – p where
g is the proportional rate of growth of R
m is the proportional rate of growth of N, and
p is the inflation rate, i.e. the rate of increase in P).

In plain words, when money income grows faster than inflation (i.e. m>p) real incomes grow.

There are two conclusions to draw from the above, depending on whether we live in inflationary or deflationary times:

Conclusion 1: In inflationary times, for real income to grow money income must be growing even faster

Proof: Since g = m – p, if p is positive (reflecting rising average prices P), then real income (R) rises (i.e. g>0) if and only if m>p>0

Conclusion 2: In deflationary times, it is possible for real income to grow while money income is shrinking

Proof: Since g = m – p, if both m and p are negative numbers (reflecting falling money income N and falling average prices P), R grows (g appears positive) as long as prices are falling faster than money income is rising (i.e. 0>m>p).

Moral of the story

When a depression gets deep enough, real income can appear to be rising!

What does this mean? It means that deflation has become so bad that money income continues to fall but not as fast as average prices.

But is a shrinking money income a problem when real income rises? Yes, falling money income is always terrible news if households, government and companies labour under significant debt. Private sector debt never falls of its own accord since indebted companies and households are never offered a negative interest rate by their creditors. This means that, when money income shrinks in an economy where firms, families and government are seriously indebted, the economy is pushed into wholesale insolvency. (The fact that prices are falling faster than incomes may make goods and services more affordable but does not help individuals and the government who are sinking deeper and deeper into debt, their debt-to-money income ratio rising inexorably.)

In summary, in a deflationary economy comprising indebted households, firms and government, real income growth is utterly consistent with a Great Depression and a steady path toward wholesale insolvency (of the indebted parties).[1] Only when real growth (g) exceeds the rate of deflation (d) do money incomes recover during deflationary times.

Illustration: The cases of Greece and Cyprus

Greece

The conventional ‘wisdom’ that the financial press, the troika and the EU institutions have been peddling is that: (1) Greece was recovering during 2014 and (ii) our Syriza government’s election in January 2015 led to a ‘return to recession’.

The truth begs to differ. Let us begin with the data from 2014. Yes, real income growth returned to Greece for the first time since 2008. The annual value of g came in at 0.8%, the first positive number in several years. However, 2014 remained a deeply deflationary year, with p=-2.6% (as measured by the nation’s official GDP deflator). Given the formula in (1), i.e. g = m – p, it turns out that money incomes shrunk during 2014 at a rate of m = g + p = 0.8 – 2.6 = -1.8%

Turning to what happened after our election on 25th January 2015, and during the second quarter of 2015 (which coincided with my tenure at the Ministry of Finance – March to June 2015), the data tells us that g = 0.3% and p = -1.28%. From (1), we derive m = g + p = 0.3 – 1.28 = -0.98%.

In other words, the reality (and at odds with the troika’s propaganda) is that Greece was not recovering in 2014. Instead, throughout 2014 Greece continued to languish in its Great Depression (its money income falling by 1.8%). Moreover, during our combative negotiations with the troika in the spring of 2015 (the purpose of which was to re-negotiate the cause of our Depression, i.e. the recessionary fiscal consolidation program that the troika had imposed upon Greece), money incomes continued to fall but at a reduced rate. The recession of course accelerated again when, on 30th June 2015, the troika, in its bid to asphyxiate our government, closed down Greece’s banks!

Cyprus

In recent weeks, Brussels and media that take their cue from the EU’s institutions have been singing the praises of Cyprus’ emergence from recession. Yet again, the truth insists of differing. According to the official statistical service of the Republic of Cyprus, real growth was g = 0.4% in the last quarter of 2015 (October to December). However, during the same quarter, the rate of deflation was d = 0.75%. From equation (1), it is clear that the Cypriots’ total money (or euro) income fell by 0.35% (m = g-d = -0.35). For a small nation languishing under a total debt that is three times the level of its money income[2] (and with more than 60% of all bank loans being non-performing), any celebration of Cyrpus’ recovery is seriously premature.

[1] Deflation is terrible for another reason too: Once people expect prices to keep falling, they have an incentive to postpone purchases of durables (choosing to wait until their price falls further). But this is catastrophic for the producers of these durables who now postpone investment, pushing aggregate demand lower and therefore accelerating the rate of deflation. Combined with the increasing debt-to-income ratios, this development locks the economy into a debt-deflationary doom loop.

[2] Government debt equals 108% of GDP and household debt an astounding 202% of GDP.

Share this:




About yanisv

Professor of Economics at the University of Athens














Bank of America paid Clintons speaking fees, too – more than $1M worth







 




By Deon Roberts





“Taking fees like this, particularly from banks that have been bailed out by the taxpayers, it’s certainly hard to argue to the public that you’re not acting in a self-serving way.” --Eric Heberlig, political science professor at UNC Charlotte

“Even if well-intentioned and serving a legitimate business purpose, corporate payments to politicians can appear unseemly.” --Richard Parsons, former risk executive for Bank of America who retired from the company in September 2011




Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman Sachs Group have drawn criticism on the campaign trail, but they’re not the only talks she’s given to big banks.

Bank of America has also paid the Democratic presidential candidate and her husband more than $1 million combined to deliver talks to the Charlotte-based bank and its Merrill Lynch unit.

The Clintons collected the combined figure from Bank of America over four appearances from 2011 to 2014, according to financial disclosures posted by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Former President Bill Clinton was the speaker on three of those occasions, once taking in $500,000 for a 2014 gathering in London.

The large fees raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest and are likely to remain a hot topic on the campaign trail, said Eric Heberlig, a political science professor at UNC Charlotte.

“Taking fees like this, particularly from banks that have been bailed out by the taxpayers, it’s certainly hard to argue to the public that you’re not acting in a self-serving way,” Heberlig said.

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but the former secretary of state has said she favors tough regulation of Wall Street.

All of the Bank of America talks were given at private events the bank occasionally holds for clients or the company’s senior executives, the bank told the Observer. Bank of America said it’s not unusual for it to pay former elected or appointed officials from the U.S. and elsewhere to speak on key national and global issues at such gatherings.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been among speakers at similar Bank of America events.

Bank of America declined to disclose specifics on the exact nature of the Clintons’ appearances, for which the bank paid about $1.1 million.

Combined, the Clintons made about $1.1 million from Bank of America talks: $900,000 to former President Bill Clinton, and $225,000 to Hillary Clinton.

In the 2016 presidential race, Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs have spurred repeated attacks from fellow Democratic contender Bernie Sanders. Sanders, who calls for big banks to be busted up, has pointed to Clinton’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman as underscoring her ties to Wall Street.

During a debate in Miami this week, Sanders noted Clinton’s payment of $225,000 per Goldman talk, quipping: “That speech must have been an extraordinarily wonderful speech.”

Clinton has not released the transcripts of her speeches, saying she would only do so if all candidates from both parties did the same. For his part, Sanders has maintained that he hasn’t given such talks.

Hillary Clinton has said the Wall Street money has no influence on how she would regulate the industry.

At the Miami debate, Clinton responded to Sanders’ criticism of her banking connections by reiterating that she will have “the toughest, most comprehensive plan to go after Wall Street.”

For their Goldman speeches, the Clintons have received more than $2 million combined. But the pair has also given talks to other banks, including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and UBS.

Wells Fargo paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for an Oct. 13, 2011, appearance in New York. The San Francisco-based bank declined to comment on that sole Wells Fargo event included in the Clintons’ disclosures.

Of the four Bank of America speeches, two were listed as being for Merrill Lynch, which the bank bought in 2009, according to the Clintons’ disclosures. Separately, Bill Clinton also received $175,000 for a 2007 Merrill Lynch appearance in New York.

None of the Bank of America speeches were in Charlotte, although Hillary Clinton received $225,000 for a November 2013 event in the town of Bluffton, S.C., near Hilton Head Island.

Bank of America said there are various events for which it will invite big-name speakers. These include conferences that bring together companies and investors, as well as meetings of the bank’s executives.

“We operate across the United States and around the world, because that’s where our customer and clients operate. It helps us serve them better to gain the insights and judgments of people who have been on the world stage.”
--Larry Di Rita, Bank of America spokesman

While Clinton’s opponents argue her speaking fees pose a conflict of interest for the candidate, some say the payments could also hurt the reputation of the bank.

“Even if well-intentioned and serving a legitimate business purpose, corporate payments to politicians can appear unseemly,” said Richard Parsons, a former risk executive for Bank of America who retired from the company in September 2011 and now writes on risk-management issues.

A review of campaign contributions shows the bank’s executives have given to Clinton as well as Republicans in recent years.


Anne Finucane, the bank’s head of strategy and marketing, contributed $2,700 in August to Clinton’s committee, Hillary for America.

In June, senior executives Gary Lynch and Tom Montag contributed $2,700 each to Republican Jeb Bush’s committee, Jeb 2016. Montag also gave $100,000 last year to Right to Rise USA, a Super PAC supporting Bush.

Clinton has said that the Wall Street money has no influence on how she would regulate the industry.

Heberlig, the UNC professor, predicts Clinton will continue to be assailed for her speaking fees in the 2016 race, including possible GOP opponents, some of whom opposed bank bailouts.

“I think the Republicans will attack her on it,” Heberlig said. “They need line of attacks that are going to be effective with the public.”









Žižek on DiEM25