Tag Archives: Nominal GDP Targeting

The Case Against Interest On Reserves

05 Monday Jan 2026

Posted by in Interest Rates, Monetary Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This topic flared up in 2025, with legislation proposing to end the Federal Reserve’s payment of interest on bank reserves (IOR). The bills have not yet advanced in Congress, however. As a preliminary on IOR and its broader implications, consider two hypotheticals:

First, imagine banks that take deposits, make loans, and invest in assets like government securities (i.e., Treasury debt). Banks are required to hold some percentage of reserves against their deposits at the central bank (the Fed), but the reserves earn nothing.

Now consider a world in which the Fed pays banks a risk-free interest rate on reserves. Banks will opt to hold plentiful reserves and relatively less in Treasuries. But in this scenario, the Fed itself holds large amounts of Treasuries and other securities, earns interest, and in turn pays interest to banks on their reserves.

The first scenario held sway in the U.S. until 2008, when Congress authorized the Fed to pay IOR. Since that time, we’ve had the second scenario: the IOR monetary order.

Socialized Risk

The central bank can basically print money, so there is no danger that banks won’t be paid IOR, despite some risk inherent in assets held by the Fed in its portfolio. While the rate paid on reserves can change, and banks are paid IOR every 14 days, they do not face the rate risk (and a modicum of default risk) inherent in holding Treasuries and mortgage securities, which have varying maturities. Instead, the Fed and ultimately taxpayers shoulder that risk, despite the Fed’s assurances that any portfolio losses and negative net interest income are economically irrelevant. These risks have been socialized, so we now share them.

This means that an essential function of the banking system, assessing and rationally pricing risks associated with certain assets, has been nationalized. It is a suspension of the market mechanism and an invitation to misallocated capital. Why bother to critically assess the risks inherent in assets if the Fed is happy to take them off your hands, possibly at a small premium, and then pay you a risk-free return on your cash to boot.

Bank Subsidies

IOR is a subsidy to banks. They get a return with zero risk, while taxpayers provide a funding bridge for any losses on the Fed’s holdings of securities on its balance sheet or any shortfall in the Fed’s net interest income. Banks, however, can’t lose money on their ample reserves.

The subsidy may come at a greater cost to some banks than others. This regime has been accompanied by significantly more regulation of bank balance sheets, such as capital and liquidity requirements (Basel III and Dodd-Frank). Not only is IOR a significant step toward nationalizing banks, but the attendant regulatory regime tends to favor large banks.

On the other hand, zero IOR with a positive reserve requirement amounts to a tax on banks, which is ultimately paid by bank customers. Allowing banks to hold zero reserves is out of the question, so we could view the implicit reserve-requirement tax as a cost of achieving some monetary stability and promoting safer depository institutions.

Quantitative Easing

Again, the advent of IOR created an incentive for banks to hold more reserves and relatively less in Treasuries and other assets (even some loans). Rather than “scarce reserves”, banks were encouraged by IOR to hold “ample reserves”. Of course, this is thought to promote stability and a safer banking system, but as Scott Sumner notes, it represents a contractionary policy owing to the increase in the demand for base money (reserves) by banks.

The Fed took up the slack in the debt markets, buying mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries for its own portfolio in large amounts. That kind of expansion in the Fed’s balance sheet is called quantitative easing (QE). which adds to the money supply as the Fed pays for the assets.

QE helped to neutralize the contractionary effect of IOR. And QE itself can be neutralized by other measures, including regulations governing bank capital and liquidity levels.

Fed Balance Sheet Policies

QE can’t go on forever… or can it? Perhaps no more than expanding federal deficits can go on forever! The Fed’s balance sheet topped out in 2022 at about $9 trillion. It stood at just over $6.5 trillion in November 2025.

Quantitative tightening (QT) occurs when the Fed sells assets or allows run-off in its portfolio as securities mature. Nevertheless, the Fed’s mere act of holding large amounts of debt securities (whether accompanied by QE, QT, or stasis) is essentially part of the ample reserves/IOR monetary regime: without it, the demand for debt securities would be undercut (because banks get a sweeter deal from the Fed, and so disintermediation occurs).

In terms of monetary stimulus, QE was more or less offset during the financial crisis leading into the Great Recession via higher demand for bank reserves (IOR) and stricter banking regulation. Higher capital requirements were justified as necessary to stabilize the financial system, but critics like Brian Wesbury stress that the real destabilizing culprit was mark-to-market valuation requirements.

During the Covid pandemic, however, aggressive QE was intended to stabilize the economy and was not neutralized, so the Fed’s balance sheet and the money supply expanded dramatically. A surge in inflation followed.

Rates and Monetary Policy

The IOR regime severs the connection between overnight rates and monetary policy, while artificially fixing the price of reserves. There is little interbank borrowing of reserves under this “ample reserves” policy. But if there is little or no volume, what’s the true level of the Fed funds rate? Some critics (like Wesbury) claim it’s basically made up by the Fed! In any case, there is no longer any real connection between the fed funds rate and the tenor of monetary policy.

Instead, the rate paid to banks on reserves essentially sets a floor on short-term interest rates. And whenever the Fed seeks to tighten policy via IOR rate actions, it faces a potential loss on its interest spread. That represents a conflict of interest for Fed policymaking.

Sumner dislikes the IOR arrangement because, he say, it reinforces the false notion that interest rates are key to understanding monetary policy. For example, higher short-term rates are not always consistent with lower inflation. Sumner prefers controlling the monetary base as a means of targeting the level of nominal GDP, allowing interest rates to signal reserve scarcity. All of that is out of the question as long as the Fed is manipulating the IOR rate.

The Fed As Treasury Lapdog

With IOR and ample reserves, the Fed’s management of a huge portfolio of securities puts it right in the middle of the debt market across a range of maturities. As implied above, that distorts pricing and creates tension between fiscal policy and “independent” monetary policy. Such tension is especially troubling given ongoing, massive federal deficits and increasing Administration pressure on the Fed to reduce rates.

Of course, when the Fed engages in QE, or actively turns over and replaces its holdings of maturing Treasuries with new ones, it is monetizing deficits and creating inflationary pressure. It’s one kind of money printing, the mechanism by which an inflation tax is traditionally understood to reduce the real value of federal debt.

The IOR monetary regime is not the first time the Fed has intervened in the debt markets at longer maturities. In 1961, the Fed ran “Operation Twist”, selling short-term Treasuries and buying long-term Treasuries in an effort to reduce long-term rates and stimulate economic activity. However, the operation did not result in an increase in the Fed’s balance sheet holdings and cannot be interpreted as debt monetization.

Fed Adventurism

The Fed earned positive net interest income from 2008-2023, enabling it to turn over profits to the Treasury. This had a negative effect on federal deficits. However, some contend that the Fed’s net interest income over those years fostered mission creep. Wesbury notes that the Fed dabbled in “… research on climate change, lead water pipes and all kinds of other issues like ‘inequality’ and ‘racism.’” These topics are far afield of the essential functions of a central bank, monetary authority, or bank regulator. One can hope that keeping the Fed on a tight budgetary leash by ending the IOR monetary regime would limit this kind of adventurism.

A Contrary View

John Cochrane insists that IOR is a “lovely innovation”. In fact, he wonders whether the opposition to IOR is grounded in nostalgic, Trumpian hankering for zero interest rates. Cochrane also asserts that IOR is “usually” costless because longer-term rates on the Fed’s portfolio tend to exceed the short-term rate earned on reserves. That’s not true at the moment, of course, and the value of securities in the Fed’s portfolio tanked when interest rates rose. The Fed treats the shortfall in net interest as an increment to a “deferred asset”, but the negative profit, in the interim, must be met by taxpayers (who would normally benefit from the Fed’s profit) or printing money. The Fed shoulders ongoing interest-rate risk, freeing banks of the same to the extent that they hold reserves. Again, this subsidy has a real cost.

I’m surprised that Cochrane doesn’t see the strong potential for monetary lapdoggery under the IOR regime. Sure, the Fed can always print money and load up on new issues of Treasury debt. But IOR and an ongoing “quantitative” portfolio create an institutional bias toward supporting fiscal incontinence.

I’m also surprised that Cochrane would characterize an attempt to end IOR as easier monetary policy. Such a change would be accompanied by an unwinding of the Fed’s mammoth portfolio (QT). That might or might not mean tighter policy, on balance. Such an unwinding would be neutralized by lower demand for bank reserves and a lighter regulatory touch, and it should probably be phased in over several years.

Conclusion

Norbert Michel summarizes the problems created by IOR (the chart at the top of this post is from Michel). Here is a series of bullet points from his December testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (no quote marks below, as I paraphrase his elaborations):

  • The economic cost of the Fed’s losses is high. Periodic or even systemic failures to turn profits over to the Treasury means more debt, taxes, or inflation.
  • The IOR framework creates a conflict of interest with the Fed’s mandate to stabilize prices. The IOR rate set by the Fed has an impact on its profitability, which can be inconsistent with sound monetary policy actions.
  • The IOR system facilitates government support for the private financial sector. Banks get a risk-free return and the Fed acquiesces to bearing rate risk.
  • More accessible money spigot. The Fed can buy and hold Treasury debt, helping to fund burgeoning deficits, while paying banks to hold the extra cash that creates.

The money spigot enables wasteful expansion of government. Unfortunately, far too many partisans are under the delusion that more government is the solution to every problem, rather than the root cause of so much dysfunction. And of course advocates of so-called Modern Monetary Theory are all for printing the money needed to bring about the “warmth of collectivism”.

Demand, Disinflation, and Fed Gradualism

15 Monday Apr 2024

Posted by in Economic Outlook, Inflation, Monetary Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fed’s “higher for longer” path for short-term interest rates lingers on, and so does inflation in excess of the Fed’s 2% target. No one should be surprised that rate cuts aren’t yet on the table, but the markets freaked out a little with the release of the February CPI numbers last week, which were higher than expected. For now, it only means the Fed will remain patient with the degree of monetary restraint already achieved.

Dashed Hopes

As I’ve said before, there was little reason for the market to have expected the Fed to cut rates aggressively this year. Just a couple of months ago, the market expected as many as six quarter-point cuts in the Fed’s target for the federal funds rate. The only rationale for that reaction would have been faster disinflation or the possibility of an economic “hard landing”. A downturn is not out of the question, especially if the Fed feels compelled to raise its rate target again in an effort to stem a resurgence in inflation. Maybe some traders felt the Fed would act politically, cutting rates aggressively as the presidential election approaches. Not yet anyway, and it seems highly unlikely.

There is no assurance that the Fed can succeed in engineering a “soft landing”, i.e., disinflation to its 2% goal without a recession. No one can claim any certainty on that point — it’s too early to call, though the odds have improved somewhat. As Scott Sumner succinctly puts it, a soft landing basically depends on whether the Fed can disinflate gradually enough.

It’s a Demand-Side Inflation

I’d like to focus a little more on Sumner’s perspective on Fed policy because it has important implications for the outlook. Sumner is a so-called market monetarist and a leading proponent of nominal GDP level targeting by the Fed. He takes issue with those ascribing the worst of the pandemic inflation to supply shocks. There’s no question that disruptions occurred on the supply side, but the Fed did more than accommodate those shocks in attempting to minimize their impact on real output and jobs. In fact, it can fairly be said that a Fed / Treasury collaboration managed to execute the biggest “helicopter drop” of money in the history of the world, by far!

That “helicopter drop” consisted of pandemic relief payments, a fiscal maneuver amounting to a gigantic monetary expansion and stimulus to demand. The profligacy has continued on the fiscal side since then, with annual deficits well in excess of $1 trillion and no end in sight. This reflects government demand against which the Fed can’t easily act to countervail, making the job of achieving a soft landing that much more difficult.

The Treasury, however, is finding a more limited appetite among investors for the flood of bonds it must regularly sell to fund the deficit. Recent increases in long-term Treasury rates reflect these large funding needs as well as the “higher-for-longer” outlook for short-term rates, inflation expectations, and of course better perceived investment alternatives.

The Nominal GDP Proof

There should be no controversy that inflation is a demand-side problem. As Summer says, supply shocks tend to reverse themselves over time, and that was largely the case as the pandemic wore on in 2021. Furthermore, advances in both real and nominal GDP have continued since then. The difference between the two is inflation, which again, has remained above the Fed’s target.

So let’s see… output and prices both growing? That combination of gains demonstrates that demand has been the primary driver of inflation for three-plus years. Restrictive monetary policy is the right prescription for taming excessive demand growth and inflation.

Here’s Sumner from early March (emphasis his), where he references flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT), a policy the Fed claims to be following, and nominal GDP level targeting (NGDPLT):

“Over the past 4 years, the PCE price index is up 16.7%. Under FAIT it should have risen by 8.2% (i.e., 2%/year). Thus we’ve had roughly 8.5% excess inflation (a bit less due to compounding.)

Aggregate demand (NGDP) is up by 27.6%. Under FAIT targeting (which is similar to NGDPLT) it should have been up by about 17% (i.e., 4%/year). So we’ve had a bit less than 10.6% extra demand growth.  That explains all of the extra inflation.”

Is Money “Tight”?

The Fed got around to tightening policy in the spring of 2022, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that policy ever advanced to the “tight” stage. Sumner has been vocal in asserting that the Fed’s policy hasn’t looked especially restrictive. Money growth feeds demand and ultimately translates into nominal GDP growth (aggregate demand). The latter is growing too rapidly to bring inflation into line with the 2% target. But wait! Money growth has been moderately negative since the Fed began tightening. How does that square with Sumner’s view?

In fact, the M2 money supply is still approximately 35% greater than at the start of the pandemic. There’s still a lot of M2 sloshing around out there, and the Fed’s portfolio of securities acquired during the pandemic via “quantitative easing” remains quite large ($7.5 trillion). Does this sound like tight money?

Again, Sumner would say that with nominal GDP ripping ahead at 5.7%, the Fed can’t be credibly targeting 2% inflation given an allowance for real GDP growth at trend of around 1.8% (or even somewhat greater than that). It’s an even bigger stretch if M2 velocity (V — turnover) continues to rebound with higher interest rates.

Wage growth also exceeds a level consistent with the Fed’s target. The chart below shows the gap between price inflation and wage inflation that left real wages well below pre-pandemic levels. Since early 2023, wages have made up part of that decline, but stubborn wage inflation can impede progress against price inflation.

Just Tight Enough?

Despite Sumner’s doubts, there are arguments to be made that Fed policy qualifies as restrictive. Even moderate declines in liquidity can come as a shock to markets grown accustomed to torrents from the money supply firehose. And to the extent that inflation expectations have declined, real interest rates may be higher now than they were in early November. In any case, it’s clear the market was disappointed in the higher-than-expected CPI, and traders were not greatly assuaged by the moderate report on the PPI that followed.

However, the Fed pays closest attention to another price index: the core deflator for personal consumption expenditures (PCE). Inflation by this measure is trending much closer to the Fed’s target (see the second chart below). Still, from the viewpoint of traders, many of whom, not long ago, expected six rate cuts this year, the reality of “higher for longer” is a huge disappointment.

Danger Lurks

As I noted, many believe the odds of a soft landing have improved. However, the now-apparent “stickiness” of inflation and the knowledge that the Fed will standby or possibly hike rates again has rekindled fears that the economy could turn south before the Fed elects to cut its short-term interest rate target. That might surprise Sumner in the absence of more tightening, as his arguments are partly rooted in the continuing strength of aggregate demand and nominal GDP growth.

There’s a fair degree of consensus that the labor market remains strong, which underscores Sumner’s doubts as to the actual tenor of monetary policy. The March employment numbers were deceptive, however. The gain in civilian employment was just shy of 500,000, but that gain was entirely in part-time employment. Full-time employment actually declined slightly. In fact, the same is true over the prior 12 months. And over that period, the number of multiple jobholders increased by more than total employment. Increasing reliance on part-time work and multiple jobs is a sign of stress on household budgets and that firms may be reluctant to commit to full-time hires. From the establishment survey, the gain in nonfarm employment was dominated once again by government and health care. These numbers hardly support the notion that the economy is on solid footing.

There are other signs of stress: credit card delinquencies hit an all-time high in February. High interest rates are taking a toll on households and business borrowers. Retail sales were stronger than expected in March, but excess savings accumulated during the pandemic were nearly depleted as of February, so it’s not clear how long the spending can last. And while the index of leading indicators inched up in February, it was the first gain in two years and the index has shown year/over-year declines over that entire two-year period.

Conclusion

It feels a little hollow for me to list a series of economic red flags, having done so a few times over the past year or so. The risks of a hard landing are there, to be sure. The behavior of the core PCE deflator over the next few months will have much more influence on the Fed policy, as would any dramatic changes in the real economy. The “data dependence” of policy is almost a cliche at this point. The Fed will stand pat for now, and I doubt the Fed will raise its rate target without a dramatic upside surprise on the core deflator. Likewise, any downward rate moves won’t be forthcoming without more softening in the core deflator toward 2% or definitive signs of a recession. So rate cuts aren’t likely for some months to come.

A Fiscal Real-Bills Doctrine? No Such Thing As Painless Inflation Tax

14 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by in Fiscal policy, Inflation, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A remarkable proposal made recently by Representative Ro Khanna (D -CA) would have the Biden Administration impose price controls, which would be bad enough. Khanna also would like the federal government to cover the inflation losses incurred by Americans by having it directly purchase certain goods and services and resell them “cheap” to consumers. In fairness, Khanna says the government should attempt to take advantage of dips in prices for oil, food commodities, and perhaps other necessities, which of course would limit or reverse downward price changes. When asked about Khanna’s proposal, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden’s Transportation Secretary, replied that there were great ideas coming out of Congress and the Administration should consider them. Anyway, the idea is so bad that it deserves a more thorough examination.

Central Planners Have No Clothes

First, such a program would represent a massive expansion in the scope of government. It would also present ample opportunities for graft and cronyism, as federal dollars filter through the administrative layers necessary to manage the purchases and distribution of goods. Furthermore, price and quantity would then be shaded by a heavy political component, often taking precedence over real demand and cost considerations. And that’s beyond the crippling “knowledge problem” that plagues all efforts at central planning.

One of the most destructive aspects of allowing government to absorb a greater share of total spending is that government is not invested with the same budgetary discipline as private buyers. Take no comfort in the notion that the government might prove expert at timing these purchases to leverage price dips. Remember that government always spends “other people’s money”, whether it comes from tax proceeds, lenders, or the printing press (and hence future consumers, who have absolutely no agency in the matter). Hence, price incentives take on less urgency, while political incentives gain prominence. The loss of price sensitivity means that government expenditures are likely to inflate more readily than private expenditures. This is all the more critical at a time when inflation is becoming embedded in expectations and pricing decisions. Khanna thus proposes an inflation “solution” that puts less price-sensitive bureaucrats in charge of actual purchases. That’s a prescription for failure.

If anyone in Biden’s White House is seriously considering a program of this kind, and let’s hope they’re not, they should at least be aware that direct subsidies for the purchase of key goods would be far more efficient. It’s also possible to hedge the risk of future price increases on commodities markets, perhaps simply distributing hedging gains to consumers when they pay off. However, having the federal government participate as a major player in commodities options and futures is probably not on the table at this point … and I shudder to think of it, but it might be more efficient than Khanna’s vision.

A Fiscal Real Bills Doctrine

Khanna’s program would almost surely cause inflation to accelerate. Inflation itself a form of taxation imposed by profligate governments, though it’s an inefficient tax since it creates greater uncertainty. Higher prices deflate the real value of most government debt (borrowed from the public), assets fixed in nominal value, and incomes. Read on, but this program would have the government pay your inflation tax for you by inflating some more. Does this sound like a vicious circle?

Khanna’s concept of inflation-relief is a fiscal reimagining of a long-discredited monetary theory called the “Real Bills Doctrine”. According to this doctrine, rising prices and costs necessitate additional money creation so that businesses have the liquidity to pay the bills associated with ongoing productive efforts. The “real” part is a reference to the link between business expenses and actual production, despite the fact that those bills are expressed in nominal terms. The result of this policy is a cycle of ever-higher inflation, as ever-more money is printed. This was the policy utilized by the Reichsbank in Weimar Germany during its hyperinflation of 1922-23. It’s really quite astonishing that anyone ever thought such a policy was helpful!

In Khanna’s version of the doctrine, the government spends to relieve cost pressure faced by consumers, so the rationale has nothing to do with productive effort.

Financing and the Central Bank Response

It’s reasonable to ask how these outlays would be financed. In all likelihood, the U.S. Treasury would borrow the funds at interest rates now at 10-15 year highs, which have risen in part to compensate investors for higher inflation.

My bet is that Khanna imagines the Fed would simply “print” money (i.e., buy the new government debt floated by the Treasury to pay for the program). This is the prescription of so-called Modern Monetary Theory, whose adherents have either forgotten or have never learned that money growth and inflation is a costly and regressive form of taxation.

Most economists would say the response of the Federal Reserve to this fiscal stimulus would bear on whether it really ignites additional inflationary pressure. Of course, rather than borrowing, Congress could always vote to levy higher taxes on the public in order to pay the public’s inflation tax burden! But then what’s the point? Well, taxing at least has the virtue of not fueling still higher inflation, and the Fed would not have a role to play.

But if the government simply borrows instead, it adds to the already bloated supply of government debt held by the public. This borrowing is likely to put more upward pressure on interest rates, and the federal government’s mounting interest expense requires more financing. What then might the Fed do?

The Fed is an independent, quasi-government entity, so it would not have to accommodate the additional spending by printing money (buying the new Treasury debt). Either way, investors are increasingly skeptical that the growing debt burden will ever be reversed via future surpluses. The fiscal theory of the price level holds that something must reduce the real value of government debt (in order to satisfy the long-term fiscal budget constraint). That “something” is a higher price level. This position is not universally accepted, and some would contend that if the Fed simply set a nominal GDP growth target and stuck to it, accelerating inflation would not have to follow from Khanna’s policy. The same if the Fed could stick to a symmetric average inflation target, but they certainly haven’t been up to that task. Hoping the Fed would fully assert its independence in a fiscal hurricane is probably wishful thinking.

Conclusion

There are no choke points in the supply chain for bad ideas on the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they are dominating party centrists in terms of messaging. The answer, it seems, is always more government. High inflation is very costly, but the best policy is to rein it in, and that requires budgetary and monetary discipline. Attempts to make high inflation “painless” are misguided in the first instance because they short-circuit consumer price responses and substitution, which help restrain prices. Second, the presumption that an inflation tax can be “painless” is an invitation to fiscal debauchery. Third, expansive government brings out hoards of rent seekers instigating corruption and waste. Finally, mounting public debt is unlikely to be offset by future surpluses, and that is the ultimate admission of Modern Monetary Theory. A fiscal real bills doctrine would be an additional expression of this lunacy. To suggest otherwise is either sheer stupidity or an exercise in gaslighting. You can’t inflate away the pain of an inflation tax.

Fractured Fiscal Fairy Tales: Moot Multipliers

03 Wednesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

crowding_out

Scott Grannis asserts that the multiplier associated with fiscal stimulus is roughly zero, and evidence over the past few years suggests that he may be right. He appeals to a form of the classic “crowding out” argument: that debt-financed increases in government spending absorb private saving, leaving less funding available for private capital investment. In the present case, federal deficits ($7.4 trillion since 2009) have soaked up more than 80% of the corporate profits generated over that time frame. Profits are a major source of funds for private capital projects, risky alternatives against which the U.S. Treasury competes.

There are other reasons to doubt the ability of fiscal policy to offset fluctuations in economic activity. Transfers, which have grown dramatically as a percentage of federal spending, can create negative work incentives, thereby diminishing the supply of labor and adding cost to new investment. The growth of the regulatory state adds risk to privately invested capital as well as hiring. Government projects also offer tremendous opportunities for graft and corruption, at the same time diverting resources into uses of questionable productivity (corn, solar and wind subsidies are good examples). Many federal programs in areas such as education fail basic tests of success. Federal bailouts tend to prop up unproductive enterprises, including the misbegotten cash-for-clunker initiative. Even government infrastructure projects, heralded as great enhancers of American productivity, are often subject to lengthy delays and cost overruns due to regulatory and environmental rules. Is there any such thing as a federal “shovel-ready” infrastructure project?

In recent years, research has found that spending multipliers are small and often negative in the long run, contrary to what statists and old-time adherents of Keynes would have you believe. Empirical multipliers tend to be smaller in more open economies and under more flexible exchange rate regimes. Of growing importance to many developed economies, however, is that spending multipliers tend to be zero or even negative in the long run when government debt is high relative to GDP. This is broadly consistent with the classic crowding-out explanation for low multipliers, whereby public debt burdens absorb private saving. U.S. government debt-to-GDP is now well above 60%, an empirical point of demarcation separating high and low-multiplier countries. Finally, some economists believe that fiscal stimulus is frequently offset by countervailing monetary tightening under an implicit policy of nominal GDP targeting. Scott Sumner describes this as the story of the past few years, as neither the fiscal expansion of the 2009 stimulus plan nor the contraction of the fiscal cliff and sequestration had much if any observable impact on economic growth.

Politicians, the mainstream press and eager Keynesian economists are seemingly always ready to pitch fiscal policy and higher federal spending as the solution to any macroeconomic problem. Sadly, that is unlikely to end any time soon, because the story they tell is so simple and tempting, and they are blind its insidious nature.