ECB
Austerity. The Past That Doesn’t Pass
[As usual lately, this is a slightly edited AI translation of a piece written for the Italian Daily Domani]
The European Commission recently revised downwards its forecasts for both growth and inflation, which continues to fall faster than expected. In contrast to the United States, there is no “soft landing” here. As argued by many, monetary tightening has not played a major role in bringing inflation under control (even as of today, price dynamics are mainly determined by energy and transportation costs). Instead, according to what the literature tells us on the subject, it is starting, 18 months after the beginning of the rate hike cycle, to bite on the cost of credit, therefore on consumption, investment and growth.
This slowdown in the economy is taking place in a different context from that of the pandemic. Back then, central bankers and finance ministers all agreed that business should be supported by any means, a fiscal “whatever it takes”. Today, the climate is very different, and public discourse is dominated by an obsession with reducing public debt, as evidenced by the recent positions taken by German Finance Minister Lindner and the disappointing reform of the Stability Pact. The risk for Europe of repeating the mistakes of the past, in particular the calamitous austerity season of 2010-2014, is therefore particularly high.
In this context, we can only look with concern at what is happening in France, where the government also announced a downward revision of the growth forecast for 2024, from 1.4% to 1%. At the same time, the Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire announced a cut in public spending of ten billion euros (about 0.4% of GDP), to maintain the previously announced deficit and debt targets. This choice is wicked for at least two reasons. The first is that it the government plans making the correction exclusively by cutting public expenditure, focusing in particular on “spending for the future”. €2 billion will be taken from the budget for the ecological transition, €1.1 billion for work and employment, €900 million for research and higher education, and so on. In short, it has been chosen, once again, not to increase taxes on the wealthier classes but to cut investment in future capital (tangible or intangible).
But regardless of the composition, the choice to pursue public finance objectives by reducing spending at a time when the economy slows, down goes against what economic theory teaches us; even more problematic, for a political class at the helm of a large economy, it goes against recent lessons from European history.
The ratio of public debt to GDP is usually taken an indicator (actually, a very imperfect one, but we can overlook this here) of the sustainability of public finances. When the denominator of the ration, GDP, falls or grows less than expected, it would seem at first glance logical to bring the ratio back to the desired value by reducing the debt that is in the numerator, i.e. by raising taxes or reducing government spending. But things are not so simple, because in fact the two variables, GDP and debt, are linked to each other. The reduction of government expenditure or the increase of taxes, and the ensuing reduction of the disposable income for households and businesses, will negatively affect aggregate demand for goods and services and therefore growth. Let’s leave aside here a rather outlandish theory, which nevertheless periodically re-emerges, according to which austerity could be “expansionary” if the reduction in public spending triggers the expectation of future reductions in the tax burden, thus pushing up private consumption and investment. The data do not support this fairy tale: guess what? Austerity turns out to be contractionary!
In short, a decline in the nominator, the debt, brings with it a decline in the denominator, GDP. Whether the ratio between the two decreases or increases, therefore, ends up depending on how much the former influences the latter, what economists call the multiplier. If austerity has a limited impact on growth, then debt reduction will be greater than GDP reduction and the ratio will shrink: albeit at the price of an economic slowdown, austerity can bring public finances back under control. The recovery plans imposed by the troika on the Eurozone countries in the early 2010s were based on this assumption and all international institutions projected a limited impact of austerity on growth. History has shown that this assumption was wrong and that the multiplier is very high, especially during a recession. A public mea culpa from the International Monetary Fund caused a sensation at the time (economists are not known for admitting mistakes!), explaining how a correct calculation gave multipliers up to four times higher than previously believed. In the name of discipline, fiscal policy in those years was pro-cyclical, holding back the economy when it should have pushed it forward. The many assistance packages conditioning the troika support to fiscal consolidation did not secure public finances; on the contrary, by plunging those countries into recession, they made them more fragile. Not only was austerity not expansive, but it was self-defeating. It is no coincidence that, in those years, speculative attacks against countries that adopted austerity multiplied and that, had it not been for the intervention of the ECB, with Draghi’s whatever it takes in 2012, Italy and Spain would have had to default and the euro would probably not have survived.
Since then, empirical work has multiplied, with very interesting results. For example, multipliers are higher for public investment (especially for green investment) and social expenditure has an important impact on long-term growth. And these are precisely the items of expenditure most cut by the French government in reaction to deteriorating economic conditions.
While President Roosevelt in 1937 prematurely sought to reduce the government deficit by plunging the American economy into recession, John Maynard Keynes famously stated that “the boom, not the recession, is the right time for austerity.” The eurozone crisis was a colossal and very painful (Greece has not yet recovered to 2008 GDP levels), a natural experiment that proved Keynes right.
Bruno Le Maire and the many standard-bearers of fiscal discipline can perhaps be forgiven for their ignorance of the academic literature on multipliers in good and bad times. Perhaps they can also be forgiven for their lack of knowledge of economic history and of the debates that inflamed the twentieth century. But the compulsion to repeat mistakes that only ten years ago triggered a financial crisis, and threatened to derail the single currency, is unforgivable even for a political class without culture and without memory.
Wages and Inflation: Let Workers Alone
[Note: this is a slightly edited ChatGPT translation of an article for the Italian daily Domani]
Last week’s piece of news is the gap that opened between the US central bank, the Fed, and the European and British central banks. Apparently, the three institutions have adopted the same strategy, deciding to leave interest rates unchanged, in the face of falling inflation and a slowdown in the economy. But, for central banks, what you say is just as important as what you do; and while the Fed has announced that in the coming months (barring surprises, of course) it will begin to loosen the reins, reducing its interest rate, the Bank of England and the ECB have refused to announce cuts anytime soon.
To understand why the ECB remains hawkish, one can read the interview with the Financial Times of the governor of the Central Bank of Belgium, Pierre Wunsch, one of the hardliners within the ECB Council. Wunsch argues that, while inflation data is good (it is also worth noting that, as many have been saying for months, inflation continues to fall faster than forecasters expect), wage dynamics are a cause for concern. In the Eurozone, in fact, these rose by 5.3% in the third quarter of 2023, the highest pace in the last ten years. The Belgian Governor mentions the risk that this increase in wages will weigh on the costs of companies, inducing them to raise prices and triggering further wage demands; As long as wage growth is not under control, Wunsch concludes, the brakes must be kept on. Once again, the restrictive stance is justified by the risk of a price-wage spiral, that so far never materialized, despite having been evoked by the partisans of rate increases since 2021. Those who, like Wunsch, fear the wage-price spiral, cite the experience of the 1970s, when the wage surge had effectively fueled progressively out-of-control inflation. The comparison seems apt at first glance, given that in both cases it was an external shock (energy) that triggered the price increase. But, in fact, it was not necessary to wait for inflation to fall to understand that the risk of a wage-price spiral was overestimated and used by many as an instrument. Compared to the 1970s, in fact, many things have changed. I talk about this in detail in Oltre le Banche Centrali, recently published by Luiss University Press (in Italian): Automatic indexation mechanisms have been abolished, the bargaining power of trade unions has greatly diminished and, in general, the precarization of work has reduced the ability of workers to carry out their demands. For these and other reasons, the correlation between prices and wages has been greatly reduced over three decades.
But the 1970s are actually the exception, not the norm. A recent study by researchers at the International Monetary Fund looks at historical experience and shows that, in the past, inflationary flare-ups have generally been followed with a delay by wages. These tend to change more slowly than prices, so that an increase in inflation is not followed by an immediate adjustment in wages and initially there is a reduction in the real wage (the wage adjusted for the cost of living). When, in the medium term, wages finally catch up with prices, the real wage returns to the equilibrium level, aligned with productivity growth. If the same thing were to happen at this juncture, the IMF researchers believe, we should not only expect, but actually hope for nominal wage growth to continue to be strong for some time in the future, now that inflation has returned to reasonable levels: looking at the data published by Eurostat, we observe that for the eurozone, prices increased by 18.5% from the third quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2023, while wage growth stopped at 10.5%. Real wages, therefore, the measure of purchasing power, fell by 8.2%. Italy stands out: it has seen a similar evolution of prices (+18.9%), but an almost stagnation of wages (+5.8%), with the result that purchasing power has collapsed by 13%.
Things are worse than these numbers show. First, for convergence to be considered accomplished, real wages will have to increase beyond the 2021 levels. In countries where productivity has grown in recent years, the new equilibrium level of real wages will be higher. Second, even when wages have realigned with productivity growth, there will remain a gap to fill. During the current transition period, when real wages are below the equilibrium level, workers are enduring a loss of income that will not be compensated for (unless the real wage grows more than productivity for some time). From this point of view, therefore, it is important not only that the gap between prices and wages is closed, but that this happens as quickly as possible.
In short, contrary to what many (more or less in good faith) claim, the fact that at the moment wages are growing more than prices is not the beginning of a dangerous wage-price spiral and the indicator of a return of inflation; rather, it is the foreseeable second phase of a process of rebalancing that, as the IMF researchers point out, is not only normal but also necessary.
The conclusion deserves to be emphasized as clearly as possible: if the ECB or national governments tried to limit wage growth with restrictive policies, they would not only act against the interests of those who paid the highest price for the inflationary shock. But, in a self-defeating way, they would prevent the adjustment from being completed and delay putting once and for all the inflationary shock behind us.
Are central banks too reliant on SWIFT for domestic payments?
Central bank settlement systems are the the tectonic plates of the payment system: they are vitally important to our lives, but we never see them in action. All of a nations' electronic payments are ultimately completed, or settled, on these systems. If they stop working, our financial lives go on pause, or at least regress to older forms of payment.
In this post I want to introduce readers to a crucial feature of these payments tectonic plates: their reliance for domestic settlement on SWIFTNet, a financial messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to communicate payments information. Think of SWIFTNet as a WhatsApp for banks, but exclusive and very secure.
This reliance – or over-reliance – is best exemplified by a recent decision by the European Central Bank. The Target2 settlement system has long been the bedrock layer of the European payments universe. All domestic payment ultimately get tied-off on the system. Since it was introduced in 2007, Target2 has been solely reliant on SWIFTNet for sending and receiving messages.
When the European Central Bank replaced Target2 with T2 earlier this year, it modified the system to have two access points: it kept SWIFTNet but added a competing messaging network, SIAnet, to the mix. As one commentator triumphantly put it, "SWIFT’s monopoly for access to the T2/T2S system is broken."
SWIFTNet is owned by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, which is structured as a cooperative society under Belgian law and is owned and governed by its 11,000 or so member financial institutions. Whenever SWIFT gets mentioned in conversations, it tends to be associated with cross-border wire payments, for which its messaging network is dominant. However, for many jurisdictions, including Europe, SWIFT is also integral to making domestic payments. It's this little-known local reliance that I'm going to explore in this post.
The dilemma faced by central banks such as the European Central Bank is that SWIFTNet is an incredibly useful messaging network. It is ubiquitous: most banks already use it for cross-border payments. And so the path of least resistance for many central banks is to outsource a nation's domestic messaging requirements to SWIFT, too. However, this reliance exposes national infrastructure to SWIFTNet-related risks like foreign control, sanctions, snooping, and system outages.
Financial messaging 101
Before going further, we need to understand why financial messaging is important. For a single electronic payment to be completed, a set of databases owned by a number of financial institutions, usually banks, must engage in an intricate dance of credits and debits. To coordinate this dance, these banks need to communicate, and that's where a messaging network is crucial.
Say, for example, that Google needs to pay Apple $10 million. Google tells its banker at Wells Fargo to make the payment. Wells Fargo first updates its own database by debiting Google's balance by $10 million. The payment now has to hop over to Google Apple, which banks at Chase. For that to happen the payment flow must progress to the core of the U.S's payments system, the database owned by the Federal Reserve, the U.S.'s central bank.
Along with most other U.S. banks, Wells Fargo has an account at the Federal Reserve. It communicates to the central bank that it wants its balance to be debited by $10 million and the account of Chase to be credited by that amount. Once Chase's account at the Federal Reserve is updated, Chase gets a notification that it can finally credit Apple for $10 million. At that point Apple can finally spend the $10 million.
This entire process takes just a second or two. For this "dance of databases" to execute properly, the Federal Reserve, Chase, and Wells Fargo need to be connected to a communications network.
The sort of messaging network to which the central bank is connected, and the stewardship of that network, is thus crucial to the entire functioning of the economy.
Proprietary messaging networks or SWIFTNet?
The Federal Reserve is somewhat unique among central banks in that it has built its own proprietary messaging network for banks. All of the 9,000 or so financial institutions that use the Federal Reserve settlement system, Fedwire, must connect to the Fed's proprietary messaging network to make Fedwire payments. To make international payments, however, U.S. banks must still communicate via SWIFTNet.
Let's flesh the story out by trekking north of the border. Whereas the Federal Reserve has no reliance on SWIFTNet, Canada's core piece of domestic settlement infrastructure, Lynx, relies entirely on SWIFTNet for messaging.
For example, if Toronto Dominion Bank needs to make a $10 million to Scotiabank, it enters this order into SWIFTNet, upon which SWIFT forwards the message to Lynx, which updates each banks' accounts by $10 million and sends a confirmation back to SWIFTNet, which tells Scotiabank that the payment has settled.
For payments nerds, this network setup is called a Y-copy topology. The network looks like a "Y" because the originating bank message is relayed from the sending bank via SWIFTNet, the pivot at the center of the Y, down to the settlement system, and then back up via SWIFTNet to the recipient bank. It is illustrated below in the context of the UK's payment system, with the CHAPS settlement system instead of Lynx, but the idea is the same.
A Y-copy network topology for settling central bank payments in the UK [source]
The upshot is that the Federal Reserve controls the messaging apparatus on which its domestic settlement depends, whereas Canada outsources this to a cooperative on the other side of the ocean.
Many of the world's small and middle-sized central banks have adopted the same Y-copy approach as Canada. This list includes Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Nigeria, UK, Sweden and South Africa. However, some members of this group are starting to have second thoughts about fusing themselves so completely to SWIFT.
Removing the single point of failure
The European Central Bank is at the vanguard of this group. Prior to 2023, the European Central Bank was in the same bucket as Canada, relying entirely on SWIFTNet to settle domestic transactions.
With its upgraded T2 system, Europe doesn't go quite as far the Fed's model, which is to build its own bespoke messaging network. Rather, European banks now have the option of either sending messages to T2 using SWIFTNet, or they can use SIAnet, a competing network owned by Nexi, a publicly-traded corporation. SIAnet stands for Societa Interbancaria per l'Automazione, a network that originally connected Italian banks but has now gone pan-European.
The reason for this design switch is that European Central Bank desires "network-agnostic connectivity." This dual access model will make things more complex for the European Central Bank. If a commercial bank originates a SIAnet message, the central bank will have to translate this over to a SWIFT message if the recipient bank uses SWIFTNet. Nevertheless, the European Central Bank believes this dual structure will offer more choice to domestic banks.
The ECB also hints at the enhanced "information security" that this new setup will provide, without providing much detail. The UK's recent efforts to update its core settlement layer sheds some extra insights into what these security improvements might be. Right now, the UK's core settlement system, CHAPS, can only be accessed by SWIFTNet, much like in Canada, so that all domestic UK payments are SWIFT-reliant.
In its roadmap for updating CHAPS, the Bank of England is proposing to allow banks to access the system via either SWIFTNet or a second network, which doesn't yet exist. The idea is to enable "resilient connectivity" to the core settlement layer, especially in periods of "operational or market disruption." Should SWIFTNet go down there would be no way for financial institutions to communicate with CHAPS, and the entire domestic economy would grind to a halt. A second network removes the "single point of failure" by allowing banks to re-route messages to CHAPS.
The Bank of England also highlights the benefits of competition, which would reduce the costs of connectivity.
This sounds great, but there are tradeoffs. Using a a single network for both domestic and international payments is valuable to the private sector because it offers standardization and efficiencies in banks' processing. Adding a second option will also complicate things for the Bank of England, since it will have to design and build a system from scratch, much like the Fed did, which could be costly. Either that or it will have to find another private option, like the ECB did with SIAnet. This second network may not be as good as SWIFTNet which, despite worries about resiliency, has been incredibly successful.
When CHAPS went down earlier this year for a few hours, for instance, it wasn't SWIFT's fault, but the Bank of England's fault. The same goes for a full day outage in 2014.
Comparing a V-shaped network topology to Y-Copy in an Australian context [source]
The type of settlement topology that the UK is proposing is known as "V-shaped," since all messages are sent directly to the central bank settlement system for processing via any of a number of messaging networks, and then back to the recipient bank. The difference between a V-shaped topology and Y-copy is visualized in the chart above in an Australian context, but the principles apply just as well to the UK.
Sanctions and "the SWIFT affair"
The decision to make domestic payments less dependent on SWIFTNet is much more easy to make for outlier nations like Russia. SWIFT is based in Belgium and is overseen by the Belgian central bank, along with the G-10 central banks: Banca d’Italia, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Banque de France, De Nederlandsche Bank, Deutsche Bundesbank, European Central Bank, Sveriges Riksbank, Swiss National Bank, and the Federal Reserve. That put SWIFT governance far out of Russian control.
You can see why this could be a problem for Russia. Imagine that only way to settle domestic Russian payments was by communicating through SWIFTNet. If Russia was subsequently cut off from that network for violating international law, that would mean that all Russian domestic payments would suddenly cease to work. It would be a disaster.
Needless to say, the Central Bank of Russia has ensured that it doesn't depend on SWIFTNet for communications. It has its own domestic messaging network known as Sistema peredachi finansovykh soobscheniy, or System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), which was built in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea. Prior to then, it appears that "almost all" domestic Russian transactions passed through SWIFTNet – a dangerous proposition for a country about to face sanctions.
Mind you, while Russia has protected its domestic payments from SWIFTNet-related risk, it can't do the same for its international payments. SWIFTNet remains the dominant network for making a cross border wire. There is no network the Russians can create that will get around this.
I'm pretty sure that most larger developing states and/or rogue nations have long-since built independent domestic financial messaging systems to avoid SWIFTNet risk. I believe China has done so. Brazil has the National Financial System Network, or Rede do sistema financeiro nacional (RSFN). India also has its own system, the Structured Financial Messaging System (SFMS), built in 2001. India is even trying to export SFMS as a SWIFT competitor.
The Japanese were typically way ahead on this. The Bank of Japan built its messaging network, the Zengin Data Telecommunication System, back in 1973, several years before SWIFT was founded.
The last SWIFTNet risk is snooping risk. This gets us into the so-called SWIFT affair. After 9/11, the U.S. intelligence agencies were able to pry open SWIFT through secret broad administrative subpoenas. They had the jurisdiction to do so because one of SWIFT's two main data centres was located in the U.S.
To ensure data integrity, SWIFT had been mirroring European data held in its data centre in Belgium at its U.S. site. That effectively gave U.S. intelligence access to not only SWIFT's U.S. payments information, but also information on foreign payments sourced from Europe or directed to Europe. Worse, it also provided spooks with data on domestic European payments. Recall that the European Central Bank's Target2 settlement system, which settles all digital domestic payments in Europe, was entirely reliant on SWIFTNet for communications.
When the U.S.'s snooping arrangement was made public by the New York Times in 2006, it caused a huge controversy in Europe. SWIFT tried to placate Europe by building a third data warehouse in Switzerland to house Europe's back-up data. But the precedent was set: SWIFT is not 100% trustworthy. And that may be part of the reason why the European Central Bank chose to downgrade its reliance on SWIFTNet when it introduced its new system, and is surely why other nations want to entirely hive their domestic systems off from it.
---
In sum, central banks face a host of complicated decisions in how to bolt on messaging capabilities to their key settlement systems. SWIFTNet is a top notch network. However, too much SWIFT-related risk may be perceived as having negative implications for national security. For large nations with extensive banking industries, building a proprietary domestic messaging alternative seems to be the preferred option. It also seems to be the default choice for rogue states like Russia.
Another alternative is to fallback on using multiple independent networks for access, of which one is SWIFTNet, and thus mitigating exposure to SWIFT-related problems. This is the approach taken by Europe and the UK.
For smaller nations that comply with the global consensus, like Canada, the calculus is different. Building an alternative communications network is likely to be costly. The risk of sanctions and censorship are negligible while the benefits of using a high-quality ubiquitous network for both domestic and foreign payments messaging are significant. Given these factors, it may be worthwhile to bear all SWIFT-related risks and adopt the Y-copy model.
Otmar Issing Is Still Living in His Monetary Fantasy World
Otmar Issing can look back on a long and consequential central banking career. Even in his retirement he is still living the part, evaluating whether his successors at the European Central Bank are pursuing stability-oriented monetary policies to his liking. His most recent critique (“‘Living in a fantasy’: euro’s founding father rebukes ECB over inflation response” https://www.ft.com/content/145b6795-2d21-48c6-984b-4b05d121ba16) shows him on the wrong side of events and debates about sound monetary policy, again.
Mr. Issing spent an eight-year stint at the Bundesbank as chief economist of Germany’s legendary central bank and retired guardian of European monetary affairs. Misled by M3 overshots that were the result of the Buba’s own rate hikes inverting the yield curve, Buba kept on hiking until it crashed newly unified Germany, and the ERM too. Recession-caused fiscal troubles then saw Mr. Issing’s Buba cheerleading pressures for fiscal austerity. These involved hikes in indirect taxes and administered prices that were distorting headline inflation upwards and delaying Buba easing (see https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/on-the-burdenr-of-german-unification). The ensuing malaise in Europe was so pronounced that it almost prevented Mr. Issing from becoming a founding father of the euro.
But the euro got lucky, courtesy of a last-minute push from America’s dot-com boom. And so Mr. Issing got his chance as the ECB’s influential first chief economist. Unfortunately, lessons from Germany’s debacle ten years earlier were not learned. The newly formed euro monetary union repeated the blunder of pairing fiscal austerity with growth-unfriendly monetary policy, resulting in stagnation and inflation stubbornly above two percent due to austerity-inspired hikes in indirect taxes and administered prices distorting headline inflation (https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/assessing-the-ecbs-performance-since-the-global-slowdown and https://ideas.repec.org/p/imk/studie/01-2006.html). Germany itself was supercharging austerity and wage repression and turned into “the sick man of the euro”. (see Bibow 2005 “Germany in crisis – The unification challenge, macroeconomic policy shocks and traditions, and EMU”, International Review of Applied Economics, 19(1): 29-50. And https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/bad-for-euroland-worse-for-germany)
Not all members were stuck in stagdeflation though as financial liberalization fired up bubbles elsewhere in the euro area. (see https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/how-the-maastricht-regime-fosters-divergence-as-well-as-fragility) Nonetheless, Mr. Issing’s previously held doubts about the optimality of Europe’s monetary union were dissolving. So convinced of the optimality of the ECB’s guardianship, he declared in 2005 that: “Today, in light of the evidence gathered so far in the euro area, I am more confident in saying: ‘One size does fit all!’” (see https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2005/html/sp050520.en.html). He retired from the ECB just in time to be no longer in charge when the euro’s apparent success story unraveled. But his immediate successors made sure to stick with the stability-oriented wisdom they had been taught by Mr. Issing, so that the euro area got stuck in the doldrums for years (https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/germany-and-the-euroland-crisis).
It was only with the arrival of the Draghi team that enlightenment finally reached the ECB. Today, the ECB, still trying to steer a flawed monetary union that is lacking fiscal union, is confronted with unprecedented challenges in the form of a pandemic and the Ukraine war. Given Mr. Issing’s track record, they should take encouragement from his latest critique – they may actually be doing something right. A monetary policy mindset that always and everywhere sees provoking recession as a matter of precaution is unlikely to yield optimal monetary policies outside of Mr. Issing’s fantasy world.
It is telling that Mr. Issing uses his recent interview with the FT as an opportunity to invent yet another fantasy. Attacking the ECB for failing to start normalizing monetary policy a long time ago, Issing is reported to have asserted that: “The prospect for a ‘stagflationary’ situation of rising inflation and slowing growth is ‘the worst combination’ for a central bank, said Issing, who contrasted monetary policymakers’ responses to the two oil shocks of the 1970s. ‘The Bundesbank tried to control inflation and the consequence was moderate inflation and a mild recession,’ said Issing, who joined the German central bank in 1990. But ‘the Fed waited too long’ and the US had ‘double-digit inflation and a deep, deep recession.’”
It is of course true that inflation in the U.S. reached double digits in the 1970s and the U.S. suffered a double-dip recession in the early 1980s. Employment reached its trough at the end of 1982, 2.4 percent below the previous peak in early 1980. It was only in September 1983 that employment exceeded its pre-recession peak. Where Mr. Issing takes a deep dive into his “stability-oriented” dreamland is in asserting that (West) Germany only experienced a “mild recession” in the early 1980s. For in 1983 employment in (West) Germany was still 2.7 precent below its previous peak in 1980. It took until 1987 for (West) Germany’s employment to finally exceed its pre-recession peak. Of course, Mr. Issing would blame (West) Germany’s poor employment record despite allegedly only suffering a “mild recession” on “structural problems” and a lack of fiscal austerity. Because in Mr. Issing’s fantasy world – courtesy of the money neutrality postulate – “stability-oriented” monetary policy cannot possibly be responsible for anything else but price stability.
I am reminded here of the late Milton Friedman, the arch-monetarist, who refuted Mr. Issing for his comfort-seeking fancies about the relevance of monetary neutrality propositions for central bankers (see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8454.00169), stating: “Neutrality propositions give little if any guide to effective central bank behaviour under such circumstances. Perhaps they offer comfort to central bankers by implying that all mistakes will average out in that mythical long run in which Keynes assured us ‘we are all dead’.” (see https://digitalcollections.hoover.org/objects/57393)
Central bankers, too, even the worst ones, deserve retirement before they are dead.