December 6, 2016
I am in receipt of a copy of the transcript of your recent a speech, “The Productivity Challenge for Europe”. I have to report that your paper makes little sense and completely avoids the negative impact that your policies, as head of the ECB, have had in holding the EU’s economy back.
But before I identify the errors in your analysis I need to first highlight how your initial assumptions, outlined in the first part of the speech, are presented backwards. Here are several of your assumptions:
- “Stronger potential output growth aids monetary policy by increasing the equilibrium real interest rate.”
Sir, this is self evident. However it is the interest rate policy of the ECB that has stifled risk and investment that can drive growth. It is not growth that aids policy; it is policy that should be creating opportunity for growth.
Now the second backward facing assumption:
- “And higher future growth helps monetary policy today. It encourages households to spend more and firms to invest, reducing the need for monetary policy to support current economic activity and bring inflation back towards 2%, and speeding up the return to more conventional monetary policy settings.”
This is similar to the first item; it is not growth that affords a monetary policy; it is monetary policy that should be assuring growth. You are clearly looking at the real world backwards. This will again become clear as we look and analyze your prescription to the problem of lack of growth.
The main body of your speech calls out correctly the cause of the stagnant euro productivity figure. You correctly call out capital investment and efficient allocation of resources (to the more productive) as the challenges facing us today. And supporting both of these is, ultimately, the diffusion of innovation across the region and non-frontier firms (I too read the OECD paper).
However sir, I see a weakness in your monetary policy. Firms are not sitting on their hands with a bunch of ‘shovel-ready-strategies’ waiting for the right interest rate level before launching one. Firms have strategies, first and foremost, independent of interest rate. Some of those strategies require funding and at that time, the firms’ treasurer or CFO will compare the range of funding options available.
You see sir, you have only to ask company treasurers and CFOs how they use interest rates to realize that perpetually low or even negative interest rates are anathema to growth. They are killing our economy.
As to resource allocation, well, since the capital markets are massively distorted is it any wonder that internal company allocation methods are screwed up too? With quantitative easing and the vast sums of money sloshing around the community, it turns out that companies were and are able to alter short-term ‘strategies’ to leverage it all. They simply launched non-natural M&A (at an all time high) and stock buy-backs that meet EPS targets more easily than riskier long term capital investments.
You do touch on several other polices that would positively impact rates of diffusion of innovation, namely:
- Fostering more competition
- Well functioning capital, product and labor markets
Alas the very polices you and your kind seek and set are preventing the realization of these polices:
- There is reduced competition due to excessive regulation and tax policies that favor established and larger firms over smaller and new
- Capital markets are being massively distorted as explained above
- Product markets are held hostage to, again, red tape and too much government involvement
- Labor markets are held back due to the same nanny-state efforts
Sir, I implore you to look at the data in front of you. Meet with twenty CFOs. Get out a little bit and talk to real people and put your books of theory away. I beseech you- before you bring the whole edifice of the EU down.
I have the pleasure of being, sir, your obedient servant.