- The debate over inflation is intensifying as Biden pushes to spend trillions on infrastructure.
- It’s largely an intra-party spat as moderates say stimulus risks rampant inflation, while many Democrats favor big spending.
- Here are the 14 biggest names arguing for and against spending plans and the path of inflation.
- See more stories on Insider’s business page.
A new debate is emerging as the US economy reopens, and it’s not as cut and dried as the party-line stimulus arguments that preceded it.
In one corner, economists and politicians argue they have learned lessons from the slow growth that followed the Great Recession, and “going big” is better than “going small. They posit that years of below-target price growth show the economy can run hotter than previously thought and fears of runaway inflation are overblown.
The other side fears that inflation overshoots can quickly morph into rampant price growth and that the Federal Reserve might lose its grip on inflation, plunging the country into a 1970s-like downturn. The lessons of the Great Recession are not as relevant as the lessons of the Great Inflation, they claim.
The argument was mostly partisan – with one significant exception – while Democrats were pushing to pass President Joe Biden’s $US1.9 ($AU3) trillion stimulus plan. Yet with that measure now law and Biden now aiming to spend another $US4 ($AU5) trillion, more and more moderates are raising concerns.
The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics backed up those concerns, showing that prices for consumer goods rose 0.9% between May and June, the largest one-month jump in prices since June 2008. That was the third straight month that inflation surprised to the upside.
Here are the 14 loudest voices on both sides of the issue, from dueling central bank chiefs to renowned economists.
Representing a small-but-influential side of the party that opposes additional spending, the former Treasury Secretary (under President Bill Clinton) and director of the National Economic Council (under President Barack Obama), Summers repeatedly railed against the party’s stimulus strategy, suggesting in a Washington Post column that the latest package could spark “inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.”
More recently, Summers appeared on Bloomberg TV to accuse Congress of backing the “least responsible” macroeconomic policy of the past four decades.
“What is kindling is now igniting. I’m much more worried that we’ll have either inflation or a pretty dramatic fiscal-monetary collision,” he said, adding that he sees only a one-third chance the Treasury and the Fed will see the combination of inflation and growth they’re hoping for.
Summers took to Twitter in July to say that while prices are rising in a more concerning way than he had thought months ago, and emphasized that his fears about “overheating” were stronger. But he insisted that Biden’s infrastructure proposals are still necessary.
“Investments in infrastructure Biden is focused are essential to the future of country & increase economic supply potential,” he wrote. “Inflation fears should shape econ policies but it would be tragic if they stopped us from making urgently needed public investments.”
“When Pearl Harbor gets attacked, you don’t say, ‘how big is the output gap?'” he added in a February debate with Summers hosted by Princeton University.
Inflation concerns are also likely overblown, according to the famed economist. Krugman posited that much of the $US1,400 ($AU1,906) direct payments included in the latest aid package will be saved instead of spent. He said this is a positive outcome for inflation fears, as such a trend would fuel less inflation than if the entire payment was swiftly used to purchase goods and services.
“We should spend what we need to save people from poverty and fund the needed response to the pandemic. I think we do not need to spend $US1.9 ($AU3) trillion for that, and we should have a smaller program,” he added.
The economist has modified his tone, however. In a later thread, Blanchard said part of the stimulus package should be contingent on how the virus develops.
If the pandemic worsens and Americans need more aid, they would receive full-sized checks. But if people need less support, Congress should only send out reduced checks, if they send any payments at all, he said in a February 27 tweet.
Somewhat lightheartedly, Blanchard also likened Biden’s plan to the old proverb of the elephant swallowed by a snake, accompanied by a cartoon, on Twitter.
“The snake was too ambitious. The elephant will pass, but maybe with some damage,” he said.
“This historic legislation is about rebuilding the backbone of this country, giving people in this nation — working people, middle-class folks, people who built the country — a fighting chance,” Biden said after signing the measure into law on March 11.
The president’s desire to pass the full $US1.9 ($AU3) trillion bill marks a stark reversal from President Obama’s plan in similar circumstances. When pushing for more fiscal relief in the wake of the financial crisis, the Obama administration haggled with Republicans over the measure’s price tag and passed one less than half as large. Biden instead used budget reconciliation to win passage in the Senate, forgoing Republican support entirely.
Congress “shouldn’t shy away from borrowing what’s needed” to bridge the health crisis, but it also “can’t afford to ignore the long term,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a February press release.
“Ignoring this long-term debt picture will harm economic growth, hold down incomes, and make it even more difficult for us to tackle income inequality, support for families, and a backlog of necessary infrastructure improvements,” the CRFA added.
The nonprofit cited projections from the Congressional Budget Office as support for its argument. The office sees the federal debt pile reaching 102% of GDP by the end of the year and nearly doubling to 202% by 2051. Those figures didn’t account for the latest stimulus measure, either.
Inflation is likely to move higher as stimulus boosts spending and the economy reopens, Powell said while testifying to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday. Still, the Fed’s “best view” is that such effects on inflation will be “neither particularly large nor persistent,” he added.
The central bank’s projections as of March called for inflation to reach 2.4% by the end of the year before falling to 2% in 2022 and then trending slightly above the 2% target. That outlook matches the Fed’s updated framework that seeks inflation above 2% for a period of time before falling back to the desired threshold.
Powell’s remarks at that policy meeting signal the inflation overshoot is expected and possibly necessary to bring about a full recovery. Seeking maximum employment is just as important to the Fed as controlling inflation, per the central bank’s dual mandate, and the tradeoff once thought to exist between the two might no longer be relevant.
While Powell has shown little concern about the sell-off in Treasurys, Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda recently fired back at rising yields on sovereign bonds. The central bank chief told parliament in late February that the Bank of Japan is ready to buy bonds in order to keep yields from rising too high.
“It’s important to keep the entire yield curve stably low as the economy suffers the damage from COVID-19,” he added.
Such policy, commonly known as yield curve control, can counter rising inflation expectations by keeping borrowing costs low. Fed policymakers have suggested they’re not yet considering such tools, but Kuroda’s comments signal other countries are willing to do more — and act now — to combat the effects of inflation.
“The idea you test potential by year after year throwing logs on the fire is incredibly compelling, but that’s not the same as spending over 10% of GDP in one year,” Furman told the Financial Times in February.
The benefits of the $US1.9 ($AU3) trillion deal outweigh the risks “by a decent margin,” but spreading the relief out over a longer time horizon might dampen fears of a sudden inflationary surge, he added in a tweet.
He said he was concerned that a sudden surge in inflation could derail markets just as more everyday Americans are getting involved.
“Given the incredible amount of stimulus that has been unleashed, there is a possibility we see a real surge in inflation,” Griffin told the FT. “The question is whether it is transitory or becomes permanent and structural, and there is a much higher chance that it becomes entrenched than any other time over the past 12 years.”
Whether inflation rocks markets or not, retail traders are now a mainstay in the investing landscape, Citadel’s chief executive added.
“There’s an awful lot of scope to increase demand, both in terms of the American Reinvestment Act and the new infrastructure [plan] to bring us back into a more normal world where we don’t face that deficiency of aggregate demand,” he added.
Stiglitz also gave a more full-throated rebuttal to Summers’ thesis, noting Summers himself famously argued that secular stagnation — a period of low inflation and low growth — plagued the recovery from the financial crisis.
The observation is true, but the stagnation stems from a lack of spending, Stiglitz said.
“I think he didn’t really think through what he was saying because the irony was that we’ve been in a long period where we’ve been facing lack of aggregate demand at the national and global level,” he said.
“Fiscal policymakers may have already pushed on the accelerator hard enough to bring the economy close to its speed limit by year’s end, when widespread vaccination is likely to have released much of that pent-up demand,” Mankiw wrote in a New York Times column published in February.
Some elements of the bill, like spending on public health initiatives and aid for the hardest-hit Americans, are necessary, he added, but many receiving the direct payments aren’t in such dire need.
Sahm has been outspoken in her support of the Fed’s positioning and previously criticized Summers for his opposition to new stimulus.
“To me, overheating is inflation starts picking up, and it keeps going,” Sahm told the Times. “It could happen, but it would take a while and not only do we know how to disrupt a wage-price spiral — we know what it looks like.”
Sahm has also argued that Biden should continue to push for massive spending packages until it’s clear the economy has recovered, and then some. The $US4 ($AU5) trillion infrastructure plan the president unveiled “will not get us to the finish line” and instead can build momentum for more aid packages, the former Fed economist told Insider.
“We cannot afford to have another jobless recovery. That’s why we see both fiscal and monetary policymakers committed to getting people back to work safely as soon as possible,” she added.
Investors’ behavior in recent weeks suggests they “fear a repeat” of past decades’ hyperinflationary environments, Ferguson said. Powell has countered such concerns, but the breakeven inflation rate and steepening yield curve signal that inflation will still exceed the central bank’s expectations.
“The conclusion is not that inflation is inevitable. The conclusion is that the current path of policy is unsustainable,” Ferguson said.
A sudden rise in inflation expectations could lift rates and, in turn, damage highly levered companies and the government itself, he added.
Yet inflation isn’t concerning them much. Morgan Stanley sees price growth surging to 2.6% in April and May before dropping to 2.3% at the end of the year. Those levels are in accordance with the Fed’s guidance, economists led by Ellen Zentner said.
Economists at UBS were even more pointed. The roughly 10 million jobs still lost to the pandemic mean there’s room for a period of strong inflation, the team led by Seth Carpenter said.
“We see sustained growth, well in excess of the long-run sustainable pace, but we also see a substantial amount of labor market slack,” UBS added.