But an old colleague listened in, and was rather concerned to hear Orr’s deputy chief executive for macroeconomics and monetary (the one with no qualifications or background in either subject) Karen Silk making what appeared to be the claim that the Bank and MPC had got the trends in inflation about right.
On listening to the relevant section myself I reckon she was trying to claim that the Bank had been broadly right last year that inflation would come down a lot last year. If so, I’d give her a pass, or perhaps half a one. After all, the questioning just prior to her comment had been about how much the Bank’s overall forecasts had changed in recent quarters, and as I illustrated in yesterday’s post there were really big changes
Click to view
when the underlying state of the economy and estimates of inflation pressure weren’t changing much at all. So, yes, they were right that inflation would at last come down, but quite at sea on what monetary policy it would take.
The questioning was coming from National MP Dan Bidois who is, I think, the only economist in Parliament. He started by asking about the change from the August 2024 MPS. Orr, either getting things wrong or simply playing distraction knowing what he was saying simply wasn’t true, claimed that actually the August MPS projections for monetary policy had been pretty much bang on. In August the Bank projected that the OCR for the March quarter would be 4.62 per cent (4.36 per in the June quarter). In fact, the OCR will average about 4 per cent for the March quarter and no more than 3.75 per cent for the June quarter.
Orr went on to suggest that Bidois probably really meant the May 2024 MPS – at which point the MPC was actually talking of possibly raising the OCR further. That, of course, looks even worse for the MPC. Back then – only 9 months ago – they reckoned the OCR for this quarter would be 5.62 per cent.
Orr attempted to explain it away by data problems. And it is certainly true that historic GDP numbers have been quite materially revised by SNZ late last year. But changes to historic GDP numbers also change estimates of potential output. On the Bank’s own numbers – their published projections spreadsheets – their view of the size of the negative output gap as at early last year (say March quarter 2024) in the May 2024 MPS (-1.6% of potential GDP) was barely different from their current estimate of the output gap as at March quarter 2024 (-1.4 per cent of potential GDP). Back in May the chief economist was blaming his tools, now he and his boss are blaming the data. What is pretty clear is that the Bank still has had an inadequate understanding of what is going on with inflation, and what it would take to keep it in check (back in 2020 to 2022) or to bring it back down.
Bidois’s questioning had actually started with something more general, encompassing the whole of the last five years. He noted that people had observed that the Bank had been both too slow to tighten and, perhaps, more recently too slow to ease. What changes, he wanted to know, had the Bank made to be more accurate in its forecasts (and, presumably, appropriate in its policy calls). It was a pretty good question from a new member of the committee.
Orr’s response? Handwaving, bluster, and what are little more than outright (repeated) lies. He really wanted to be able to “move on” from the last five years – I’m sure he would, so bad and expensive were the calls made by his MPC – but in any case, he claimed, it was all okay because the Bank had done its own review of experience and all the answers were in that report, and the lesson had been adopted he said. Orr was referring to their (required statutory) review of themselves, covering the period 2017 to 2022. It had big problems and deficiencies, not least of which was that the Bank management was reviewing themselves (as it happens, 2+ years on I am still waiting for the Ombudsman to rule on a request for the input of external MPC members on this review – such is the Bank’s commitment to (anything but) openness).
And it was published on 10 November 2022. By then – the November 2022 MPS – they’d decided that the OCR would need to go to 5.5 per cent, but they reckoned that by now (early 2025) it would still be over 5 per cent. Now, over a horizon of 2+ years that might not be thought to be a huge error, except that – see graph above – they were still well off the mark 18 months on in the middle of last year.
To be clear, making sense of the last five years has been hard. Many private forecasters have probably, on average, been about as bad as the Bank. But the private forecasters a) aren’t paid to run monetary policy, b) tend not to boast about that period, and c) don’t just make things up, and actively seek to misrepresent things and thus mislead Parliament (in ways that now can only be considered knowing and intentional).
Orr also claimed that the Reserve Bank had been among the first central banks to tighten and among the first central banks to ease. On the tightening point, I’ve previously documented that they were in fact about 7th of the OECD central banks to tighten (out of about 20 separate monetary authorities) but that – much more importantly – the positive output gap they had allowed to build up in New Zealand was materially larger than that of any other OECD country for which the IMF produces estimates. On the Bank’s own numbers it was huge (almost 4 per cent of GDP), and monetary policy isn’t a cross-country race, but is about dealing with your domestic circumstances, and the excess inflationary pressures they allowed to build up before slowly beginning to tighten was huge, and the seeds of many/most of our subsequent cyclical problems. As for easing again, and again what matters is not a cross-country race but domestic inflation (actuals and forecast), I found at least 11 OECD central banks had cut before the RBNZ Monetary Policy Committee did. Orr has to have known this. He simply made stuff up for the MPs, counting on the high likelihood that none of them would have enough data at their fingertips to contradict him there and then. Simply egregious behaviour. (But he has misled FEC so often in recent years – many episodes documented on this blog – with no apparent consequences that, if such is your approach to integrity and transparency (lack thereof), then I guess, why not.)
And then it was just more of the cavalier dismissal of the last few years. It was, he claimed, a great achievement to get through with inflation peaking at “only” around 7 per cent (core inflation probably peaking around 6 per cent, the target the committee had agreed to take on when they accepted appointment was 2 per cent). No mention at all of the arbitrary income and wealth redistributions or of the massive dislocations in both inadvertently grossly overheating the economy and then having to squeeze the inflation out again (let alone the $11 billion of taxpayers’ money simply lost, to no useful macroeconomic end). Never mind, stuff happens, was the impression we got – just keep on paying me $800000 a year, reappointing me and my MPC members, and boosting my budget.
An appropriate contrast, he suggested, was the Great Depression, in which he – weirdly – claimed that there had been hyperinflations (where precisely?) Things hadn’t been that bad really.
Then he had the gall to suggest that really the Bank was quite budget-constrained. They’d been doing what research they could on their “limited budgets”. Now, it is true that the resources they have chosen to devote to monetary policy in recent years haven’t increased – perhaps they should have – but this is the organisation whose staff numbers have more than doubled on Orr’s watch, still rising now, with an abundance of positions advancing management’s ideological causes rather than the Bank’s quite limited statutory objectives.
Orr also mentioned the closed-door conference they are holding in a couple of weeks’ time, inviting in experts to help assure themselves that their research was at the cutting edge and up with the state of play in other central banks or academe. That should be a short conversation. This is their entire list of published Discussion Papers (the peer-reviewed work) in the last five years
Click to view
not one of which is directly relating to inflation or monetary policy, and one of which was primarily written by authors from other agencies. It is slim pickings indeed, compared (say) to the previous five years (33 such papers).
It was all pretty extraordinary, at one level, but also all too ordinary for Orr. Orr and his offsiders blustered and made stuff up again, and laughed along with the committee members in a very chummy sort of engagement. When there were decent questions (and Bidois’s were good but rare for FEC)….well, they just made stuff up again and actively misled Parliament. That is supposed to be a very serious offence – as Parliament’s website tells us (and a year or so even an MP was reprimanded for misleading the House) – but such is the diminished state of things in New Zealand, I don’t suppose there will be any more consequences this time than all the previous times. In a well-functioning democracy you might hope that the Minister of Finance would take to task a Governor who so obviously and deliberately misled MPs (including one of her own) but……no one now expects anything of Willis when it comes to the disreputable central bank and its Governor. One might even hope that the external MPC members – who do not work for Orr – might distance themselves from this shabby and dishonest conduct. But they seem to prefer the quiet life, and just go along with Orr, by default associating themselves with his standards.
At the end of the session the discussion moved to productivity. It isn’t really the Bank’s field, and Orr’s own contributions on the subject tend to veer between mechanistic growth accounting stuff and the “failures” of this, that, or the other group of people in the private sector (today’s villains appeared to be people who took dividends from companies rather than reinvesting). His chief economist, who knows more about productivity, has already shown his hand as a bigger-government statist, advancing personal political agendas under his Reserve Bank title.
But today Orr was claiming that the Reserve Bank has a lot to offer on productivity (policy). Not, you understand, anything to do with the risk-weighted bank capital requirements (where he was blustery and dismissive without even being asked any direct question), sectoral risk weights etc (and where I suspect he is probably about half right in substance). No, what he had to offer was a central bank digital currency (CBDC). It was in development, could be in place by 2030, and would – he claimed – make a great deal of difference. It wasn’t at all clear how, despite his mutterings about how it would enable the state to deal directly with people – unlike, say, the way it pays welfare benefits now, and isn’t a CBDC a liability of an independent Reserve Bank, not something governments have access to? It would, we were told, “fundamentally change this society” – which is sort of what scares many of the more conspiratorially-minded sceptics, even though there is little reason to think such a product would meet with any material demand, or be at all widely used. It remains, in the words of successive submissions I’ve made on the issue, a solution in search of a problem, and a bigger-government one at that.
Orr’s words clearly excited one National backbencher who wanted to know when it would be in place, and what it would take. Orr’s response (in addition to the 2030 date) was “significant government support”. One can only imagine how much money (scarce taxpayer money, adding to the deficit) they are spending on this work (of course no one asked that) and wonder why it is that Nicola Willis has not closed it down already.
Quite sad what officialdom has been coming to in New Zealand, and the apparent indifference of those whom we elect to hold officials to account.
Michael Reddell spent most of his career at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, where he was heavily involved with monetary policy formulation, and in financial markets and financial regulatory policy, serving for a time as Head of Financial Markets. Michael blogs at Croaking Cassandra - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
Credit where credit is due . Brooke Van Velden ACT MP for Tamaki is an Economist, therefore along with Dan Bidois parliament has two trained economists.
The Government should be aware of what is happening in world financial circles and rule out any move to a CBDC.
Post a Comment