In the conduct of monetary policy, we assess the objective of stabilising inflation at close to 2½ per cent over time against the objective of stabilising output and employment. Given the low inflation rate, we have decided to keep interest rates at a low level and at times considered an even lower interest rate. However, against the background of solid growth in the Norwegian economy since summer 2003, we have instead decided to use some time to bring inflation back to target. Household debt has risen sharply since the mid-1990s. At the same time, house prices have shown a marked increase. Debt developments through the 1990s can probably be viewed to some extent as a delayed adaptation to the deregulation of the housing and credit markets in the 1980s, after many households burned their fingers immediately after the deregulation. At the same time, the credit market has deepened. New loan products have emerged, and it is easier to raise loans. Borrowers can choose their repayment schedule. Credit and housing market liberalisation provides homebuyers with the opportunity to establish a high housing standard early in their adult lives and draw on this capital later in life. In recent years, household income growth has been solid, household confidence regarding the future has been strong and households probably perceive higher income levels as permanent. This may have resulted in a further rise in house prices and debt. In addition, low real interest rates are currently contributing to this.
The crisis revived the debate about the optimal size of the financial industry and the finance-growth nexus. Often, and especially at the beginning of the recent crisis, public opinion has blamed the excessive growth of the financial industry and the extremely advantageous remuneration packages in the sector. One argument in the debate against the traditional finance-growth paradigm is that the high wages may draw talent away from other productive sectors in the economy since financial and non-financial sectors compete for the same scarce supply of human capital. 9 Thus, an excessive growth of the financial sector may not be fully desirable. Thomas Philippon formally analyses this trade-off in his (2010) AEJ Macro paper and discusses the implementation of corrective taxes and subsidies to guarantee the optimal allocation of resources between the financial and the productive sectors. 10 Thomas Philippon’s paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2012 11 analyses the allocation and compensation of human capital in the financial industry. Together with his co-author Ariell Reshef, he documents the pattern in wages and skill intensity in the financial industry in the US between 1909 and 2006. The authors show that this pattern is non-monotonic. High compensations in banking and the ability of the financial industry to attract the most skilled workers are not permanent features of this industry. As the paper shows, changes in financial regulation are important determinants of these patterns. Tighter regulation tends to lead to an outflow of resources from the financial sector.