Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • News
  • Markets Map
  • Sentiments
  • Topics
  • Data
  • Comments
  • Images
  • Blog
  • About

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • Discussions
  • Iluka Resources eyes boosting zircon output
  • Quebecers polled on ‘problem’ of religious accommodations...
  • Exclusive: Glencore, Trafigura deals with Iran may have...
  • Kyle Bass: Central Bankers Are Building Potemkin Villages...
  • Today's Market And Economists' Forecasts For 10...
  • Diversity in focus as Deutsche AGM looms
  • Latam, Africa surges ensure SABMiller profit growth
  • Developer, miner to market dollar-denominated bonds
  • Citic set to buy 10% stake in asset firm
  • China's crude stockpile rises to 3-month high

    QE Can Be Made to Work

    Thu, 10/21/2010 - 09:27 EDT - Mathew Yglesias
    • Comments
    • monetary policy
    • uncat


    Annie Lowrey writes for Slate that most economists are not hopeful about the prospects for a new round of “quantitative easing” to improve the economic outlook. As previously, I continue to be frustrated when people express a political skepticism about the Federal Reserve’s likely willingness to do what’s necessary as skepticism about the Fed’s ability in principle to help solve problems.
    For example here:
    Another hope is that by trading non-interest-bearing assets (cash) for interest-bearing assets (bonds), the Federal Reserve will reduce the supply of bonds and make them more expensive, prodding big institutional investors to invest less in government debt and more in the American economy. The problem with this theory is that the bond market is huge—really huge—and international. To have any sort of impact, the Fed would need to buy a lot of bonds. Economists worry it won’t buy enough. Paul Krugman, for one, says the Fed would need

    to buy $8 trillion to $10 trillion to have an effect.
    I’m a political pundit, not an economist. But qua political pundit, it seems to me that if economists think the way to fix the economy is for the Fed to buy $8-10 trillion in bonds, then Ben Bernanke should say “I’m determined to fix the economy and am willing to buy as many bonds as necessary to make it work—if that means $10 trillion then so be it.”
    One key point that Lowrey makes is that currently cash-rich firms are disinclined to invest and reserve-rich banks are disinclined to lend. She notes that this makes additional “credit easing” unlikely to work. But I think it also speaks to the importance of an attitude of gritty determination. If the Fed is saying “demand and the price level are going to rise, damnit, even if it takes $10 trillion in bond purchases” then maybe your cash-rich firms and reserve-rich banks are going to think about doing something. But if the Fed keeps saying “everything will suck for the foreseeable future and we’re okay with that” then of course businesses won’t expand and invest. Would you?
    Last I note that some, including most recently Joe Stiglitz, seem to think that talking about this makes expansionary fiscal policy less likely. I don’t really see it that way. For one thing, the looming midterms make expansionary fiscal policy totally impossible politically so there’s no real way for it to get less possible. But more importantly, in policy terms fiscal policy only works if monetary policy accommodates it. One of the main motives for the United Kingdom’s looming dangerous experiment in fiscal austerity is fear that the Bank of England won’t stand for continued deficits. Signals from the Fed that it wants to see the price level pushed up are crucial to making any fiscal measures work.


    • Original article
    • Login or register to post comments
     

    Related

    • KRUGMAN: There Is No Bubble In Bonds Or Stocks

      This week, we just got through hearing from a bunch of hedge fund managers about how wildly distorted all of the markets were these days because of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing.

    • Bernanke provokes mystery over Fed stimulus exit

      When Ben Bernanke asserted last month that the Federal Reserve doesn’t ever have to sell assets, he raised questions about how the central bank can withdraw its record monetary stimulus without stoking inflation.

    • Bernanke provokes mystery over Fed stimulus exit

      When Ben Bernanke asserted last month that the Federal Reserve doesn’t ever have to sell assets, he raised questions about how the central bank can withdraw its record monetary stimulus without stoking inflation.

    • Fed Watch: Dodged That Bullet

      Tim Duy: Dodged That Bullet, by Tim Duy: I was reading Robin Harding's take on the possible nomination of Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen for the top job at the Fed, and a chill went down my spine when he reminded me of this:

    • Hoisted from Comments: DeLong (and Krugman) Smackdown Watch: Bill Black, Stephanie Kelton, and Randy Wray Are Justifiably Irate Modern Monetary Theory How Do Deficits Matter? Weblogging

      Jeff Sachs is irate. He says that Paul Krugman says that deficits don't matter. And that makes Paul Krugman irate:

    • Bank of England ready to pump more cash into the UK economy

    • Bernanke signals Fed stimulus to continue, warns budget cuts a risk

      WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strongly defended the U.S. central bank’s bond-buying stimulus before Congress on Tuesday, saying its benefits clearly exceed possible costs. The Fed chairman also urged lawmakers to avoid sharp spending cuts set to go into effect on Friday, which he warned could combine with earlier tax increases to create a “significant headwind” for the economic recovery.

    • Ben Bernanke's war

      Ben Bernanke declared war today - not on China, but on the possibility of deflation. Ben Bernanke knows that a vicious cycle of slow growth, stagnant or falling prices and high unemployment poses a much greater threat to America's way of life than China's silly exchange rate.

    • The Fed's New Policy: Quantitative Tightening?

      The Fed is officially holding policy steady, but it looks like they have been tightening to me, even though interest rates have not risen.  In this post I'll offer a short explanation of "quantitative easing" and its opposite, quantitative tightening.  Then I'll offer the evidence that they have been tightening.  Finally, I'll tell these very smart people how to do their job (while trying to retain a small shred of humility).What is Quantitative Easing?

    Latest

    China growth fears as manufacturing contracts
    China growth fears as manufacturing contracts
    Quebecers polled on ‘problem’ of religious accommodations as PQ delays introduction of Charter of Secularism
    Quebecers polled on ‘problem’ of religious...

    User login

    • Create new account
    • Request new password
    • Click on the icon to sign in with your social network login or enter your Bullfax.com login

    Our Blog

    • ICBC/Goldman Sachs: farewell
    • Japan’s budget deficit, Rolls-Royce, Raytheon and Sony in Our Daily Round-Up for 05/22/2013
    • Apple chief Tim Cook defends tax practices and denies avoidance

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 1655.35 -0.83% FTSE: 6738.08 -1.52% Nikk.: 14483.98 -7.89% DAX: 8353.05 -2.13% HSI: 22656.23 -2.67% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1704 USD/EUR: 1.2848 JPY/USD: 101.815 Commodities: Gold: 1376.75

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • Discussions