Trying to slither his way out without having to admit he is wrong about monetary and banking operations.
Uh, what about when the cb adjusts rates by paying IOR or setting the overnight rate to zero? How does that r* to B* thing work then? Like now. With the amount of excess reserves the overnight rate would be expected to be zero in terms of the size of the base. But it's not, because the Fed chooses it not to be zero by paying IOR.
OK, say, the Fed did set the quantity of the base and let price — the interest rate — float. This is actually the way things used to be when there was a fixed amount of money in an economy. Then the economy is restricted to using velocity to expand the supply of money, and that is not only inefficient but ineffective at achieving growth. Moreover, increasing demands drive up the cost at the same time. It's a Rube Goldberg machine. We evolved the system we have, because we discovered from experience that quantity approaches did not work very well.
The American colonialists issued their own monies to supplement the deficit of British money available in the American Colonies. There was not enough of it to support growth, and velocity did not make up the difference. When this practice was forbidden by the Crown, the colonial economies went into tailspin. This is regarded as primary cause of the American Revolution.
Read it at The New York Times | The Conscience of a Liberal
A Teachable Money Moment
by Paul Krugman
I'll just comment specifically on one assertion and leave the rest to others.
Quantity setting is not a viable operational tool in modern monetary economics. It's not. Get over it already.
I'll just comment specifically on one assertion and leave the rest to others.
In particular, the Fed can always choke off a private-sector credit boom by moving [A] up and to the left.Krugman is probably thinking of Volcker here. Yes, the Fed can increase the interest rate to such a degree that it chokes the economy along with the credit boom. That's different from "choking off a private sector credit boom." This is why Greenspan and Bernanke did not want to intervene in the housing boom that even the FBI had been warning about as a vast Ponzi scheme. But the cb still has to provide quantity to clear.
Quantity setting is not a viable operational tool in modern monetary economics. It's not. Get over it already.
9 comments:
be nice to him guys
Tom,
"Krugman is probably thinking of Volcker here. Yes, the Fed can increase the interest rate to such a degree that it chokes the economy along with the credit boom"
Although this scenario seems far off Tom, if these morons ever start to raise interest rates to "slow down the economy" I will buy the initial dip and back up the truck on equities as these deranged morons will think they are pressing on the brakes but instead will be pressing on the accelerator as interest income will be increasing...
Again hard to see that scenario developing at this moment (Fed at 0% thru 2014 allegedly).
Resp,
Yeah Matt, me too!!
The way it chokes off the economy is through rising mortgage rates, which tanks the housing market on which the US economy is dependent. But that is slow channel and using it is like trying to steer a deep-draft vessel it a tight space without tugs.
Matt, hiking rates would cause insolvency and credit contraction (with more slowdown and more insolvency), this would offset more than enough any extra in interest incomes through the government.
Off course that depends on how far would the hike go, a 0.25 or 0.5 increase would not be a disaster probably, but I can tell in Europe for example a rise of just 0.25 would be already a major blow to already recessionary periphery economies. And credit, well, we are already at peak credit or getting there fast (levels again close to 2007), so it would only precipitate things, but still, not very positive.
Lev,
Agree that an interest rate increase seems highly unlikely at this time.
Fed is still saying 0% thru 2014 if I am reading them correctly.
Resp,
Krugman's little chart doesn't seem to bear any relation to reality
"Quantity setting is not a viable operational tool in modern monetary economics. It's not. Get over it already."
Actually as a nuclear option it is viable. But it would be like saying ultimately the US government could nuke Americans to quell a rebellion.
@ Travis
About like the debt ceiling and threat of voluntary default to achieve "discipline"?
Post a Comment