Economics Essay 30: Quantitative Easing

 Discuss whether a reversal of QE is likely to be economically beneficial.

Quantitative Easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy tool used by central banks to stimulate the economy when traditional monetary policy measures, such as lowering interest rates, are insufficient. It involves the central bank purchasing government bonds or other financial assets from commercial banks and injecting liquidity into the economy. The goal of QE is to lower borrowing costs, increase lending, and encourage spending to stimulate economic growth.

When evaluating the potential economic benefits of reversing QE, several factors need to be considered:

1. Economic Growth: Reversing QE has the potential to impact economic growth. As liquidity is withdrawn from the economy, it may lead to tighter financial conditions, higher borrowing costs, and reduced consumer and business spending. This could result in a slowdown in economic growth or even a contraction in some cases.

2. Unemployment: The impact of reversing QE on unemployment is complex and depends on the specific circumstances. Tightening liquidity may lead to reduced business investment and hiring, potentially leading to job losses. However, if reversing QE is undertaken to control inflationary pressures, it can help maintain price stability, which in turn can support long-term economic growth and employment stability.

3. Inflation: Reversing QE can be used as a tool to control inflationary pressures in the economy. If the central bank perceives that inflation is becoming a concern due to excessive money supply, reversing QE can help tighten monetary policy and prevent inflation from spiraling out of control. This can contribute to price stability and maintain the purchasing power of consumers.

4. Balance of Payments: Reversing QE may have implications for a country's balance of payments. As liquidity is withdrawn from the economy, it could result in a stronger domestic currency, which may impact export competitiveness. A stronger currency can make exports relatively more expensive and imports cheaper, potentially leading to a deterioration in the trade balance and a higher current account deficit.

5. Financial Markets: The reversal of QE can have significant impacts on financial markets. Selling off large amounts of assets acquired through QE may lead to market disruptions and increased volatility. Investors and market participants may need to adjust their investment strategies and asset allocations in response to the changing liquidity conditions, which could impact asset prices and overall market stability.

6. Confidence and Expectations: Reversing QE requires clear and effective communication from the central bank to manage market expectations. Changes in monetary policy can influence investor and consumer confidence. If the central bank successfully conveys a sense of stability and a well-managed transition, it can help maintain confidence in the economy and minimize disruptions.

It's important to note that the effects of reversing QE can vary depending on the specific economic conditions, the timing and pace of the reversal, and the effectiveness of the central bank's communication and policy implementation. Careful assessment and consideration of the potential impacts on growth, unemployment, inflation, balance of payments, and financial markets are necessary to ensure that the benefits outweigh any potential drawbacks.

While the reversal of QE may help address inflationary pressures and promote long-term economic stability, it also carries potential risks. The withdrawal of liquidity can tighten financial conditions, leading to slower economic growth and potential job losses. Additionally, the impact on financial markets and investor confidence should be closely monitored to mitigate any disruptions.

Furthermore, free market fundamentalists argue that the market should be left to correct itself without excessive government intervention, including unconventional monetary policies like QE. They believe that market forces should determine interest rates, asset prices, and economic growth without central bank intervention.

In conclusion, the reversal of QE should be carefully evaluated, taking into account its potential impacts on economic growth, unemployment, inflation, balance of payments, and financial markets. The timing, pace, and communication of the reversal are crucial to managing market expectations and minimizing disruptions. While QE can provide short-term stimulus, its long-term effects and potential risks should be carefully considered in the context of specific economic conditions.

Economics for Non Economists 2 – Quantitative Easing Explained

by Girish Menon

Pradhip, you have asked for an ‘Idiot’s guide on Quantitative Easing and how it affects the economy’. Let me try:

The Bank of England (BOE) has been practising Quantitative Easing (QE) since 2009. The amounts are:

Time	Amount in £ Billions
Nov. 2009	200
July 2012	375
Aug. 2016	435
Mar. 2020	645
June 2020	745

Ref – The Bank of England

What exactly did the BOE do when they said they were doing QE?

The BOE created additional digital money and used it to buy financial assets (especially government bonds) which were owned by the privately owned banks, pension funds and others.

How did they create this additional money?

Unlike you or me who would be arrested if we did this; the BOE has been conferred with monopoly powers to conjure up any amount of money from thin air by typing the necessary numbers into its bank accounts. It’s as simple as saying, ‘Let there be £745 billion and it appears in the bank’s accounts.

Why do they do QE?

Post the 2008 financial crisis there was a liquidity crisis (see below for explanation of liquidity crisis). The BOE by buying the government bonds from local banks transferred cash to them thus enabling them to start their lending activities in the economy.

In 2020 too they have done the same, but this time I suspect that even if the commercial banks are willing to lend there may not be enough borrowers and so this policy may not have the intended effect of stimulating economic growth.

How does QE affect the economy?

The dominant worldview is that debt drives the world. So QE ensures that lenders have enough money to lend to prospective borrowers. Borrowers borrow money to produce and sell goods at a profit; enabling them to repay their loans with interest while creating jobs in the economy.

The above borrower will use his loan to buy machinery, employ labour…. One man’s spending is another man’s income, so the money begins to circulate among citizens in an economy and a positive spiral will push economic growth and create employment.

However, all this theory hinges on the citizens’ confidence about the future. In the current Covid climate, with firms downsizing at will and people worried about their future, I doubt if there will be a critical mass of borrowers to re-start the stalled economic activity.

Pradhip, thus the BOE does indeed have a magic wand to create money out of thin air. You may ask why is it that in a free market I am not allowed to create my own money? Now that question will be considered seditious!

----

 

What Is a Liquidity Crisis?

A liquidity crisis is a financial situation characterized by a lack of cash or easily-convertible-to-cash assets on hand across many businesses or financial institutions simultaneously. In a liquidity crisis, liquidity problems at individual institutions lead to an acute increase in demand and decrease in supply of liquidity, and the resulting lack of available liquidity can lead to widespread defaults and even bankruptcies. (Ref Investopedia)

---Also watch

This is no recovery, this is a bubble – and it will burst

Stock market bubbles of historic proportions are developing in the US and UK markets. With policymakers unwilling to introduce tough regulation, we're heading for trouble

• 
• • Ha-Joon Chang
  • The Guardian, Monday 24 February 2014 18.00 GMT

'Share prices are high mainly thanks to quantitative easing not because of the strength of the underlying real economy.' Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

According to the stock market, the UK economy is in a boom. Not just any old boom, but a historic one. On 28 October 2013, the FTSE 100 index hit 6,734, breaching the level achieved at the height of the economic boom before the 2008 global financial crisis (that was 6,730, recorded in October 2007).

Since then, it has had ups and downs, but on 21 February 2014 the FTSE 100 climbed to a new height of 6,838. At this rate, it may soon surpass the highest ever level reached since the index began in 1984 – that was 6,930, recorded in December 1999, during the heady days of the dotcom bubble.

The current levels of share prices are extraordinary considering the UK economy has not yet recovered the ground lost since the 2008 crash; per capita income in the UK today is still lower than it was in 2007. And let us not forget that share prices back in 2007 were themselves definitely in bubble territory of the first order.

The situation is even more worrying in the US. In March 2013, the Standard & Poor 500 stock market index reached the highest ever level, surpassing the 2007 peak (which was higher than the peak during the dotcom boom), despite the fact that the country's per capita income had not yet recovered to its 2007 level. Since then, the index has risen about 20%, although the US per capita income has not increased even by 2% during the same period. This is definitely the biggest stock market bubble in modern history.

Even more extraordinary than the inflated prices is that, unlike in the two previous share price booms, no one is offering a plausible narrative explaining why the evidently unsustainable levels of share prices are actually justified.

During the dotcom bubble, the predominant view was that the new information technology was about to completely revolutionise our economies for good. Given this, it was argued, stock markets would keep rising (possibly forever) and reach unprecedented levels. The title of the book, Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market, published in the autumn of 1999 when the Dow Jones index was not even 10,000, very well sums up the spirit of the time.

Similarly, in the runup to the 2008 crisis, inflated asset prices were justified in terms of the supposed progresses in financial innovation and in the techniques of economic policy.

It was argued that financial innovation – manifested in the alphabet soup of derivatives and structured financial assets, such as MBS, CDO, and CDS – had vastly improved the ability of financial markets to "price" risk correctly, eliminating the possibility of irrational bubbles. On this belief, at the height of the US housing market bubble in 2005, both Alan Greenspan (the then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board) and Ben Bernanke (the then chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President and later Greenspan's successor) publicly denied the existence of a housing market bubble – perhaps except for some "froth" in a few localities, according to Greenspan.

At the same time, better economic theory – and thus better techniques of economic policy – was argued to have allowed policymakers to iron out those few wrinkles that markets themselves cannot eliminate. Robert Lucas, the leading free-market economist and winner of the 1995 Nobel prize in economics, proudly declared in 2003 that "the problem of depression prevention has been solved". In 2004, Ben Bernanke (yes, it's him again) argued that, probably thanks to better theory of monetary policy, the world had entered the era of "great moderation", in which the volatility of prices and outputs is minimised.

This time around, no one is offering a new narrative justifying the new bubbles because, well, there isn't any plausible story. Those stories that are generated to encourage the share price to climb to the next level have been decidedly unambitious in scale and ephemeral in nature: higher-than-expected growth rates or number of new jobs created; brighter-than-expected outlook in Japan, China, or wherever; the arrival of the "super-dove" Janet Yellen as the new chair of the Fed; or, indeed, anything else that may suggest the world is not going to end tomorrow.

Few stock market investors really believe in these stories. Most investors know that current levels of share prices are unsustainable; it is said that George Soros has already started betting against the US stock market. They are aware that share prices are high mainly because of the huge amount of money sloshing around thanks to quantitative easing (QE), not because of the strength of the underlying real economy. This is why they react so nervously to any slight sign that QE may be wound down on a significant scale.

However, stock market investors pretend to believe – or even have to pretend to believe – in those feeble and ephemeral stories because they need those stories to justify (to themselves and their clients) staying in the stock market, given the low returns everywhere else.

The result, unfortunately, is that stock market bubbles of historic proportion are developing in the US and the UK, the two most important stock markets in the world, threatening to create yet another financial crash. One obvious way of dealing with these bubbles is to take the excessive liquidity that is inflating them out of the system through a combination of tighter monetary policy and better financial regulation against stock market speculation (such as a ban on shorting or restrictions on high-frequency trading). Of course, the danger here is that these policies may prick the bubble and create a mess.

In the longer run, however, the best way to deal with these bubbles is to revive the real economy; after all, "bubble" is a relative concept and even a very high price can be justified if it is based on a strong economy. This will require a more sustainable increase in consumption based on rising wages rather than debts, greater productive investments that will expand the economy's ability to produce, and the introduction of financial regulation that will make banks lend more to productive enterprises than to consumers. Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that the current policymakers in the US and the UK don't want to do.

We are heading for trouble.

Another financial crisis looms if rich countries can't kick their addiction to cash injection

Five years on from the last crash, quantitative easing remains the weapon of choice for governments unwilling to challenge the current economic model

• 
• • Ha-Joon Chang
  • The Guardian, Friday 30 August 2013 18.00 BST

Illustration by Matthew Richardson

Just as people started to think that things were getting calmer – if not exactly brighter – in the rich countries, things have become decidedly slower and more volatile in the so-called "emerging market" economies. At the centre of the (unwanted) attention at the moment is India, which is seeing a rapid outflow of capital and thus a rapid fall in the value of its currency, the rupee. But many other emerging market economies, other than China, have also seen similar outflows and weakening of currencies recently.

This is not necessarily a bad development. The currencies of many emerging market economies, especially those of Brazil's real and South Africa's rand, had been significantly over-valued, damaging their export competitiveness. Devaluation could actually help these economies put their growth on a more sustainable path.

However, people are rightly worried that too rapid flows of capital out of these countries may cause excessively fast devaluations, resulting in currency crises and thus financial crises, as happened in eastern Asia back in 1997. Situations like this can arise because the currencies of the emerging countries have been propped up by something that can quickly disappear – that is, the large inflows of speculative capital from the rich countries. Given its nature, such capital is ready to pull out at any moment, as an increasing portion of it has been doing for several months.

This is a stark reminder that things are still not well with the world economy, five years on from the outbreak of the biggest financial crisis in three generations in September 2008.

We have had such huge capital inflows into the emerging economies mainly because of quantitative easing (QE) by the central banks of the US, Britain, and other rich countries, which injected trillions of dollars into the world economy, in a desperate attempt to revive their moribund economies.

In its initial phase, QE may have had acted like an electric shot to someone who just had a cardiac arrest. But subsequently its boosting effects have been largely through the creation of unsustainable asset bubbles – in the stock market, in property markets and in commodity markets – that may burst and generate another round of financial crises. On top of that, it has caused much collateral damage to developing countries, by overvaluing their currencies, helping them generate unsustainable credit booms, and now threatening them with the prospect of currency crises.

If its effects are at best debatable and at worst laying the ground for the next round of financial crises, why has there been so much QE? It is because it has been the only weapon that the rich country governments have been willing to deploy in order to generate an economic recovery.

QE has become the weapon of choice by these governments because it is the only way in which recovery – however slow and anaemic – could be generated without changing the economic model that has served the rich and powerful so well in the past three decades.

This model is propelled by a continuous generation of asset bubbles, fuelled by complex and opaque financial instruments created by highly leveraged banks and other financial institutions. It is a system in which short-term financial profits take precedence over long-term investments in productive capabilities, and over the quality of life of employees. If the rich countries had tried to generate recovery through any other means than QE, they would have to seriously challenge this model.

Recovery driven by fiscal policy would have involved an increase in the shares of public investment and social welfare spending in national income, reducing the share going to the rich. It would have generated new public sector jobs, which would have weakened the bargaining power of capitalists by reducing unemployment.

Recovery based on a "rebalancing" of the economy would have required policies that hurt the financial sector. The financial system would have to be re-engineered to channel more money into long-term investments that raise productivity. Exchange rates would have to be maintained at a competitive level on a permanent basis, rather than at an over-valued level that the financial sector favours. There would have to be greater public investment in the training of scientists and engineers, and greater incentives for them to work in and with the industrial sector, thus shrinking the recruitment pool for the financial industry.

Given all this, it is not a big surprise that those who benefit from the status quo have persisted with QE. What is surprising is that they have actually strengthened the status quo, despite the mess they have caused. They have successfully pushed for cuts in government spending, shrinking the welfare state to the extent that even Margaret Thatcher could not manage. They have used the fear of unemployment in an environment of shrinking social safety nets to force workers to accept more unstable part-time jobs, less-secure contracts (zero-hour contracts being the most extreme example), and poorer working conditions.

But is this maintenance, or even fortification, of the ancient regime likely to continue? It may, but it may not. Greece, Spain, and other eurozone periphery countries could explode any day, given their high unemployment and deepening strains of austerity. In the US, which is considered the home of quiescent workers, the call for living wages is becoming louder, as seen in the current strikes by fast-food restaurant workers. The British are (overly) patient people, but they may change their mind when the full extent of budget cuts unfolds in the coming months.

All of these stirrings may amount to little, especially given the weakened state of trade unions, except in a few countries, and the failure of the parties on the left of centre to come up with a coherent alternative vision. But politics is unpredictable. Five years after the crisis, the real battle for the future of capitalism may be only just beginning.

Quantitative Easing will never be reversed

Helicopter QE will never be reversed

Readers of the Daily Telegraph were right all along. Quantitative easing will never be reversed. It is not liquidity management as claimed so vehemently at the outset. It really is the same as printing money.

It would be better for central banks to put the money into railways, bridges, clean energy, smart grids, or whatever does most to regenerate the economy Photo: Alamy

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

7:49PM BST 03 Apr 2013

Columbia Professor Michael Woodford, the world's most closely followed monetary theorist, says it is time to come clean and state openly that bond purchases are forever, and the sooner people understand this the better.

"All this talk of exit strategies is deeply negative," he told a London Business School seminar on the merits of Helicopter money, or "overt monetary financing".

He said the Bank of Japan made the mistake of reversing all its money creation from 2001 to 2006 once it thought the economy was safely out of the woods. But Japan crashed back into deeper deflation as soon the Lehman crisis hit.

"If we are going to scare the horses, let's scare them properly. Let's go further and eliminate government debt on the bloated balance sheet of central banks," he said. This could done with a flick of the fingers. The debt would vanish.

Lord Turner, head of the now defunct Financial Services Authority, made the point more delicately. "We must tell people that if necessary, QE will turn out to be permanent." 

The write-off should cover "previous fiscal deficits", the stock of public debt. It should be "post-facto monetary finance".

The policy is elastic, for Lord Turner went on to argue that central banks in the US, Japan and Europe should stand ready to finance current spending as well, if push comes to shove. At least the money would go straight into the veins of the economy, rather than leaking out into asset bubbles.

Today's QE relies on pushing down borrowing costs. It is "creditism". That is a very blunt tool in a deleveraging bust when nobody wants to borrow.

Lord Turner says the current policy has become dangerous, yielding ever less returns, with ever worsening side-effects. It would be better for central banks to put the money into railways, bridges, clean energy, smart grids, or whatever does most to regenerate the economy.

The policy can be "wrapped" in such a way as to preserve central bank independence. The Fed or the Bank of England would decide when enough is enough, or what the proper pace should be, just as they calibrate every tool. That at least is the argument. I merely report it.

Lord Turner knows this breaks the ultimate taboo, and that taboos evolve for sound anthropological reasons, but he invokes the doctrine of the lesser evil. "The danger in this environment is that if we deny ourselves this option, people will find other ways of dealing with deflation, and that would be worse."

A breakdown of the global trading system might be one, armed conquest or Fascism may be others - or all together, as in the 1930s.

There were two extreme episodes of money printing in the inter-war years. The Reichsbank's financing of Weimar deficits from 1922 to 1924 - like lesser variants in France, Belgium and Poland - is well known. The result was hyperinflation. Clever people made hay. The slow-witted - or the patriotic - lost their savings. It was a poisonous dichotomy.

Less known is the spectacular success of Takahashi Korekiyo in Japan in the very different circumstances of the early 1930s. He fired a double-barreled blast of monetary and fiscal stimulus together, helped greatly by a 40pc fall in the yen.

The Bank of Japan was ordered to fund the public works programme of the government. Within two years, Japan was booming again, the first major country to break free of the Great Depression. Within three years, surging tax revenues allowed Mr Korekiyo to balance the budget. It was magic.

This is more or less the essence of "Abenomics", the three-pronged attack on deflation by Japan's new premier and Great Power revivalist Shinzo Abe.

Stephen Jen from SLJ Macro Partners says Western analysts have been strangely slow to understand the breathtaking scale of what is under way. The Bank of Japan is already committed to bond purchases of $140bn a month in 2014. This is almost double the US Federal Reserve's net purchases (around $75bn a month), and five times as much as a share of GDP.

Prof Woodford and Lord Turner both think the Fed has already begun to monetise America's deficits, though Ben Bernanke has been studiously vague whenever pressed in testimony on Capitol Hill. These are early days. It is tentative and deniable.

The great hope is that this weird episode will soon be behind us, and that such shock therapy will never be needed in the end. If stock markets tell the truth, the world economy is already healing itself. Another full cycle of global growth is safely under way.

But stock markets are a bad barometer at the onset of every crisis, not least the blistering rally of late 1929, a full year after the world economy had tipped into commodity deflation.

The Reuters CRB commodity index has been falling steadily for the past six months. Copper futures have dropped 10pc since mid-February. This is nothing like the early months of the great global boom a decade ago.

The bull case rests on US recovery, a seductive story as the housing market comes back to life and the shale boom revives the US chemical industry.

Yet the US money supply figures are no longer flashing buy signals. The M2 money stock has contracted over the past three months, and M2 velocity has dropped to the lowest ever recorded at 1.54.

The country must navigate a fiscal squeeze worth 2.5pc of GDP over the rest of the year, arguably the biggest fiscal shock in half a century. Five key indicators have been soft over the past week, with the ADP jobs index coming in much weaker than expected on Wednesday. Growth is below the Fed's "stall speed" indicator, an annualized two-quarter rate of 2pc.

The buoyancy over the past quarter has been flattered by a collapse in the US savings rate to pre-Lehman depths of 2.6pc, and while falling saving is what the world needs, it is not what America needs. Thrifty Asians are the people who must spend if we are to right the collosal imbalances in the global system.

The world savings rate is still climbing to fresh records above 25pc. For all the talk of change in China, Beijing is still pursuing a mercantilist policy. It is still flooding the world with excess goods. It is still shoveling cheap credit into its shipbuilding industry, adding to the glut. It is still keeping its solar industry on life-support.

China remains chronically reliant on global markets. Given that its trade surplus is rising again, it is questionable whether China is adding any net demand to the world.

The eurozone, Britain and an ever widening circle of countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans are mired in recession. Growth is expected to be just 2pc in Russia and 3pc in Brazil this year.

My fear - hopefully wrong - is that recovery will falter over the second half, leaving the developed world trapped in a quasi-slump, a sort of grey zone of zero growth that goes on and on, with debt trajectories ratcheting up.

The Dallas Fed's PCE index of core inflation has already dropped to 1.1pc over the past six months. The eurozone's core gauge has fallen to 1.5pc. A dozen EMU countries already have one foot in deflation with flat or contracting nominal GDP. Another shock will tip them over the edge into a deflationary slide.

If Lord Turner's helicopters are ever needed, we can be sure that the Anglo-Saxons and the Japanese will steal a march, while Europe will be the last to move. The European Central Bank will resist monetary financing of deficits until the bitter end, knowing that such action risks destroying German political consent for the euro project.

By holding the line on orthodoxy, the ECB will guarantee that Euroland continues to suffer the deepest depression. Once the dirty game begins, you stand aside at your peril.

A great many readers in Britain and the US will be horrified that this helicopter debate is taking place at all, as if the QE virus is mutating into ever more deadly strains.

Bondholders across the world may suspect that Britain, the US and other deadbeat states are engineering a stealth default on sovereign debts, and they may be right in a sense. But they are warned. This is the next shoe to drop in the temples of central banking.

Marx takes on Keynes, Friedman and Schumacher

The ultimate Davos debate: 

If you could construct the best panel at a World Economic Forum debate, this would be it. But what would they say about present problems? Read on …

What if Karl Marx and Keynes, Friedman and Schumacher were at the 43rd World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland? Photograph: Laurent Gillieron/AP

Imagine that you could construct the ultimate Davos panel. From the annals of history you can choose any quartet that could put the world to rights in an hour-long talk, the format beloved of the World Economic Forum.

Klaus Schwab, the man who has been organising the forum since 1971, ensured there were plenty of stellar names strutting their stuff in the high Alps last week. Davos attendees could watch Nouriel "Dr Doom" Roubini cross swords with Adam Posen, recently a member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee about the merits of quantitative easing. They could listen to Mark Carney, soon to take over from Sir Mervyn King at Threadneedle Street, warn that the global economy is far from out of the woods. George Soros held forth on drugs; Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg spoke passionately about sexual stereotyping; David Cameron called for the G8 to act against tax avoidance and corruption.

But how about this for a panel? Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman and Fritz Schumacher, all no longer with us, kept in line by the IMF's Christine Lagarde, thankfully still alive and kicking, and one of the standout performers last week.

Lagarde kicks off our fantasy discussion with a few words of introduction. She says business leaders have left Davos in a slightly better frame of mind not because of the millions of words spouted in Davos, but because of three little words spoken by the president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, in London in July. Those words were "whatever it takes", a commitment by the ECB to buy up the bonds of troubled eurozone countries in unlimited quantities. That has removed one of the big tail risks to the global economy – a chaotic break-up of the eurozone. But, she adds, any recovery in 2013 will be fragile and timid, and there is a risk of a relapse. "Turning first to you Karl, how do you see things".

Marx: "The capitalist class gathered in Davos has spent the last few days wringing their hands about unemployment and the lack of demand for their goods. What they seem incapable of recognising is that these are inevitable in a globalised economy. There is a tendency towards over-investment, over-production and a falling rate of profit, which, as ever, employers have sought to counter by cutting wages and creating a reserve army of labour. That's why there are more than 200 million people unemployed around the world and there has been a trend towards greater inequality. It is possible that 2013 will be better than 2012 but it will be a brief respite."

Lagarde: "That's a gloomy analysis, Karl. Wages are growing quite fast in some parts of the world, such as China, but I'd agree that inequality is a threat. The IMF's own research shows that inequality is correlated to economic instability."

Marx: "It is true that the emerging market economies are growing rapidly now but in time they too will be affected by the same forces."

Lagarde: "Maynard, do you think things are as bleak as Karl says?

Keynes: "No I don't Christine. I think the problem is serious but soluble. When we last faced a crisis of this magnitude we responded by aggressive loosening of monetary policy – driving down both short-term and long-term interest rates – and by the use of public works to boost aggregate demand. In the US, my friend Franklin Roosevelt supported legislation that allowed workers to organise. After the second world war, the international community created the IMF in order to smooth out balance of payments imbalances, prevent beggar-my-neighbour currency wars and control movements of capital. All these lessons have been forgotten. The balance between fiscal and monetary policy is wrong; currency wars are brewing; the financial sector remains largely unreformed, and aggregate demand is weak because workers are not getting a fair share of their productivity gains. Economics is stuck in the past; it is as if physics had not moved on since Kepler."

Lagarde: "I gather from what you are saying, Maynard, that you do not approve of the way George Osborne is running the UK economy."

Keynes: "The man has taken leave of his senses. Britain has a growth problem, not a deficit problem."

Lagarde: "I daresay Milton that you disagree with everything Maynard has said? You would make the case, presumably, for nature's cure?"

Milton Friedman: "Some of my friends in the Austrian school of economics would certainly favour doing nothing in the hope of a cleansing of the system, but I wouldn't. Unlike Maynard, I wouldn't support measures that would increase the bargaining power of trade unions and I've never been keen on public works as a response to a slump.

"But I would certainly support what Ben Bernanke has been doing with monetary policy in the US and would support even more drastic action if it proved necessary."

Lagarde: "Such as?"

Friedman: "Well, I think monetary policy should be set in order to hit a target for nominal output – the increase in the size of the economy unadjusted for inflation. If that growth is too high, central banks should tighten policy. If it is too low, the trend since the crisis broke, they should loosen it. In extreme circumstances, I'd favour policies that blur the distinction between monetary and fiscal policy. That's what I mean when I talk about helicopter drops of money into the economy."

Lagarde: "Fritz, you have been sitting there patiently listening to Karl, Maynard and Milton. How do you assess the state of the world?

Fritz Schumacher: "I am greatly disturbed by the way the debate is being framed. There is an obsession with growth at all costs regardless of the environmental costs. Climate change was rarely mentioned in Davos: this after a year of extreme weather events. It is frightening that so little attention has been paid to global warming, and almost criminally neglectful of governments not to use ultra-low interest rates to invest in green technologies.

"As has been the case in the past, recessions have pushed green issues down the political agenda. In good times policymakers say they are in favour of sustainable development, but the pledges are forgotten as soon as unemployment starts to rise. Then it is back to business as usual: more roads, expanding airports, tax cuts to encourage consumption. When scientists are warning that global temperatures are on course to rise several degrees above pre-industrial levels on unchanged policies, this is the economics of the madhouse."

Lagarde: "Maynard, what's your response to that?"

Keynes: "I agree with him. If I were advising Roosevelt today I would be calling for a Green New Deal. I find it hard to envisage a world without growth, something that is politically unacceptable in the developing world in any case. But Fritz is right, we need smarter, cleaner growth. As you yourself said last week, Christine, if we carry on as we are the next generation will be 'roasted, toasted, fried and grilled'."

Schumacher: "I couldn't have put it better myself."

The US and UK remain wedded to Quantitative Easing to stifle a debate on fiscal policy

Has quantitative easing had its day?

QE's failure to power recovery is clear, but the US and UK remain wedded to the policy to stifle debate about fiscal policy

• 
• Radhika Desai
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 January 2013 16.00 GMT

Mark Carney, governor-elect of the Bank of England, wants to retain QE as the chief policy instrument for engineering recovery. Photograph: Mark Blinch/Reuters

 

Last autumn the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, ended months of speculation about whether there would be another round of quantitative easing – the policy of buying up securities from banks so that more money is injected into the financial system. The idea has been that this will get them lending more and powering a recovery. Since the first two rounds had patently failed to generate recovery, he now announced a QE3 with a difference: not only did he announce QE3, its sheer scale and boundlessness made it a veritable QE infinity. The Fed would continue buying up mortgage-backed securities to the tune of $40bn a month until the labour market improved and would keep interest rates to their current near-zero levels until unemployment fell below 6.5%.

Having targeted inflation to please the holders of capital for almost two decades, even when the resulting high interest rates stifled investment and kept unemployment high, the Fed's concern about employment was certainly novel. To be sure, it is mandated to keep both inflation and unemployment low, but until now it had succeeded in finessing this mandate and concentrating more or less exclusively on keeping the former alone in check.

Meanwhile, the UK's new central banker in waiting, Mark Carney, proposed his own innovation in monetary policy: the Bank of England's two-decade-old policy of targeting inflation should be dropped in favour of targeting nominal GDP growth. This would keep up liquidity injections into the financial system until targeted nominal growth materialised. He did not say what he would do if the nominal growth target yielded more inflation than growth. Discussion centred on whether the Bank of England's mandate would be revised. Both David Cameron and Vince Cable appeared open to the concept.

Bernanke and Carey's new and improved monetary policies are designed to retain QE as the chief policy instrument for engineering recovery despite its failure so far. Given that its most vocal opponents are the economic neanderthals of the US Tea Party right, it is usually assumed that QE is progressive, if not, so far at least, very effective.

In reality, QE has served, first and foremost, to socialise the losses of the financial systems of the two countries at the centre of the financial crisis, the US and the UK. In contrast to the publicly fought over Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), QE contributed far more to achieving that objective and did so without the fuss and melodrama of Treasury secretaries going on bended knee before House speakers to beg its passage.

Some find consolation in the thought that at the very least QE prevented the economies of these two countries from falling into outright depression. In reality, two other things accomplished this. First, unlike in the 1930s, the "automatic stabilisers" – government spending and transfers – formed a floor beneath which the economy could not fall. Second, there were mild fiscal stimuli. But their end now threatens to send economic activity south again in both economies.

Indeed, insofar as QE was part of a wider set of policy choices that focused on relieving financial institutions of their irresponsibly extended loans but not the households and firms, QE ensured that a highly leveraged private sector would be unable to borrow, whether to invest or consume. It would also ensure that the resulting demand conditions would deter even the comparatively unleveraged from borrowing to invest.

So we shouldn't assume that QE will power a recovery. It probably won't. As Keynes pointed out, under certain conditions (such as those today: rock-bottom interest rates, poor demand outlook, heavily leveraged firms and households) credit easing would amount to little more than "pushing on a string". So why are Bernanke and Carney seeking to tie recovery even tighter to monetary policy with their innovations in QE precisely when its failure to power recovery is clearer than ever?

It's because without some action on their part, public discussion is bound to turn towards the alternative: a vigorously expansionary fiscal policy, with massively increased state investment in the economy. This option lies just below the surface of public discourse: the neoliberal triumph of recent decades was never able to entirely eradicate it from public discourse and memory. But as long as the public can be kept believing that monetary policy will achieve some semblance of growth, later if not sooner, that the economy's managers are busy refining monetary policy tools to accomplish that, fiscal policy can be that much more effectively kept out of the picture.

In effect the public in both these countries is being told that they cannot get recovery unless the banks give it to them. And keeping recovery hostage to the financial system is tied up with something very fundamental. Announcing the failure of monetary policy is to displace that holy of holies – the private sector – from its current centrality in our understanding of the economy and admitting that government action and expenditure, probably on a large and unprecedented scale, is necessary for recovery.

An Iconoclast to lead the Central Bank

We need an iconoclast to lead the Bank of England

Central bankers are acting like allied commanders at the Battle of the Somme. Adair Turner would be a breath of fresh air

• 
• • Simon Jenkins
  • The Guardian, Tuesday 9 October 2012 21.00 BST

Adair Turner's most celebrated soundbite, in 2009, was that British banking is over-large, and much of it is overpaid and ‘socially useless'. Illustration: Belle Mellor

How to wreck Adair Turner's chances of becoming next governor of the Bank of England? Answer, name him as the best candidate fit for the job. For the first time in modern history it really matters who is governor. It matters that the person should have a grasp not just of the shambles that is modern banking but of the rigor mortis now afflicting Britain's economic managers. They desperately need someone with the guts for new ideas.

Turner has been a banker and an economist, two professions most tainted by the past five years. Bankers are tainted by venality, economists by intellectual failure. No one involved is free of guilt. No one has gone to jail, and only a few high-profile bankers have even suffered. What matters is have they learned?

Today the IMF predicted that Britain has relapsed into recession and should "smooth its planning adjustment over 2013 and beyond", jargon for "let up on austerity". Whether such IMF forecasts merit more credibility than the wildly over-optimistic ones last year, I cannot tell. Certainly the blunders have been serious. A cut of £1 in public spending apparently does not lead to 50p less economic activity but at least £1.30p less. The "multiplier effect" of deficit reduction is thus a downward deflationary spiral. This is not ideology, but the mathematics of catastrophe.

Those who warned three years ago that the risk of double-dip recession was so high as to require a plan B were right. The Treasury, the Bank of England and the IMF were wrong. The fact that the Treasury has had to propose six ineffective business lending packages in a row, and the Bank has had to pretend to pump £375bn "into the economy" is proof of that failure. I do not believe for a minute that George Osborne and his advisers, had they correctly predicted the recession, would be following the present policy. At least the IMF is now admitting its mistake.

Government and Bank economists are continuing to allow politicians to cop out of reflating demand for fear of a U-turn. Economists are like physicians in the days when they believed in leeches. They take no responsibility for gross errors that would get doctors struck off, and even transport officials suspended.

Turner is criticised as a dabbler and turncoat, a McKinsey consultant and a poor administrator. He was Tory, then SDP, then Blair courtier, an academic economist turned head of the CBI. He was a poacher turned regulator at the Financial Services Authority. He ran pensions and low-pay policy and is unceasingly iconoclastic and articulate. To adapt Ruskin, a hundred economists may look, but few can see. Turner can see. His opinions can be deduced from a torrent of outspokenness. His most celebrated soundbite, in 2009, was that British banking is over-large, and much of it is overpaid and "socially useless". As free markets mature, he says, insiders merely collude to "proliferate rent-extracting opportunities" – that is, make huge sums of money. They should be curbed.

Three of Turner's lectures, delivered in 2010 and now revised as "Economics after the Crisis", are eulogistically reviewed by Robert Skidelsky in the latest Times Literary Supplement. Turner maintains that economics has blown too much with the political wind. It has ordained that growth is in lock-step with social order and human happiness. It is not. He does not go the whole happiness agenda but nods vigorously in its direction. Nor do wider incentives yield fairness or evidence of contentment.

This does not seem leftwing – rather pragmatic. Increased leisure may be good yet impair growth. Market forces do not correctly price risk, as we have just seen in spades, but can spin off into an instability. The task of regulation, says Turner, is to curb upturns and minimise downturns, as Keynes ordered. It should have warned politicians against the debt bubbles and housing hysteria of the last decade.

Turner seeks to "reconstruct economics" not as anti-capitalist but, Skidelsky points out, as a challenge to "an unattainable market perfection" that can so clearly lead to periodic collapses and a huge cost to human welfare. There is a moral complexity to economics that is both necessary and difficult.

As for present policy, Turner seems to agree with the IMF that Britain has over-deflated its economy. In July he told the Bank's monetary policy committee that it faced a liquidity trap in which quantitative easing "was proving to have little impact on behaviour and on demand". Using the banks to stimulate the economy – the core of Treasury and Bank policy – was "ineffective". This amounted to saying that recession was now government-induced.

Turner's more private view is that Britain should consider whether debt should now be "monetised", financed by blatantly printing money rather than buying bank bonds and hoping this boosts demand. His is a version of the "helicopter" money advocated by JM Keynes and Milton Friedman. Turner points out that actually printing money – not pretending to as at present – would involve "no increase in government debt and therefore no increase in future debt servicing". It is pure inflation and needs careful handling, but just now it is like pouring oil on a seized engine. On the spectrum from plunging deflation or hyper-inflation, the risk of the former far outweighs the latter. At very least, this should be discussed.

Britain's central bankers are like allied commanders during the Somme, sticking blindly to a defunct strategy out of sheer familiarity. Turner's scepticism seems no more than prudent. In this context, a Bank governor steeped in the financial establishment but with an observant eye and a mind open to argument is more than a breath of fresh air. It is one thing that might jolt us out of the present mess.