Skip to main content

On the New Fed Policy Announcement

By
Matt Yglesias has a good summary of what's happening and what it means:
QE3 is here, and it's pretty big. They've announced a form of "open-ended" quantitative easing in which the central bank commits to "purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month." 
But there's something much much much more important here than the numbers. It's the guidance. It's not the Evans Plan, and it's not nominal GDP level targeting, but it's good, and it's right here (emphasis added): 
To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee also decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid-2015.
(You know shit got real when Yglesias uses bold and italics.)

First let me say that I think this is great news, and I think it's likely to work, if slowly. And let me also say that calling this "quantitative easing" seems a bit strange. Previous rounds of this policy were called "quantitative" because they specified a particular dollar value of assets the fed was going to purchase. This is open-ended, meaning the Fed will allegedly just keep buying and buying until the labor market recovers, so there's no telling exactly how much that could be. And let me further say that this represents a big victory for the alliance of academics, econ bloggers (especially Scott Sumner), and associated journalists, who have been howling about this for years. Other fields should take note.

Tyler Cowen is on largely the same page: "I say the rate of price inflation is going up. I see this as a free lunch, and I am quite curious to find out just how big or small of a free lunch it is going to be."

I am also curious. I've been reading some stuff recently (here's a good example) questioning the mechanical efficacy of quantitative easing (QE) as it has been practiced. The issue is how QE happens—the Fed buys a bunch of financial assets, usually asset-backed securities or government debt, with newly created money. In the broadest sense, the idea is to inject money into the economy. The above paper makes the point that while years ago, the financial sector was built on a reserve of central bank deposits, these days a lot more is built on collateral—the same stuff that the Fed buys in QE operations. Some collateral is good, some bad, and since the Fed is cautious, they only want to buy the best stuff, and so QE could actually cause a liquidity shortage as they suck up all the best collateral.

On the other hand, if the important thing is the expectations channel, then this sort of effect shouldn't matter much. If everyone adjust their economic expectations up at the same time, then this could quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We'll find out which soon enough, hopefully.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

By
So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b
Post a Comment
Read more

The Basic Instinct of Socialism

By
This year I finally decided to stop beating around the bush and start calling myself a democratic socialist. I think the reason for the long hesitation is the very long record of horrifying atrocities carried out by self-described socialist countries. Of course, there is no social system that doesn't have a long, bloody rap sheet, capitalism very much included . But I've never described myself as a capitalist either, and the whole point of socialism is that it's supposed to be better than that. So of course I cannot be a tankie — Stalin and Mao were evil, terrible butchers, some of the worst people who ever lived. There are two basic lessons to be learned from the failures of Soviet and Chinese Communism, I think. One is that Marxism-Leninism is not a just or workable system. One cannot simply skip over capitalist development, and any socialist project must be democratic and preserve basic liberal freedoms. The second, perhaps more profound lesson, is that there is no s
6 comments
Read more

Varanus albigularis albigularis

By
That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves that
4 comments
Read more