PDA

View Full Version : Helicopter QE will never be reversed (didn't Ron say that, oh, years ago?)




sailingaway
04-04-2013, 02:01 AM
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.

more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9970294/Helicopter-QE-will-never-be-reversed.html

VoluntaryAmerican
04-04-2013, 07:58 AM
Forever? Till it comes crashing down.

Bern
04-04-2013, 08:18 AM
"QE to infinity" - Jim Sinclair

Danan
04-04-2013, 08:28 AM
His suggestion of changing monetary policy from lowering the costs of loans to direct-financing government spending is horrible. That's the one way the situation could actually worsen (and it seems to be the most likely scenario, at this point).

He is completely right that there is no exit strategy without a severe recession. I believe the most important task for Austrian and other free market economists is going to be to convince academia, politicians and the public that a recession is what we actually need to have right now. That it's not some stupid aggregate we need to worry about, but a necessary correction and reallocation of scarce resources, if we ever want prosperity again. That's going to be a really hard task, since not even many free market people are willing to accept this basic truth.

jbauer
04-04-2013, 08:38 AM
Exactly how do you plan on convincing people that what we need is a recession when the only threat to them doing nothing is a recession? Although the recession that will come from no action will likley be bigger since we can't turn back time and figure out how bad it would have been had we done it now.

You'll never ever convince mankind or politicians or the media that they should intentionally ask for pain even if we know that future pain will be much worse. Most people, politicians, CEO's etc live in the now and could care less about tomorrow as long as they're getting fed and still have their iphone.


His suggestion of changing monetary policy from lowering the costs of loans to direct-financing government spending is horrible. That's the one way the situation could actually worsen (and it seems to be the most likely scenario, at this point).

He is completely right that there is no exit strategy without a severe recession. I believe the most important task for Austrian and other free market economists is going to be to convince academia, politicians and the public that a recession is what we actually need to have right now. That it's not some stupid aggregate we need to worry about, but a necessary correction and reallocation of scarce resources, if we ever want prosperity again. That's going to be a really hard task, since not even many free market people are willing to accept this basic truth.

Danan
04-04-2013, 09:11 AM
Exactly how do you plan on convincing people that what we need is a recession when the only threat to them doing nothing is a recession? Although the recession that will come from no action will likley be bigger since we can't turn back time and figure out hohew bad it would have been had we done it now.

You'll never ever convince mankind or politicians or the media that they should intentionally ask for pain even if we know that future pain will be much worse. Most people, politicians, CEO's etc live in the now and could care less about tomorrow as long as they're getting fed and still have their iphone.

I know that. It's a sad truth that good policy will never be enacted. But let's not kid ourselfs, even if Ron Paul had his way and let's assume he could "reign supreme", the country would go through a severe recession. When he talks about "liquidation of debt" that means a liquidation of deposits/credit at the same time.

Yes, what the Fed does is really bad and we all know that. But the Fed's actions aren't magically doing harm to the economy. The real problem is that they cause a huge misallocation of resources throughout the whole economy. To restructure takes a little while and is seriously painful. But it is inevitable. You can postbone it, but in the end the crash is only going to be bigger, since even more resources are badly allocated at that point.

I sometimes fear some people believe that there are politicians who could "turn around" the economy and create new jobs and prosperity without going through a serious recession first. I don't see how that would be physically possible.

jbauer
04-04-2013, 09:21 AM
Danan, I agree with everything you're saying. I just don't think any politician out there is willing to cut their own throat (and that of their party) even if it would me we are better off in the end.

Danan
04-04-2013, 09:31 AM
Danan, I agree with everything you're saying. I just don't think any politician out there is willing to cut their own throat (and that of their party) even if it would me we are better off in the end.

True. I mean there are some things that could be done that would help anyway, like eliminating laws, regluations and taxes. That won't change the fact that a recession is inevitable, but it would still have a positive impact...

cbc58
04-04-2013, 09:51 AM
this is like telling a woman who is in great shape and feels fine that she has breast cancer and needs both her breasts removed or else she will die. she won't do it until she has convincing proof, and by then it may be too late.

The Free Hornet
04-04-2013, 11:20 AM
I sometimes fear some people believe that there are politicians who could "turn around" the economy and create new jobs and prosperity without going through a serious recession first. I don't see how that would be physically possible.

If you only consider the free and private economy, then it is simple to avoid a recession. Free the people and stop the tax theft and the private economy can thrive literally overnight.

What TBTB want is a prosperous private economy to which they can shackle their ambitions. These ambitions are contrary to the very thing they feed off, thus, the not "phsyically possible" task. We need better metrics to discount the deadweight.

It is very difficult to communicate counterbalancing policies. E.g., ending social security and property/sales taxes. For some elderly, this would be a net gain (assuming large or multiple properties, e.g.). If your household earns less money in a year but managed to save more, is it in recession compared to the year of higher income and debt?

So why would you fear this? You fear that people believe that prosperity is possible without our overlords? The essense of your argument is to convince people to remain status quo.

The Free Hornet
04-04-2013, 11:28 AM
I believe the most important task for Austrian and other free market economists is going to be to convince academia, politicians and the public that a recession is what we actually needto have right now.

Academia is 80% convinced of their uselessness which is why they insist on ever-increasing public financing. The politicians are 99% convinced.

They know this. They fear this.

It is the unconnected people outside the 'just-us' system that could use education to learn how much they lose out.

Whether or not this manifests in net "recession" (public+private) or not is dependent on many factors. It is not unheard of to have recovery/growth and scale back the size/scope of government. Regardless, those set to lose out will not generally support policies against their financial interests. You can try, but it is a fool's errand.