|
|
|
|
|
|
by JumpCrisscross
1798 days ago
|
|
|
> Interest rates will no longer be the primary inflation targeting tool Why? We don't have inflation so rates are being kept low. Countries with inflation pressure are raising rates and holding off inflation. > issuing currency (eg USD) without issuing an equal and opposite (kinda) number of debt instruments This is how the Federal Reserve has worked for over a century. The Fed doesn't create Treasuries; it absorbs them onto its balance sheet while creating money for the selling bank. There is theoretically a problem if the Treasury stops issuing debt. This was momentarily considered in the 90s, when the U.S. ran a surplus. But that isn't a problem right now. > Monetarism (the monetarism I'm referring to) allows and encourages this. The type of monetarism which encouraged fiscal neutrality was never mainstream. Even in the case of the EU, the presumption was the monetary union would cause fiscal union. A large part of the Eurozone crisis involved recognizing that wasn't a sure thing. |
|
|
> Why? We don't have inflation so rates are being kept low. Countries with inflation pressure are raising rates and holding off inflation.
Under monetarism (again, definitions... I mean the Friedman-esque CB norms, circa 1980-present), it's supposed to work the opposite way.
Interest rates are lowered to increase inflation, because low interest is thought to be inflationary. They've been low for a long time. No inflation. Hence why monetarism was lost ground. Both public debt and low interest rates were seen as dangerous, eventually leading to hyperinflation. CB independence was created in order to prevent politicians, who want wage increases, jobs and such from lowering interest rates and crashing the currency.
> Countries with inflation pressure
IDK as much about these, though I am curious. Any explanation would be a macroeconomic theory, and IDK which one is true. That said, I suspect the problem in some/most such countries (eg Russia, Turkey) is a combination of taxation & capital flight. They don't have enough ability to tax, and hence remove "excess" currency from the system. Simultaneously, capital is at risk. If you are the Jeff Bezos of Turkey, you want to keep your money safe by putting it in the (US) S&P 500.
In the US & EU, taxation (of normal people, at least) is easy. How much money Bezos has does not impact his spending in any way, so it doesn't influence the price of goods, so it doesn't really matter (to consumer price inflation) how much tax he pays.
I'm mostly rambling on this one. Haven't read or thought much about these countries/currencies.
>This is how the Federal Reserve has worked for over a century
IDk the full history. Gold reserves were, at least ostensibly, required for much of this period.
Currently, the Fed doesn't technically issue debt instruments besides USD. The Treasury does. It's really a technicality though. That's why they're called treasury notes. The Fed makes USD, gives them to the treasury. The Treasury makes T notes, gives them to the Fed. Treasury spends the USD. Fed keeps the notes, sometimes uses them to manipulate debt markets or trade for foreign ones.
Under a permanent 0% interest regime (I'm not predicting, just projecting), the whole thing becomes quasi-superstitious.
> The type of monetarism which encouraged fiscal neutrality was never more than a fringe theory
This is why I haven't mentioned Milton Friedman until now. I am sure he, and most people who have literally called themselves monetarists would claim that "monetarism has never been tried." He certainly made this point in his lifetime.
So... IDK how to resolve that. Monetary policy has never been not "Pure Monetarism" in a sense that Friedman would have certified. The biggest detours are usually during financial crisis, when "keynsian" concepts like "stimulus" gain ground. That said, I think they've always been restrained by monetarism, and incorporated (IMO catastrophic) bits of monetarism to balance out the expected (under monetarism) inflation of such policies.
Macroeconomics schools, including the education I received circa 2004, CBs, finance ministers, etc. have been more influenced by this theory than any others. I would argue that the eurozone is designed & structured as a Monetarist currency system. I'm not sure what you meant by "fiscal neutrality" (did you mean monetary/CB neutrality?), but it is designed to maintain nation states' fiscal & tax independence while handing over all monetary power to the CB.
The problem (from a non-monetarist) perspective, is that money isn't actually created by the ECB. It's created by government spending regardless of the ECB. The greek crisis taught us that. I didn't understand what was meant, ATT, when officials referred to the risk that "euros in greek banks would trade at a different exchange rate." Now I do. The greek government accumulates debt regardless. If the ECB doesn't back that debt, a euro in a Greek bank account is effectively a separate currency. Governments do monetary policy whether or not they own an CB. It's just messier and more unstable. You can't really sepeare fiscal and monetary controls IRL.
^BTW I could be and probably am wrong about some or all of this. This is all in the spirit of digital pint-talk. I know these topic can get heated. No disrespect meant, regardless of disagreement.