|
|
|
|
|
by CraigJPerry
1211 days ago
|
|
>> you have some newly created money, whilst the demand for holding money balances … stays the same This is a contradiction. You can’t create money without a demand for it first. In this specific case through the demand for money in exchange for treasuries/MBS/etc. >> So what happens is that money is exchanged away like a hot potato until the demand for money balances rises to match the extra created money This view derives from monetarist theory, it’d be fair to say this view enjoys less support today than it did in the past. As with all macro views, it’s primarily BS with perhaps a little bit of truth that may or may not apply in any given real world scenario. Probably not a useful model. |
|
Why not? At the individual level it literally works the same as any purchase of existing assets. In practice, the counterparty of that transaction will probably spend that money in turn on something else that she actually planned to hold.
> This view derives from monetarist theory, it’d be fair to say this view enjoys less support today than it did in the past.
Well, the biggest flaw of monetarist theory is that it treats "the creation of money" as if it was somehow special, whereas what really matters is the product of money and velocity. (Velocity can be seen as a reflection of external changes in the demand for money balances. It also explains how money can seemingly be "created" out of thin air by entities other than the central bank; what we're really seeing in these expanded money measurements is higher velocity for the actual "high-powered" money that the central bank issues.)