Ior Caused The Recession!
Apparently saying something prissy close the Fed in conclusion calendar week stepped over some brilliant draw somewhere.
Lois Woodhill, writing at Forbes.com, wrote ane of the most unintentionally hilarious rebukes here.
The to a higher house chart
Well, well. For vi years now, we've been debating the drive of the recession too fiscal crisis. Was it "global imbalances," "savings gluts," Fannie too Freddie too the CRA, "deregulated" finance, "Wall Street greed," besides big to neglect guarantees, predictable applied scientific discipline some bad regulation, housing bubbles, too on too on. Was the recession going to laissez passer on off anyway, caused yesteryear credit provide disruptions, caused yesteryear a flying to character inwards a systemic run, a engineering daze or what... Thank you lot Mr. Woodhill, we've finally establish the smoking gun -- 25 bp of involvement on reserves!
No, this does non appear to endure a joke. It sure enough gets the correlation vs. causation gilt star for the week.
I'm yet inwards "say something nice'' mode, then in that place are quite a few sensible things inwards Woodhill's column:
I intend our confusion stems from the fact that I stuffed an entire narrow deposit-backing / equity financed banking proposal into ane sentence: "Banks asset lots of reserves don’t become under." Oh well, opeds are short.
And to endure sure, in that place are plenty of thoughtful reasons to disagree alongside my analysis. And in that place are plenty of other areas to rest critical close Fed policy. I rest dubious of "macroprudential" policy too whether monetary policy tin create anything at all close long-term labor-force participation -- people who aren't working too aren't fifty-fifty looking for work.
Lois Woodhill, writing at Forbes.com, wrote ane of the most unintentionally hilarious rebukes here.
 |
| Source: Louis Woodhill at Forbes.com |
The to a higher house chart
...shows what happened the in conclusion fourth dimension the Fed raised the IOR charge per unit of measurement [to 0.25%] (remember, it was null for 95 years).
The plunge inwards velocity overwhelmed the Fed’s frantic coin creation during the current straight off later it started paying IOR. NGDP tanked, taking RGDP too work alongside it.
Look, something caused the economical collapse of 2008-2009. Given the evidence, IOR looks a lot similar a homo caught at a murder scene alongside a smoking gun inwards his hand.Interesting. Interest on reserves caused the recession!
Well, well. For vi years now, we've been debating the drive of the recession too fiscal crisis. Was it "global imbalances," "savings gluts," Fannie too Freddie too the CRA, "deregulated" finance, "Wall Street greed," besides big to neglect guarantees, predictable applied scientific discipline some bad regulation, housing bubbles, too on too on. Was the recession going to laissez passer on off anyway, caused yesteryear credit provide disruptions, caused yesteryear a flying to character inwards a systemic run, a engineering daze or what... Thank you lot Mr. Woodhill, we've finally establish the smoking gun -- 25 bp of involvement on reserves!
No, this does non appear to endure a joke. It sure enough gets the correlation vs. causation gilt star for the week.
I'm yet inwards "say something nice'' mode, then in that place are quite a few sensible things inwards Woodhill's column:
Given that the Fed stands develop to serve every bit the “lender of in conclusion resort,” it is capital, non reserves, that determines a bank’s mightiness to atmospheric condition a fiscal crisis.JC: Yes, too I intend I'm pretty song on the extreme halt of the narrow deposit-taking, 100% working capital missive of the alphabet investment banking fringe. (I've plugged my papers plenty on the weblog already, then won't create then again.)
The Fed’s most of import job—and ane that alone it tin do—is to provide the United States economic scheme (and the world) alongside a stable dollar.JC: Indeed on the former, too non then sure on the "can do" business office fifty-fifty there.
I intend our confusion stems from the fact that I stuffed an entire narrow deposit-backing / equity financed banking proposal into ane sentence: "Banks asset lots of reserves don’t become under." Oh well, opeds are short.
And to endure sure, in that place are plenty of thoughtful reasons to disagree alongside my analysis. And in that place are plenty of other areas to rest critical close Fed policy. I rest dubious of "macroprudential" policy too whether monetary policy tin create anything at all close long-term labor-force participation -- people who aren't working too aren't fifty-fifty looking for work.
No comments