Posts Tagged ‘Matt Yglesias’

A platinum opportunity?

5 August 2011

I’m late to the party on this one, but here’s a novel way to increase the money supply and government revenues: Have the Treasury issue platinum coins of huge denominations. (The usual way of increasing the money supply through Fed actions hasn’t been working so well lately — the Fed has created hundreds of billions in bank reserves, but the banks haven’t been loaning them out and so they haven’t been converted into money.) Brad DeLong:

‘[The Treasury should mint] 100,000 of them, worth $10 million each. Billionaires will want to hold some to be cool. Multi-millionaires will want to hold some so that people think that they are billionaires. Use the proceeds to buy back a lot of long-term debt: that’s $1 trillion of quantitative easing by the Treasury right there.’

Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin appears to have gotten the platinum ball rolling. Paul Krugman is intrigued. So is Matt Yglesias. I still need some time to think it over.

Advertisements

Ask what you can do for the banks

13 December 2010

Spencer Bachus, Alabama Republican and incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, lets us know who’s his daddy:

“In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”

The honesty’s too much.

Hat tip and emphasis: Matt Yglesias.

Why is the Fed still paying interest on reserves?

12 November 2010

Matt Yglesias, channeling Scott Sumner and Louis Woodhill, makes a good case that the interest rate on bank reserves, which was 0% up until just a couple years ago, should be lowered from its current 0.25%.  He suggests lowering it to 0.15%; I’d go lower, to 0.10% if going back to zero is out of the question.

Paying interest on reserves made some sense back in 2008 when the Fed was flooding the system with reserves in order to prevent a deflationary catastrophe.  The fear then was that when the economy picked up, banks would start loaning those reserves out and unleash a huge inflation; to prevent that, the Fed put an interest rate on reserves that could be raised whenever it became necessary to “soak up” those reserves.  But nothing like that is happening now — instead we have a banking system with about $1 trillion in reserves that they’re not loaning out, and the amount is likely to grow as the Fed makes its monthly $75 billion purchases of longer-term bonds under QE2.  The string the Fed is pushing on ought to move a little more if the interest rate on reserves were closer to zero.  0.25% might not sound like much, but it’s more than the federal funds rate on any given day and more than the short-term Treasury bill rate.  If banks could only earn 0.10% on reserves, I think they’d be more likely to loan them out, i.e., monetary policy would be more likely to work.

When the recovery finally shifts into high gear (and it could be sooner than most of us think, considering all the “green shoots” among leading indicators at present) and banks start loaning out those reserves, then the Fed can raise the interest rate on reserves.  But keeping it this high now gives preemption a bad name.

Stimulate some action

26 August 2010

Michael Grunwald of Time has an interesting new article about the specifics of the stimulus spending, which began with “shovel ready” projects that could employ people right away but is now about to move onto “shovel worthy” projects that required more advance planning and are more in line with the Obama Administration’s long-term policy goals on energy, education, etc.  The article differs from others I’ve read on the stimulus in that the focus is not on its impact on jobs or GDP but on how these programs may yield a greener energy policy, expanded scientific research and broadband access, and school reform.  There’s an analogy to be made with the New Deal, whose early jobs programs were sometimes derided as “leaf raking” or “ditch digging” but which came to include enduring projects like highways, bridges, buildings, and parks.

The $787 million stimulus bill that passed in early 2009 is by now unpopular with the public.  A recent poll I saw in The Washington Post this summer (I’ll try to find the link later) found that the public, by a 56-41% margin, actually thought the stimulus had made the economy worse.  This is perhaps understandable considering that the unemployment rate has not come down much, but still mind-boggling in the face of empirical estimates by nonpartisan economists that the stimulus saved three million jobs.

The only part of Grunwald’s piece I didn’t like was his claim that “liberals” think the stimulus was not large enough.  While that much is basically true, it’s not just political liberals who believe that.  Keynesian economists, not all of whom are liberal Democrats, would tend to argue that another big round of stimulus is necessary to push the economy back toward “full employment,” i.e., an unemployment rate of about 5%, maybe 6% (it’s now 9.5%).  Three million jobs saved is better than none, but the glass is less than half full considering that there still are eight million more unemployed Americans now than in 2007, before the recession began.

Matt Yglesias presents another poll that tends to suggest that the stimulus’s unpopularity reflects not the content of the stimulus bill but basically just the sad state of the economy and the usual tendency of the public to blame it on the president — i.e., if the stimulus bill was his bill, then it must have been a bad bill, because the economy stinks.  Yglesias cites a poll that asks people whether they would like certain measures to be taken.  Asked if they would favor “additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy,” 60% said yes.  Politicians, take note.

P.S. Today’s title is from J.J. Cale’s “After Midnight,” but the song I felt like posting was this one by The Flamin’ Groovies: