Category: Central banks

By Domenico Lombardi and Sarah Puritz Milsom

Following the unprecedented downgrade of the European Financial Stability Facility and nine eurozone sovereigns by Standard & Poor’s, there is a renewed impetus for the International Monetary Fund to step up its involvement in the deepening euro area crisis. In an executive board meeting earlier this week, managing director Christine Lagarde requested that the membership step up the fund’s own war chest in an effort to better equip the institution to adequately confront the growing global threat. The move follows an earlier reshuffle at the helm of the European department of the IMF, signalling that the fund has been quietly preparing itself for the gloomiest scenario in which the situation in Europe develops into a full-blown systemic crisis.

Credit: Hannelore Foerster/Bloomberg

Currently, the IMF is unable to ring-fence the euro area and contain any spillovers to the global financial system unless its global membership agrees to provide a significant boost to its resources. As it stands, the organisation has some $385bn in its forward commitment capacity, including the activation of the contingent facility — the new arrangements to borrow — that can be used “to cope with an impairment of the international monetary system or to deal with an exceptional situation that poses a threat to the stability of that system.”

By Thomas I. Palley

In his novel, The Jungle, the American muckraking author Upton Sinclair wrote about the horrendous work and sanitary conditions in the Chicago meat packing industry of the early 20th century. It is sometimes said Sinclair aimed for the heart but hit the stomach. That is because he aimed for progressive social and economic change, but instead his work prompted the founding of the Food and Drug Administration.

The same problem of missing the target confounds current discussions of the eurozone’s problems. What the euro lacks is a government banker, not a lender of last resort as is widely claimed.

By Michael Pomerleano

In response to the financial crisis, the most immediate fundamental reform adopted by several developed countries is to have a “systemic regulator” overseeing the stability of the financial system as a whole. Through data gathering, analysis and ultimately regulation, the systemic regulator is expected is expected to mitigate the risks associated with highly inter-dependent relationships between financial institutions. Many central banks are receiving significant new responsibilities for macroprudential supervision. Changes to the UK regulatory framework in 2010 gave the Bank of England responsibility for microprudential and macroprudential regulation. In the US, the Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to be led by Treasury Secretary including the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Several arguments have been put forward for justifying why central banks are receiving a prominent role in macroprudential supervision: financial supervision offer insights into the condition of financial institutions that is essential in the conduct of monetary policy; and central banks are inextricably involved in the financial stability function through their lender-of-last-resort function.

By Roger Farmer

Ben Bernanke, US Federal Reserve chairman, has announced that the Fed is about to go on a $600bn spending spree by buying $75bn of treasury bonds every month for eight months. Not all of the members of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee agree that a second round of quantitative easing is a good idea. Thomas Hoenig of Kansas City, Jeffrey Lacker of Richmond and Charles Plosser of Philadelphia have expressed concerns that QE2 could lead to inflation through excessive monetary expansion and that it might inflate a new stock market bubble. They may be right.

I have argued in this Forum that more QE can create jobs and prevent a second Great Depression. But it matters how the policy is implemented. The Fed should buy stocks not bonds. And rather than commit to a fixed programme of stock purchases, the Fed should use its market power to stabilize swings in the stock market and smooth out bubbles and crashes.

If he were still alive today, what would Milton Friedman think of his disciple, Ben Bernanke? This is a matter of some concern to the Fed chairman, who is reported as saying to colleagues on Saturday: “I grasp the mantle of Milton Friedman…I think we are doing everything (he) would have us do.” With libertarian economists tending to be among those most critical of QE2, Mr Bernanke is relying on Friedman’s halo effect to enhance the legitimacy of the Fed’s recent actions. Friedman’s friends say that his opinions were unpredictable, which is what made them interesting. But some some free market economists, like Allan Meltzer, claim that Friedman would have strongly disapproved of QE2. Are they right?

From Gavyn Davies’ blog:

Ben Bernanke’s speech in Boston on Friday seems to have disappointed those who were expecting him to announce concrete measures to restart quantitative easing, but we already knew from the last set of FOMC minutes that the groundwork for such an announcement had not been undertaken. That announcement will come after the committee’s next meeting on November 2nd and 3rd. Nevertheless, Mr Bernanke has nailed his colours to the mast, even more clearly than he has done in recent speeches. This is a Fed Chairman who is very dissatisfied with the depressed state of the US economy, and who is not afraid to say so.

By Michael Pomerleano

The US Fed’s policy-setting committee (FOMC) undertook large asset purchases last year, buying $1.7 trillion of mortgage-related and Treasury bonds. Last month, the Fed reaffirmed the easing bias and indicated that it could start buying vast quantities of government debt if unemployment did not improve.

Yet unemployment has not improved, according to data released last week. As a result, the Fed is likely to embark on more big purchases of assets. How will the FOMC will articulate its new programme of large scale asset purchases at its meeting next month?

The presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Chicago have called for the Fed to do more to boost the economy, including a new programme of US Treasury bond purchases and possibly an indication that the inflation target will rise beyond the informal 2 per cent target.

Update: Read Prof Farmer’s response to readers’ comments

By Roger E. A. Farmer

There is a widespread perception that quantitative easing is synonymous with increasing the money supply. But it is more than that. In 2006, the Bank of England began to pay interest on the reserves of commercial banks held at the Bank. QE, in conjunction with the payment of interest on reserves, allows the Bank to influence the short term interest rate and at the same time, to influence the prices of long term assets. This new flexibility is the key to understanding how to prevent inflation without creating another Great Depression.

Update: Read Prof Farmer’s response to readers’ comments

By Roger E. A Farmer

I argue in this piece that:

  • Quantitative easing should be expanded
  • Even if the Bank of England were to buy the entire UK national debt that this policy would not be inflationary
  • The global recovery is faltering and an expansionary policy is needed to encourage private investors to create jobs
  • Additional quantitative easing could save as much as £38.5bn a year in interest costs to the taxpayer

May 18, 2006 was an important day. It was the day when the Bank of England began to pay interest on reserves. In October 2008 the Fed followed suit. This monumental change in policy gave the Bank an important new tool in its arsenal. It allowed the Bank to influence the economy not just through expansion or contraction of the stock of money, but also through the composition of its balance sheet.

By Thomas I. Palley

The great German physicist Max Planck remarked that “science advances one funeral at a time.” The situation is worse in economics, which is subject to regress, as happened when the valuable but imperfect insights of Keynesianism were supplanted by the ideological blinkers of neo-liberalism.

The effects of this regress have again been on display in the confused discussions and policy responses to Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. The fact is that countries which borrow in their own currency and control their money supply will never default because they can always issue the money needed to repay their debts.

For such countries, central banks should respond to speculative debt crises with “bear squeeze” tactics that have them buy existing debt. In this fashion, countries can buy back debt below par value, in effect repaying it on the cheap. It is what the European Central Bank should have been doing on behalf of its member countries.

Economists' Forum

Debating economics

About this blog Blog guide
Read posts on economics from guest contributors to the FT and share your views. Martin Wolf, the FT's chief economics commentator, often joins the debate.


To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact martin.wolf@ft.com about the Economists' Forum.

See the full list of FT blogs.

Archive

« JanFebruary 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829