Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFive On The Floor
Were coming up on the fifth anniversary of an important moment: the point at which US interest rates hit the zero lower bound, and we entered a liquidity trap. Five years! Yet many people, even many economists, are still in denial over what that means.
First of all, about that date: Officially, the Fed established a target rate between 0 and 0.25 percent on December 15, 2008, but the effective Fed funds rate (the rate at which banks lend reserves to each other) plunged to near-zero in late October:
As some of us tried to argue right from the beginning, hitting the zero lower bound changes everything. Its not just that the rules change for monetary policy, although they do: some people have been warning for the whole five-year period that the surge in the monetary base will cause runaway inflation, and it keeps not happening. Its also true that we enter the territory of paradoxes; the paradox of flexibility, but also, and more crucially, the paradox of thrift, in which attempts by some players in the economy to save more end up leading to less, not more, investment.
For those who dont know or dont get the paradox of thrift, its actually very simple: if people (or the government) cut their spending, and the Fed cant offset this move by cutting interest rates, the economy will contract and the economys contraction will reduce the incentive to invest, so that investment actually falls.
I know that many economists just refuse to accept this proposition, which seems absurd to them. But what, exactly, is their alternative? If you believe that a cut in spending under current conditions it doesnt matter whether its public or private spending leads to more rather than less investment, what is the mechanism? How does my spending cut give businesses a reason to spend more rather than less (other than via the confidence fairy)? Remember, interest rates cant fall the zero lower bound isnt a theory, its a fact, and its a fact that weve been facing for five years now.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/five-on-the-floor/
First of all, about that date: Officially, the Fed established a target rate between 0 and 0.25 percent on December 15, 2008, but the effective Fed funds rate (the rate at which banks lend reserves to each other) plunged to near-zero in late October:
As some of us tried to argue right from the beginning, hitting the zero lower bound changes everything. Its not just that the rules change for monetary policy, although they do: some people have been warning for the whole five-year period that the surge in the monetary base will cause runaway inflation, and it keeps not happening. Its also true that we enter the territory of paradoxes; the paradox of flexibility, but also, and more crucially, the paradox of thrift, in which attempts by some players in the economy to save more end up leading to less, not more, investment.
For those who dont know or dont get the paradox of thrift, its actually very simple: if people (or the government) cut their spending, and the Fed cant offset this move by cutting interest rates, the economy will contract and the economys contraction will reduce the incentive to invest, so that investment actually falls.
I know that many economists just refuse to accept this proposition, which seems absurd to them. But what, exactly, is their alternative? If you believe that a cut in spending under current conditions it doesnt matter whether its public or private spending leads to more rather than less investment, what is the mechanism? How does my spending cut give businesses a reason to spend more rather than less (other than via the confidence fairy)? Remember, interest rates cant fall the zero lower bound isnt a theory, its a fact, and its a fact that weve been facing for five years now.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/five-on-the-floor/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 705 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Five On The Floor (Original Post)
phantom power
Oct 2013
OP
yep. the key is all of the pieces are set for interest rates to rise and the super wealthy to rake
Pretzel_Warrior
Oct 2013
#2
phantom power
(25,966 posts)1. kick for our man P to the K
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)2. yep. the key is all of the pieces are set for interest rates to rise and the super wealthy to rake
in the $$$ with zero risk and a captive audience. They sense the U.S. is going to go into a long-term steady state economy which will then contract. So they are focusing on income that is safe and desirable. No-growth/low-growth equities like utilities that pay dividends and money markets or other vehicles that can earn higher income per year once rates rise.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)3. All I had was 3 on the tree...
4 on the floor and 5 is overdrive.