To me the biggest mystery about the 2008 crisis is why so much QE has resulted in so little inflation. The only convincing arguments I have heard so far is that: 1. at the same time banks were forced to significantly deleverage, so while the fed was pouring money into the systems, banks were effectively pouring money out of the system. 2. inflation happened but it was all concentrated into financial assets, real esta…
QE pumped up balance sheets, cash was not released into the wild.
What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
221–230 of 247 posts
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just wane explain what Keynes was thinking, even while I don't agree. For Keynes it was all about overall spending, Aggregate Demand. If overall Aggregate Demand goes down then you have recession. Then in some cases monetary policy can not raise AD anymore because of the 'liquidity trap' (interest rate at zero). In that case the only way to get out of the AD whole is for government to spend more money that they hav…
Good summary of the argument. I'll just note that this: > The reason why Keynes was wrong is that the 'liquidity trap' is not a real thing. Second, even if it were real, the government fiscal policy would be unable by itself to raise AD and keep it raised. ... is something many people would disagree with, especially as you provided no data to back it up. It's of course topic for longer discussion, I am just pointing…
Also, there are tons of countries who already have successfully eased monetary policy at the ZLB. Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and so on.
It was also in all monetary textbook before the crisis and was considered standard knowledge by many monetary economist. Even people like Krugman would agree that with setting a higher inflation target the Fed could have been more aggressive.
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguing that Australia's 30 year history of no recession is build on 'financial shenanigans and housing' are the arguments of people who defend a theory that is not workable. Even were that so, why can Australia managed this 'shenanigans' but others can not. I agree with the Article, the Australian central bank did its job and they didn't have a crisis, the Fed was a disaster and the US suffered the consequences. The…
I don't think it is correct to say Australia didn't have a crisis. I graduated in 2008 there were no jobs at all until about 2012 companies on the East Coast just stopped hiring. I know I lived through it. About 2/3's of my graduating class (Engineering) left the East coast to move West for work in the mining sector. Fly in Fly out was about all there was going it was tough times and hard lifestyle. Basically resourc…
The problem with the 'its all resources' is that countries that do have natural resources got hit by the depression as well.
Also, if the NGDP of Australia had dropped, there is absolutely no way Australia could have avoid a recession.
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it wouldn't. Everybody could be a passive investor and the economy and your portfolio would just continue to exist.
Passive funds are priced based on the activity of active investors trading underlying securities.
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of an amusing story I read somewhere a while back: >It is the month of August; a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. >Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upst…
Does it not seem more likely that the hotel proprietor would find a dollar bill in the couch, then pay part of his debt the butcher, who pays part of his debt to the farmer, who pays part of his debt to the store owner, who pays part of his debt to the prostitute, who pays part of her debt to the proprietor, who pays another part of his debt to the butcher.... For the town to maintain that debt for an appreciable amo…
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
probably went to credit cards, some house price stabilization and the stock market.
If you mean the money the Fed printed as part of QE, no, it went into the banks' reserve balances at the Fed, where it has been ever since.
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#227My own theory after digging sometime into Economics is that no one seems to have a clear idea what on earth we are actually doing. We all seems to have our own theory, and they all seems to answer half of the question. And in practice none of them currently models the world we have now. And it will take a long time before any of those theory are proved to be correct this time around. May be we can finally say Keynesi…
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory is a bit oversimplified, but not incorrect given that the previous poster isn't alone in seeing the problem in the US, and the experiences of other countries. Why Australia wasn't involved is a different question. ( http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Chapter... ) " ...and they didn't have recession. " Yet. How much of Australia's economic growth is made up of financial shenanigans and the…
Arguing that Australia's 30 year history of no recession is build on 'financial shenanigans and housing' are the arguments of people who defend a theory that is not workable. Even were that so, why can Australia managed this 'shenanigans' but others can not. I agree with the Article, the Australian central bank did its job and they didn't have a crisis, the Fed was a disaster and the US suffered the consequences. The…
If, on the other hand, Australia's rising housing prices are supported by increasingly sketchy loan practices, the Australian central bank will have another opportunity to practice its skills.
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#229To me the biggest mystery about the 2008 crisis is why so much QE has resulted in so little inflation. The only convincing arguments I have heard so far is that: 1. at the same time banks were forced to significantly deleverage, so while the fed was pouring money into the systems, banks were effectively pouring money out of the system. 2. inflation happened but it was all concentrated into financial assets, real esta…
The economy was stuck in a rut and needed some kind of kick in the butt. Congress was unwilling to fund another ARRA-like stimulus (the 1st too small), partly because the federal debt was high. Low interest rates were not doing the stimulus job they used to because it appeared the rich decided waiting out the recession and sitting on cash was a better strategy than suddenly investing in business. Near-zero inflation made sitting on cash not feel so bad. Or, invest in Asia: capital-intensive investments no longer paid off in the USA, as manufacturing was shifting to Asia.
The better solution would be to not run up debt so that the Federal Gov't can issue a big stimulus during slumps: classic Keynes, which is basically Grandmother's advice: save up during good times for rainy days.
But there's insufficient incentive for politicians to avoid debt; they are rewarded for short-term improvements in the economy, not long term. We need something akin to a Balanced Budget Amendment that allows Keynesian stimuluses. The law would probably have to kick in gradually so that politicians wouldn't fear a short-term dampening of the economy that could harm their re-election. (Pension problems have a similar short-vs-long-term feedback glitch.)
Re: What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Take a simple example, tomorrow there is war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and there is no more oil coming from the middle east. That would be a supply shock. " Would it be? One would expect, given that oil prices and the middle east are some of the most watched economic sectors, that there would be a very visible run up to such a war, the effects would be estimated and accounted for, and there would be no economic…
Tons of war happen without run up. Even if the run-up happened threw-out a period of months, it would still be shock. A shock is change relative to some trend, not necessarily a fixed thing that happens in the news. > As late as 2006 and 2007, we have economists on record as saying "everything's dandy". This was not due to a lack of data; they had most of the information then that we're arguing about now. Instead, it…