Quantitative easing and common sense

The developed nations have lately got away with throwing vast amounts of Quantitative Easing money into the system only because the results have not yet come home to roost;  but once more other people are paying the price…

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Quantitative easing and common sense” was written by Letters, for The Guardian on Wednesday 7th October 2015 18.34 UTC

Zoe Williams (It’s fine to print money, so long as it’s not for the people, 5 October) raises an important question about quantitative easing (QE). In the wake of the global financial crisis, it was adopted by the Bank of England. Capital markets had ceased to function. The banking system was in deep crisis. In the US and Britain, governments were driven to inject equity into the collapsing banking system. These huge outlays had to be funded by the issuance of public debt. The Bank made clear to the prime brokers (mainly the major commercial banks) that they would be offered access to zero-cost funds in order to bid in Treasury auctions. These funds were provided electronically by the Bank into the accounts of those banks held with it.

These no-cost credits enabled the prime brokers to purchase the government debt, and by agreement swap back the debt to the Bank at a modest profit. Once this happened, the electronic advances made by the Bank were cancelled. The net effect was threefold. First, the government’s solvency was preserved. Second, the prime brokers were able to secure profit from guaranteed transactions to replace more traditional forms of lending. Third – the odd bit – the Bank ultimately ended up holding the debt of the British government, not the private sector of the economy.

This reveals the “efficient secret” of central banking. The Bank is effectively financing the state through the indirect purchase of government debt. Zoe Williams asks the question: why can’t this “mechanism” be used to finance other major projects? The answer is that it could. QE involves little or no monetary expansion. It has no inflationary consequences. But these matters are not widely understood. Time for a reasoned debate on the merits of its wider use in these most unusual times.
Richard Tudway
Centre for International Economics

• Zoe Williams says “all money is created from nowhere”. She is talking through her hat. The basis of money, which is gold or, in some cases, other commodities (mainly metals) is as founded in the real world as any other product. To find, mine, refine and distribute gold requires vast amounts of human labour, which is why it is valuable – all value coming from the labour embedded in something.

Paper money and credit is simply a claim on real money, a paper or electronic token which saves carrying around bags of gold and it runs back to real money eventually. Issuing more tokens than there is gold is a large part of credit and banking, relying on everyone not turning up at the same time to claim it. It has a place and helps the world economy spin round, but detach it too far from real value (print too much) and it starts to create problems – like raging inflation, bank defaults etc.

When Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard, the US was effectively bankrupt, surviving only by devaluing its debts and reneging on the agreed price for its imports. It has continued doing so ever since. Someone pays the price, and that is the developing world mainly. And eventually it collapses anyway, like it did in 2008.

The capitalist world has lately got away with throwing vast amounts of QE into the system only because the results have not yet come home to roost; but once more other people are paying, such as the Greek workers, the Middle East and, above all, China soaking up the paper money.

It cannot go on much longer. Even the Guardian routinely points out the imminence of further crisis. So, no, more of the same, however it is directed, solves nothing.
Don Hoskins
Economic and Philosophic Science Review

• How refreshing to read some common sense on macroeconomic policy. As long ago as 1948, Dudley Dillard (The Economics of John Maynard Keynes) was saying similar things: “Is there any necessity for subsidising the commercial banks by paying them huge amounts of interest to create the new money which is required for economic expansion? Is not the creation of new money properly a government function?” He clearly advocates “people’s QE”, though it is not called that. To the extent that there are underemployed resources and supply is responsive, it should not be inflationary.
John Levi
(Retired economics lecturer), Abingdon, Oxfordshire

• Zoe Williams’ article about printing money which does not grow on trees reminds me of an incident that took place in my university days. On a family visit to Cambridge, I had seen some rather expensive books which would help my studies. Over a cup of tea, I asked my father (a fruit grower, who specialised in apples) if he would kindly buy them for me. He replied that he had no money. “You must have,” I said. “You have just sold a whole cold store of apples.” He indignantly exclaimed: “Apples don’t grow on trees, you know.” I got my books.
Gillian Caddick
Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.


USA 
  • trade online

Join the discussion