4 ms·
M1 = cash/cash equivalents M2 = M1 + short term deposits M3 = M2 + long term deposits M1 + M2 directly influence inflation - this is the money in circulati
by roymurdock 8y ago
M1 = cash/cash equivalents
M2 = M1 + short term deposits
M3 = M2 + long term deposits
M1 + M2 directly influence inflation - this is the money in circulation, greasing the wheels of the economy.
QE increased the monetary base by creating creating bank reserves (M3 long term deposits), re-capitalizing banks and companies after the financial crisis triggered collection chains many , giving them a clean sheet to borrow/loan again and make good on prior obligations (the ones that hadn't exploded).
In order for QE to affect inflation, banks would have to loan out these reserves, converting M3 money into M1/M2 - currency in circulation.
Banks only loaned out a fraction of the $4T they were given by the Fed.
The whole story is a global lack of demand in developed countries for loans/capital to help businesses invest.
Many companies aren't buying new machines (what would they buy?), and they aren't hiring new skilled workers (what skills do they need with no new machines?) - large contributing factor to wage stagnation.
Instead they are cutting costs - outsourcing departments, renting server time, looking to ML/AI to reduce reliance on costly humans with stagnating skill sets.
Interest rates are the cost of borrowing money. Interest rates are low because the demand for money and investment capital is low. There's a large supply of money and a decreasing amount of safe, productive places to invest it.
- Symmetry 8y agoMy understanding is that one big reason that a lot of QE money didn't get loaned out was that the Fed suddenly started paying the banks on the excess reserves they were holding.
- roymurdock 8y agoContributing factor but not the root cause. Banks get paid 0.25% on excess reserves. If they can find better returns elsewhere than 0.25%, they'll try to convert those reserves into loans. 0.25% is better than nothing but still pretty awful ROI wise. The Fed started paying interest on reserves "to establish a lower bound of the federal funds rate (FFR)" - it's another way to limit downside and ensure what rate banks are lending reserves to each other (instead of having that rate be 0% because none of the banks actually want/need more reserves). The FFR is useless to the Fed as a tool when it reaches 0 "zero lower bound" and there is no demand for the inter-bank exchange of reserves. https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2013/march/federal-reserve-interest-balances-reserves/ https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/201...
- Symmetry 8y agoYeah, this was much more of an issue when excess reserves were getting 1% at the height of the crisis.