4 ms·
This will work out fine until it doesn't. At that point, the US will face many "bad or worse" kinds of choices. It will be like the choice we face today: "close
by aazaa 7y ago
This will work out fine until it doesn't. At that point, the US will face many "bad or worse" kinds of choices. It will be like the choice we face today: "close the economy or the morgues start overflowing everywhere." Except it will be every day, more or less forever. Inject still more money into the economy or the entire financial system collapses.
Whenever this balance sheet chart shows up, MMT boosters descend to explain why the Fed's balance sheet doesn't matter. It's interest we owe ourselves. Nobody in the real economy looks at that balance sheet when making actual financial decisions, they claim.
I think that misses the point. The point is that since the last financial crisis, the balance sheet has on net expanded. By a lot. When the current crisis hit, the balance sheet shot up from an already elevated level.
To put it another way, consider the size of the balance sheet relative to GDP (~$24 trillion):
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
At the current level, the balance sheet is about 25% of GDP. There's every reason to believe the Fed is far from done. It's bailouts as far as the eye can see at the moment. And those bailouts will be monetized by the Fed. We can't possibly pay for them at the current value of the dollar. Ever.
To the MMT boosters, what happens when the balance sheet approaches 1x GDP? 2x? 5x?
Nobody knows because this experiment has never been tried before. The reserve currency printer is also a net debtor. It runs very high, structural deficits with no end in sight. The currency is completely decoupled from gold, and as recent history shows, possibly industrially-critical commodities like oil.
I'd be very curious to hear from the MMT proponents on what signals they's look for that the Fed's balance sheet actually does matter in the real economy. Things that can only be explained by problems stemming from the size of that balance sheet. Problems whose only cure is a massive reduction in that balance sheet.
Of course, the balance sheet isn't going anywhere. Nor are deficits. When faced with such situations in the past, the answer has been devaluation.
The US did that back in the 70s when it closed the gold window. It will happen again. What the MMT proponents I've seen seem to ignore is what form that devaluation will take given the highly unusual circumstances around which it will be occurring.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThe Bank of Japan has well above 100% worth of GDP on their books. Considering their structural demographics and adversity to immigration, do you think they'll ever unwind that? That's every developed country's future. Any meaningful reduction in the Fed's balance sheet is going to be untenable. The Fed will end up picking winners and losers through their actions as a "Deus ex machina" market participant, and due to their lack of any meaningful oversight, I hope they act wisely.
- RobertoG 7y agoI would like to clarify that the MMT proponents that I follow are not favorable to the QE type of interventions that we have seen in the last years. They only pointed(1), correctly, that QE was not going to be inflationary AND that monetary policy is not the proper tool for this kind of problem. Fiscal policy is the proper tool. You will not find MMT economist defending QE or the buying of financial assets, other that public debt bonds, if it's legally required to finance fiscal policies. If fact, many are very critical(2) of this kind of programs. (1) - http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=28422 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=28422 (2) - http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=4763 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=4763
- thomashobohm 7y agoAbsolutely BEGGING you to figure out the difference between the Fed and the Treasury.
- JSavageOne 7y agoMMT doesn't argue that fiscal deficits don't matter, it states that the only constraint is inflation, which is more related to the real economy (eg. supply/demand, trade / current account deficits). MMT doesn't necessarily condone the Fed's recent round of unlimited QE. Most MMT advocates if anything would probably prefer that money going directly to the people (ie. helicopter money) or to fund ambitious federal programs (eg. job guarantee, UBI, investment) than bailing out mortgage bond investors.