Apparently saying something overnice nigh the Fed in conclusion calendar week stepped over some vivid delineate somewhere.
Lois Woodhill, writing at Forbes.com, wrote i of the most unintentionally hilarious rebukes here.
The higher upward chart
Well, well. For half dozen years now, we've been debating the motility of the recession together with fiscal crisis. Was it "global imbalances," "savings gluts," Fannie together with Freddie together with the CRA, "deregulated" finance, "Wall Street greed," also big to neglect guarantees, predictable engineering scientific discipline to a greater extent than or less bad regulation, housing bubbles, together with on together with on. Was the recession going to give anyway, caused past times credit provide disruptions, caused past times a flying to lineament inwards a systemic run, a engineering daze or what... Thank y'all Mr. Woodhill, we've finally establish the smoking gun -- 25 bp of involvement on reserves!
No, this does non appear to live on a joke. It surely gets the correlation vs. causation gilded star for the week.
I'm withal inwards "say something nice'' mode, together with thence in that place are quite a few sensible things inwards Woodhill's column:
I intend our confusion stems from the fact that I stuffed an entire narrow deposit-backing / equity financed banking proposal into i sentence: "Banks belongings lots of reserves don’t teach under." Oh well, opeds are short.
And to live on sure, in that place are plenty of thoughtful reasons to disagree amongst my analysis. And in that place are plenty of other areas to stay critical nigh Fed policy. I stay dubious of "macroprudential" policy together with whether monetary policy tin create anything at all nigh long-term labor-force participation -- people who aren't working together with aren't fifty-fifty looking for work.
Lois Woodhill, writing at Forbes.com, wrote i of the most unintentionally hilarious rebukes here.
 |
| Source: Louis Woodhill at Forbes.com |
The higher upward chart
...shows what happened the in conclusion fourth dimension the Fed raised the IOR charge per unit of measurement [to 0.25%] (remember, it was null for 95 years).
The plunge inwards velocity overwhelmed the Fed’s frantic coin creation during the menses instantly afterwards it started paying IOR. NGDP tanked, taking RGDP together with work amongst it.
Look, something caused the economical collapse of 2008-2009. Given the evidence, IOR looks a lot similar a homo caught at a murder scene amongst a smoking gun inwards his hand.Interesting. Interest on reserves caused the recession!
Well, well. For half dozen years now, we've been debating the motility of the recession together with fiscal crisis. Was it "global imbalances," "savings gluts," Fannie together with Freddie together with the CRA, "deregulated" finance, "Wall Street greed," also big to neglect guarantees, predictable engineering scientific discipline to a greater extent than or less bad regulation, housing bubbles, together with on together with on. Was the recession going to give anyway, caused past times credit provide disruptions, caused past times a flying to lineament inwards a systemic run, a engineering daze or what... Thank y'all Mr. Woodhill, we've finally establish the smoking gun -- 25 bp of involvement on reserves!
No, this does non appear to live on a joke. It surely gets the correlation vs. causation gilded star for the week.
I'm withal inwards "say something nice'' mode, together with thence in that place are quite a few sensible things inwards Woodhill's column:
Given that the Fed stands create to serve equally the “lender of in conclusion resort,” it is capital, non reserves, that determines a bank’s mightiness to weather condition a fiscal crisis.JC: Yes, together with I intend I'm pretty song on the extreme cease of the narrow deposit-taking, 100% uppercase investment banking fringe. (I've plugged my papers plenty on the weblog already, together with thence won't create together with thence again.)
The Fed’s most of import job—and i that entirely it tin do—is to provide the USA economic scheme (and the world) amongst a stable dollar.JC: Indeed on the former, together with non together with thence sure on the "can do" business office fifty-fifty there.
I intend our confusion stems from the fact that I stuffed an entire narrow deposit-backing / equity financed banking proposal into i sentence: "Banks belongings lots of reserves don’t teach under." Oh well, opeds are short.
And to live on sure, in that place are plenty of thoughtful reasons to disagree amongst my analysis. And in that place are plenty of other areas to stay critical nigh Fed policy. I stay dubious of "macroprudential" policy together with whether monetary policy tin create anything at all nigh long-term labor-force participation -- people who aren't working together with aren't fifty-fifty looking for work.
