While carbon pricing and industrial policies may have enabled policymakers in the United States and Europe to avoid difficult political choices, we cannot rely on these tools to achieve crucial climate goals. Climate policies must move away from focusing on green taxes and subsidies and enter the age of politics.
explains why achieving climate goals requires a broader combination of sector-specific policy instruments.
The long-standing economic consensus that interest rates would remain low indefinitely, making debt cost-free, is no longer tenable. Even if inflation declines, soaring debt levels, deglobalization, and populist pressures will keep rates higher for the next decade than they were in the decade following the 2008 financial crisis.
thinks that policymakers and economists must reassess their beliefs in light of current market realities.
发自芝加哥—最近美国的几起银行倒闭事件似乎都有一个明显的成因。硅谷银行和签名银行90%的存款是没上保险的,而没有保险的存款显然极易遭到挤兑。此外这两家银行都大量投资于价值会随利率上升而下降的长期债券。当硅谷银行出售其中一些债券以筹集资金时,其债券组合中的未兑现损失就开始暴露。随后一次失败的股票发行引发了存款挤兑,为其命运画上了句号。
但这种简单解释所蕴含的四个因素表明问题可能更为系统性。首先,每当美联储实行量化宽松政策时,未受保险的银行存款通常会大量增加。因为它涉及到从市场上购买证券以换取中央银行自己的流动性储备(一种形式的现金),量化宽松不仅增大了央行资产负债表的规模,还推动了更大范围的银行体系去扩大其资产负债表及未投保活期存款规模。
我们(与其他合著者)曾在一篇于2022年8月美联储杰克逊霍尔年度会议上发表的论文中呼吁注意这一未被重视的事实。由于美联储在新冠疫情期间恢复了量化宽松,无保险的银行存款从2019年底的约5.5万亿美元上升到了2022年第一季度的8万亿美元以上。在硅谷银行,存款流入量从2019年第三季度的不到50亿美元增加到量化宽松期间平均每季度140亿美元。但这些资金流在美联储结束量化宽松,调高利率并迅速转向量化紧缩时发生了逆转。硅谷银行开始发现未受保险的存款外流增加(其中一些与科技行业的低迷相吻合,因为一些感受到业务压力的客户开始提取现金储备)。
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Subscribe
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
Already have an account? Log in