Economics

الوعد الزائف لأموال المروحية

May 2, 2016 James McCormack

لندن - من بين القضايا الاقتصادية العالمية الرئيسية اليوم إشكالية مدى تأثير السياسة النقدية. في منطقتي اليورو واليابان، على الرغم من تنفيذ سياسة التخفيف الكمي (QE) ومعدلات الفائدة السلبية على نطاق واسع، ارتفع كل من اليورو والين أمام الدولار الأمريكي منذ بداية هذا العام.

وتتجلى مشكلة هذا الجدل في تركيزه على فعالية السياسات فقط، دون النظر إلى ضرورة توخي الحذر. كما أن مصداقية واستقلال السلطات النقدية ضرورية لفعالية سياساتها. ودعت بعض المقترحات البنوك المركزية للابتعاد عن المناطق غير المألوفة، وتوسيع وتمديد زيغها عن اٍدارة الميزانيات العمومية. لكن هذا قد يضر بالسمعة التي سيكون من الصعب تداركها، كما سيكون له عواقب مالية واقتصادية وخيمة.

اٍن التأثير المباشر للسياسة النقدية غير التقليدية واضح ومتوقع إلى حد كبير (باستثناء الارتفاع الأخير لليورو والين). فالسيولة في النظام المصرفي كافية وتكاليف الاقتراض منخفضة، لكنها انعكست سلبا على بعض الحكومات.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Paul Daley Aug 10, 2018

Laughable. The author is describing QE programs, which monetize government debt while reducing servicing costs. And he's right; QE is bad policy, for reasons that he cites here. It's far more effective in boosting wealth than in boosting incomes or real economic activity. That is why proposals have been floated for new central bank instruments that would directly supplement income and boost demand without involving the central bank (or the government) in wasteful asset price support programs. Those who deal in assets dislike such proposals, but that's to be expected. There never was a businessman who didn't cling to price supports.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Piero Thor Jun 6, 2016

increasing technological unemployment = overcapacity and delocalization of western industry in the EM are managed with grat publi&private debt&risk of default&interest burden.. the force of this megatrend will force Helicopter to fly.. it doesn't depend by my opinion or by your opinion or by the opinion of some central bankers against the other.. this will be the necessary force of fact..
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
raul ramos May 23, 2016

23 may 2016 manila, ph

economy in an intelligent view,

“limit of its effectiveness”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/is-helicopter-money-really-the-key-to-tackling-anaemic-growth?utm_content=buffer69092&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

yes!!! quantitative is now on its dying
stage. this is precisely true, absolutely
correct. but why? simple, q.e. is not a
solutions, but rather part of a very big,
gigantic problem, which is “debt”.
now, is helicopter money the answer
to the problem?
first of all since year 2008 all economists
around the globe already use a gambling
idea (meaning experiment, by chance).
but why? they believe putting more
“debt” to the market, to the economy
will soon realize growth, recovery.
today all of them are wrong. but why?
because they did not understand how
economy really works in life. u.s.a. and
all countries in this world is now reaping,
harvesting “debt” instead of growth and
the growth they are waiting for continues
to slide down.
can we now say we are very close, very
near to the second great depressions that
i am writing since year 2008? thanks’

13 april 2016 manila, ph

economy in an intelligent view,

"money supply"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-says-so-called-helicopter-money-could-work-2016-04-11?siteid=yhoof2

first of all this is senseless.
now, if you don't have any idea on
how economy really works in life.
then i would suggest this is the
only way for a "hopeless solutions",
(i'm very very sorry this is contrary
to a wise, bright, clever, intelligent,
brilliant solutions), thanks'

16 may 2015 manila, ph

economy in an intelligent view,

“to fix the economy . . . . . . . “
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-22/friedman-s-money-dropping-helicopter-gains-speed?cmpid=yhoo.headline
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/22/why-helicopter-money-doesnt-mean-investing-in-infrastructure/#2ff9897e2b9a
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/9/6122517/helicopter-drop-money-print-fed-blyth-lonergan
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-13/ignored-for-years-a-radical-economic-theory-is-gaining-converts

“helicopter drops” or a versions of it
was also both endorsed by sir john
maynard keynes and sir milton
friedman. if this is true, i have only
one comment. kindly pardon me,
their brains is not working or there
is no brain at all. meaning idi . . . ,
dum . , fool . . . , insa . . , plain stu .
. . or completely crac . . . wrong way
to fix the economy. thanks’
with kind respect they do not know
how economy works in life. thanks’

facebook: thegreatdepression.part2@yahoo.com

kindly please take good care and God bless . . . . . . . raul
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emilio Zuniga May 11, 2016

Central Bankers have done their best to cop with recession and have certainly accomplish to keep some stability. But that as most comments do IS a different matter of helicopter money. To claim that monetized fiscal policy doesn't guaranteed growth is a poor argument. When the economy has ample idle capacity and unemployment the risk of failing to expand is quite low an less you implement countercyclical measures, like in Japan.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wim Roffel May 8, 2016

I have found the idea of helicopter money always ridiculous. If you want the government print money their should be a solid discussion about the best way to spend it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Olsen May 6, 2016

Fiscal easing is not constrained by debt levels, it is constrained by political elites unwillingness to use fiscal policy as a tool to increase aggregate demand.

Those same elites have no problem increasing govt debt in order to give high income earners tax cuts. It is only when the regular people want money spent on things like fixing infrastructure, R & D, renewable energy and the like that finding the necessary finance becomes problematic.

When Central Bankers are saying why not let the Central Banks fund infrastructure projects that the curtain is ripped away. It becomes apparent that govts are not being allowed to do what they should be doing. As long as a sovereign govt issues it's own currency it can always extend finance to enable productive projects to proceed. The limits to growth are not financial, it is the real resources available that establish the limits to growth.

Currently unused resources lie all around us in the form of unemployed labour, large company balance sheets and excess savings.

It is not the Central Banks that are losing credibility here, it is the laissez-faire advocates that are freaked out by the possibility that someone might actually take action that is effective and show their neo-liberal ideology up for the ineffective BS it is.

Govts have the power to use fiscal policy, if they won't use it then give some of it to the central banks.

It's quite ironic really. The whole point of the Central Bank acts in the 1980's was to take away the power of politicians to change interest rates and put it in the hands of 'responsible' central bank governors. Now that those guys are taking their mandate to maintain inflation above the Zero bound seriously, the elites are getting worried.
- Piero Thor Jun 6, 2016
  
  yes debt is a false problem with monetary sovreign and outgap.. but the elite have the power to trasform metaphisics in a bad reality.. and 99,5% of normal people cannot understand their trick..
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen May 3, 2016

"Helicopter money would transfer risk from governments’ balance sheets to those of central banks ." This makes no sense. How would printing more money and handing it out to people who will spend it create a risk for central banks? Do you think some unspecified bogeyman is going to come and get them if they do this? What, exactly, is supposed to happen?

We live in a world where there is just not enough money to generate the demand to employ everyone who wants to work. The result is great misery for some people. There are many ways to solve this problem, but having central banks print money and hand it out to every taxpayer is not a bad one at all.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst May 2, 2016

'Structural reforms to support growth typically have long gestation periods, and the economic dislocations that accompany them reduce their political appeal'

So in the good times there is no incentive, and in the bad times there is no incentive. Then because structural reforms have not been put in place we have indirect actions proposed that cannot effectively address the cause of the need for structural reform. Theres a hole in my bucket dear Liza
- Steve Hurst May 2, 2016
  
  @Baxter
  
  So we now have zombi-nomics where one degeneration consumes another generation.
  
  Baxter, in a post below you say - 'Until we correctly diagnose the cause of the weak recovery, it is very difficult to come up with solutions.'
  
  We know the causes, that is not the issue. The problem is the lack of political will to rectify
  
  When there is no action seen then the political drift to somebody who says they will take action will continue, hence the move to the right. This is the malaise of the 30's and entirely avoidable
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Baxter Jephs May 2, 2016
  
  The idea that economic hardship is an incentive for structural reforms is a delusion. The much lauded German case of the Shroder reforms of 2005 were made during an economic boom when Germany was in breach of the Stability and Growth Pact limit of 3% public deficit. It is perplexing why we now think countries plunged in depression will therefore have incentive to make structural changes to their labor laws. It just makes governments look like they don't take the depression seriously. Cosmetic changes to labor laws are a derisory response to a continental depression, which is what most europeans are going through at the moment.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley May 2, 2016

Vague fears that really come down to a warning that helicopter money is new and should be handled cautiously because there will be knock-on effects as participants in asset markets realize that they can no longer rely on reaping the gains from central bank seigniorage. That's true, but it is less an argument for inaction than an indication of how large the problem has become. Central banks have to change their mode of operations so as to rely more on injections directly into the income stream and far less on asset market purchases.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Baxter Jephs May 2, 2016

Until we correctly diagnose the cause of the weak recovery, it is very difficult to come up with solutions.

The problem we have is that in a post-crisis phase, the private sector tries to deleverage back down to low debt levels. Only once this process of deleveraging has come to an end will it be possible to get sustained economic growth, because such growth must be largely fueled by credit to the private sector, for which there is no demand when the private sector is already way over-leveraged.

The problem is that policymakers have got an obsession with public debt, which has increased post-crisis largely automatically as a result of private sector deleveraging. So when governments start belt tightening as the private sector tries to deleverage, you get deflation and stagnation: exactly what we're seeing now.

So whether it's money injected into private bank accounts or massive increases in government spending, we should argue about solutions from a common diagnosis, which is that one way or another the private sector has to deleverage.

Japan has been having this debate for 25 years. Look at their private-debt to GDP data, it rises up to 1990 and then stagnates and drifts up and down slightly for a quarter century. Figure out how to reduce private debt quickly and we'll be on our way to recovery.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/XdYLKIPar

الوعد الزائف لأموال المروحية

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

الوعد الزائف لأموال المروحية

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification