SELECTED BLOGS: BRAD DELONG // AN UNSATISFACTORY PLATONIC DIALOGUE ON THE IMPACTS OF QUANTITATIVE EASING...

Tweet

COURTESY OF BRAD DELONG
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO BRAD DE LONG
BOOKOFLANNES DOES NOT HOLD ANY RIGHT ON THIS ARTICLE

AN UNSATISFACTORY PLATONIC DIALOGUE ON THE IMPACTS OF QUANTITATIVE EASING...

Thrasymakhos: So Jan Hatzius and company at Goldman Sachs think that the Federal Reserve should take the Federal Reserve's balance sheet up from $3T to $5T, and announce that it will take the balance sheet higher if necessary unless and until nominal GDP growth rises to 7% per year--and maintain that higher nominal GDP growth rate until total nominal spending gets back to its pre-2007 trend.

Adeimantos: But why should the nominal GDP growth rate rise? The Federal Reserve buys $2T of bonds and creates $2T of cash, but--as Robert Barro says--this is simply swapping one zero-yield government asset for another, and will have no effect on anything.

Glaukon: But Jan wants the Federal Reserve to buy not short-term debt but long-term debt--agency debt and long-term Treasuries and related securities with an average interest rate not of 0% but of 3%/year.

Kephalos: It seems to me that that is relatively little. Say half of that interest rate is an expectational effect--a belief that short-term interest rates will rise in the future and thus that long-term bonds should incorporate that expected rise in their interest rates. That leaves 1.5%/year as compensation for bearing risk. That means that $2T of quantitative easing means that the Federal Reserve takes onto its books and bears risk that the private market currently values as worth $30B a year to bear. That does not seem to me to be very much. Total GDP originating in Finance and Insurance is, after all, $1.2T. $30 B is only 2.5% of that "GDP originating" total...

Thrasymakhos: Is that small? The $1.2T of GDP originating in Finance and Insurance is a slippery beast. Real insurance, for one, should not be in there--that's $400B a year that insures indiviuals against fire and flood and accident and has nothing to do with providing the risk capital to finance economic activity. And of the remaining $800B, my guess is that 1/4 is the casino: Wall Street as Las Vegas charging people for buying and selling as they watch their stocks go up and down. 1/2 is the scarcity of capital: the fact that access to finance so that you can buy and build capital is valuable whether it is really risky or not. That leaves only $200B a year that is compensation for bearing risks. $30B is 15% of that.

Glaukon: So if $200B a year of risk-bearing capacity drives $1.2T a year of investment spending, then adding $30B/year to that risk-bearing capacity has the potential to drive an extra $180B a year of investment?

Adeimantos: Add a multiplier of 2 to that and you have an extra $360B a year of GDP--enough to push the unemployment rate down by maybe 1.5 percentage points. That gets us down from 9.1% to 7.6%.

Kephalos I don't think that this argument is well-grounded in either theory or the data. I know that I have never seen anybody seriously think about the relationship between economy-wide risk tolerance and aggregate investment spending, and that is what we would need to make these kinds of arguments...