U jednom od prethodnih postova sam pokazao kako je ECB bio fokusiran na prekonoćno tržište (uz intervencije u Covered Bond tržišta za financiranje banaka- tzv CBPP, kao i SMP – Securities Market Programe čiji je cilj bio utjecanje na dugoročniji dio krivulje prinosa za PIIGS zemlje) dok je sve ostalo tonulo.
Prvo je fokus bio na banke zbog krize koja se dogodila uslijed pada NGDP-a. ECB je pružila likvidnost bankama (operacije refinanciranja, CBPP) dok su derutne bilance spašavali porezni obveznici. Time je smiren problem u kraćem kutu krivulje prinosa.
If the problem has not been financial market dysfunction but rather has been misalignment between the real funds rate and the natural rate, then intervention in credit markets will only increase intermediation in the subsidized markets. Those subsidies will not reduce aggregate risk to the point that the overall cost of funds falls enough to stimulate investment by businesses and consumers. Government intervention in credit markets is, then, not a reliable tool for the management of aggregate demand because such interventions do little to reduce the public’s uncertainty and pessimism about the future that have depressed the natural rate.
What do you think, why wasn’t Draghi’s reversal of rate hike and LTRO-s enough to bring back the NGDP to the previous (post-crisis) path? Why didn’t Draghis appointment (the fact that Trichet was leaving) have a positive effect? My guess… its German stance on the matter. In Japan they knew Abe was going to shake things up so Shirakawas earlier resigning did good to the markets. But im still puzzled, ECB doesnt actually need German backing, it wouldn’t be the first time Weidmann stood alone in the council. ECB isnt independent at all.
There is no need to look for wacky UK-style proposals* to stimulate bank lending–that’s what got us into this mess in the first place. They need to do monetary stimulus, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BANK LENDING.