Gotovo dvije trećine svjetskih središnjih banaka ne koristi društvene medije. One koje koriste su požalile u nekoliko prilika.
Istraživanje Central Banking Publications, Londonskog nakladnika, pokazuje da 60 od 181 monetarne vlasti koriste ili Twitter ili Facebook račun.
Bank of France je najprofiliraniji account, s 6.000 poruka od pridruživanja. To je više od Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis i od središnje banke Ekvadora.
Kad je u pitanju broj sljedbenika, banka Meksika ima najviše – više od 107 tisuća, što je gotovo dvostruko više od Federalnih Rezervi s 60.000. Fed ima najveći followers-to-tweet omjer gomilajući 92 sljedbenika za svaku poruku od 140-znakova.
U izvješću su također istaknute opasnosti od korištenja društvenih medija. Guverner Bank of France Christian Noyer se zatekao upleten u raspravu na Twitteru u 2011. kada je njegova središnja banka navela njegovu primjedbu da je Velika Britanija imala veći proračunski deficit i dug nego SAD. Ranije ove godine, središnja banka Nigerije je tražila prisilno zatvaranje više od 100 Twitter računa koji su tvrdili da su računi guvernera, Lamidoa Sanusia.
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.
OK, istina je da ne baš sama opća razina cijena, ali sam indeks može porasti i iz razloga državne odluke
ali ja tu odmah vidim nekoliko problema, konkretno, najlakše je ustvrdit nešto tipa, da, ali par godina prije nisu podizane cijene kada su trebale bit već je državna firma snosila dio troška inflacije i sada su cijene na onoj razini na kojoj bi ionako trebale bit
činjenica je da opća razina cijena divlja, i iako tržište novca u hrvatskoj nije nešto razvijeno, ipak bar u velikoj mjeri prikazuje rezultate monetarne politike i koliko ima “viška”/”manjka na tržištu”
tu sam još davno htio pisat o tom HNB-ovom cilju, jer oni imaju zakonsku obvezu održavat stabilnost cijena, a inflacija od 4% nije stabilnost cijena
da stvar bude gora, ta zakonska obveza je tu da bi bili usklađeni s ECB, a tamo je to (ili je bar bilo prije par godina 2%)
siguran sam da imaju neku uredbu ili što već na temelju čega je to savršeno legalno, no ostaje činjenica da krše minimalno duh zakona na temelju kojega postoje
Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight, as in Japan; high interest rates, that money has been easy.. . .After the U.S. experience during the Great Depression, and after inflation and rising interest rates in the 1970s and disinflation and falling interest rates in the 1980s, I thought the fallacy of identifying tight money with high interest rates and easy money with low interest rates was dead. Apparently, old fallacies never die.
Inflacija u 2012 u RH je prije svega supply side, tj negativni supply sok koji je proizvela drzava intervencijama u porezni sustav i nagle promjene cijena koje kontroliraju drzavna poduzeca (poput el.energije). Na takve sokove sredisnje banke ne bi smjele reagirati jer sredisnja banka po svojoj definiciji ne moze ni utjecati na supply side faktore. To je nesto s cime bi se slozili i free bankeri poput Georgea Selgina. Kad bi pretpostavili da HNB ima definiran cilj za inflaciju (do 2008 oko 4%), ispunjenje istog bi najbolj pokazao GDP deflator (jer obuhvaca sve cijene a ne kosaru) vidjeli bi da je HNB profulao cilj. evo nekakav prikaz kako to izgleda
We want central banks to stop the ad hoc’ism. In fact we don’t even like independent central banks – as we don’t want to give them the opportunity to mess up things. Instead we basically want as Milton Friedman suggested to replace the central bank with a “computer”. The computer being a clear monetary policy rule. A monetary constitution if you like.
The problem with today’s monetary policy debate is that it is not a Buchanan inspired debate, but a debate about easier or tighter monetary policy. The debate should instead be about rules versus discretions and about what rules we should have.
ECB je spreman nadoknaditi svako ubrzanje u vraćanju ovih hitnih zajmova od strane europskih banaka kako bi osigurala da smanjena likvidnost ne ometa provođenje monetarne politike
ECB sada ovisi o reakciji tržišta. Koliko Euro ojača, te podigne kratkoročni dio njemačke krivulje prinosa, kroz smanjivanje bilance ECB-a, toliki je utjecaj na nivo restriktivnosti monetarne politike i moglo bi otvoriti vrata nižoj stopi operacija refinanciranja.
Indeks sastavljen od strane Rabobank-a, na temelju podataka Europske Komisije, pokazuje najbrže stezanje monetarnih uvjeta posljednja tri mjeseca (do kraja siječnja) od uvođenja Eura 1999. godine
Draghi je rekao na press konferenciji kako zna da će u sustavu biti 200 mlrd. Tržišta su ovu izjavu uzela kao signal da će ECB djelovati u slučaju pada količine likvidnosti ispod ove brojke.
“They [market monetarists], in fact, believe that monetary stimulus is the only thing that can help the economy at this moment.”
The reason why they believe it is the only thing, comes from the fact that money demand is elevated, not least because a lot of uncertainties hanging around the globe, so this money demand must be satisfied by Feds action. You could wait for the politicians to resolve all these things, but they havent been ready to make the right moves in the past, so why should they do it soon? This way CBs can help in stabilizing the environment, and even give an impulse to AD after acknowledging the elevated money demand is a reason to act, but again, in my view trough a rules based framework and not discretion.
“current QE efforts create money for banks that isn’t being released into the real economy. It makes perfect sense for banks to hoard cash and deposit money in central banks overnight when alternative investments over low interest rates are relatively more risky.”
“The second favorable idea is to credibly signal long term easier monetary policy, when interest rates are no longer zero. The central argument is that this signal of easier money in the future and expectations of rising demand will induce people to spend more today. This does make sense as businesses would make investments today if they would be certain that these investments would pay off in the future. It’s the uncertainty of today that’s killing off their investments and hiring. So a credible signal of monetary policy would be enough to break the uncertainty surrounding their investment decisions. “
“The ‘rule of thumb’ target would be 5% (2% inflation plus 3% real GDP growth which is a potential GDP growth path). This implies that if nominal GDP falls to around 2% per year, the Fed should allow for temporary higher inflation to reach the 5% nominal growth target.”
Even return to a pre-crisis path isn’t instrumental, adopting a new rules based policy is, it can continue on current path, without making up for what was “lost” because of previous mistakes.
“The idea can literary translate to the following: If the Fed prints more money, this drives up prices (the classical causal relation in monetary economics where more money in the economy makes it lose its value and triggers an increase in prices as people now need more currency to buy the same goods as before). Higher prices of goods and services will increase the GDP measured in current prices (nominal GDP). This is an easy way to reach the target without increasing real growth at all. For the current 1% rate of real growth the Fed may pump up inflation to 3,5% in order to reach its target. But this doesn’t mean the economy grew at 4,5% – it’s real growth is still weak.”
“That’s why current proposals for NGDP targeting are a strictly short-run monetary stimulus that can be used to get the economy out of a recession and on to its potential output path. “
Vuk basically believes this crisis is a structural one, and response to the crisis should defined by this fact:
The biggest problem I have with this approach is that it assumes that the crisis was just another aggregate demand shock which can be resolved by short-run stimuli. This perhaps was the case with the 2001 recession (which was initiated by a series of shocks like the 9/11 attacks, dot-com boom, and corporate scandals like Enron), and it may even be applicable today if the shock was being constrained on the housing market alone. But that’s not what happened. The housing market bust was just a trigger for the unsustainable system to fall. The answer cannot be to wait for businesses and consumers to continue what they’ve been doing before, the answer must be in creating and finding new jobs and new patterns of production and labour specialization.
I don’t think there has to be a difference in the view of the causes of the crisis, at least not in the question of the place where disturbances began. Everyone agrees that problems of the subprime market (which was a small part of the overall market were the start) are at the core of the problems that began in 2006. The point where I believe Vuk sees things differently than MMs is the Q3 of 2008. As I wrote, Vuk believes structural problems are responsible for most of the Great Recession, and the slow recovery.
Or how Beckworth puts it
focus on 2006-2008 period and see that the structural changes did not require a collapse in AD.
I believe this inter-sectoral “unwinding” and restructuring could have occurred in a less messy environment in case Fed was following its own inflation target and saw the breakeven inflation which tanked, as an obvious sign that money is tight. So while I do believe we have structural problems caused by our governments exstensive action in the markets, I do think the recession could have been milder if , first the Fed, and ECB, reacted because they recognized they have passively tightened the money supply causing NGDP to dip in the second half of 2008, and later 2009 which was a recession year.
“Even if we accept the claims that tight money made the recession much worse, monetary policy didn’t cause the recession. At least not single-handedly.”
20th century was the battle for the freedom of nations, 21st, seems to me, will be the one where we will fight for the freedom of the individual.
I obviusly still have a lot to learn from writing of people like the late professor Buchanan.
Bottom line: Don’t observe the idea of NGDPLT targeting and its effects form a perspective of temporary stimulus, even in this economy.
New target doesnt have to mean going back to pre crisis level and continuing the precrsis path. A new one can be started from this point.
Monetary policy can’t fix structural problems but it can create environment where the whole thing doesn’t have to be messy as now.
UPDATE: I just found a interesting response by Lars Christensen to George Selgin, on similar questions as Vuk’s so take a look. There, you can find links to the responses of some others of the market monetarist bunch, as well as some recommended posts on the topic.
Heres Sumner and Beckworth discussing some of the basics about NGDPLT. Too bad, there weren’t more questions at the end.