So, let\’s have quantitative easing but let\’s do it right this time:
Already, examining the UK\’s flatlining economy, the International Monetary Fund has called this week for more quantitative easing, essentially the Bank printing money. But will it be done as badly as before? The Bank\’s own research shows it can\’t track where the money went or what effect it had. Once it was paid through the banks, it vanished into the great financial casino and not into the real economy. This time, the Bank could, as the economist Lord Skidelsky suggests, put the money into an infrastructure bank, or, as others suggest, into regional industrial banks, or a green investment bank, any of which would invest in production, jobs and projects of lasting economic value.
But the thing is, that isn\’t quantitative easing. That\’s printing money to pay for government spending.
The two are not the same thing.
QE is an attempt to boost the money supply in order to, well, boost the money supply. For as everyone agrees, yes, even the Keynesians, the last thing we want to have in recessionary times is tight money. So, as I insist you understand, as even Keynes himself would agree, we should have loose money. Print the stuff and pour it into the financial system.
If you want it in monetarist terms, MV equals PQ and as V falls in a recession you want M to increase so as to avoid a fall in Q.
Good, so that\’s QE. And the point about QE is that when we no longer need loose money, as we climb up out of recession, then it\’s reversible. As V increases we can reduce M and thus avoid P soaring: we can dodge the inflation that would come as a result of having increased the money supply so much.
If we instead print money and spend it on a Green Bank, regional banks, whatever, then we\’re not doing QE. We\’re simply printing money in order to spend it. This is what Zimbabwe did. Yes, it stimulates, but it\’s that fiscal stimulus on steroids. Creating Mo, base money, and then spending it in a non-reversible manner, is the most inflationary way possible of dealing with matters. If indulged in too far, it leads to what happened in Zimbabwe.
Sadly. Mo is no longer published but the talk is that the £200 billion (or whatever) of QE should be transformed into £200 billion of such direct spending. Which would be a non-reversible expansion of Mo by, well, I don\’t know but I would bet that it\’s a large percentage of that money supply. 20, 30% perhaps? If it is that much (and I would welcome correction here) then we\’re simply building in a 20% inflation rate for the future…..and if inflationary expectations gain hold, more than that.
They\’re simply not the same thing: QE, an evanescent, reversible, increase in the money supply to make sure we don\’t have tight money as against printing money to spend, irreversibly, on the usual lefty wish list.
I admit that the usual suspects have been pretty cute in calling this \”green quantiative easing\” but given that the source is R. Murphy I hope that people can see there are likely to be sound and basic economics reasons why there\’s a problem with the idea?