In the past, I've posted articles on the views of Narayana
Kocherlakota, the former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,
professor of economics at the University of Rochester and columnist for Bloomberg View. In his latest musings,
he looks at how the government was responsible for the last recession and
lukewarm economic recovery and how the market could truly become
"free".
Dr. Kocherlakota opens by
noting that, in a truly free market, if everyone suddenly decided that future
economic growth would be very slow (actually similar to what it is now), the
price of "safe assets" like Treasuries would rise sharply because demand
for these assets would rise since the interest income gleaned from such
investments is considered iron-clad. Since bond prices act inversely to
interest rates, rising bond prices would push interest rates down just as has
happened since 2008 as shown here:
In fact, in a free market, demand for
Treasuries could be so high and prices rise so much that bond yields could potentially plunge deeply into
negative territory.
Dr. Kocherlakota goes on
to note that there are two government mechanisms that interfere with the free
market, acting to prevent negative interest rates from falling deeply into
negative territory as follows:
1.) Cash - as long as
people can hold currency which only loses value at the rate of inflation, they
will not purchase assets that yield less.
2.) Central Banks and
inflation - central banks have more or less promised to keep inflation low and
stable at about 2 percent.
This means that people
have no logical reason to hold assets that yield less than negative two or
three percent.
Here's a key paragraph
from Dr. Kocherlakota's commentary:
"In other words, governments -- by issuing cash and
managing inflation -- put a floor on how low interest rates can go and how high
asset prices can rise. That's hardly a free market."
I find it
fascinating how he blames government intervention for "managing inflation"! I suppose in a round about way, it is true given that Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy, stating that the Federal Reserve is responsible for ensuring that their monetary policies keep prices stable, however, it is the Federal Reserve that has set a 2 percent target.
So, what
is his solution to the problem?
"The right answer is to
abolish currency and move completely to electronic cash, an idea suggested at
various times by Marvin
Goodfriend of Carnegie-Mellon University, Miles Kimball of
the University of Colorado and Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England. Because electronic
cash can have any yield, interest rates would be able go as far into negative
territory as the market required."
Now won't
that be fun and games for savers and retirees who are already suffering
with generationally low but still slightly positive interest rates?
Fortunately, Dr. Kocherlakota has a solution: he suggests that
governments simply redistribute resources to the elderly and the poor by giving
them money.
If cash
were abolished, the author suggests that two measures must be adopted:
1.) rather
than targeting a positive inflation rate like they are now, central banks aim
to keep prices constant over time.
2.)
governments would have to develop alternatives that allow consumers the same
anonymity and privacy that cash currently offers.
Here's his
closing paragraph:
"We’ve
endured a deep recession and a miserable recovery because the government,
through its provision of currency, interferes with the proper functioning of
financial markets. Why not ensure that doesn't happen again?"
Given that
the number of the world's most influential economies with positive interest
rates seems to be dropping on a regular basis, my suspicion is that Dr.
Kocherlakota's rather off-the-wall suggestion (at least for an American central
banker) of adopting a cashless society to prevent future economic contractions
is becoming an increasingly likely scenario given that central banks are
pretty much out of ammunition, both conventional and otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment