Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Hamish McRae: We've no choice but to keep inflating

A bubble or not a bubble? Right now I think the best answer is not yet

Have they merely created another bubble? The huge effort by this and other governments to pump up the economy seems to have checked the economic decline. It has certainly helped global share prices recover and seems, here in the UK at least, to have helped house prices bottom out.

But everything comes at a price. The public debt of the main developed economies seems set to reach around 100 per cent of GDP, while the near-zero interest rates and unorthodox ways being used to boost money supply may have set the scene for a revival of inflation. These policies cannot continue for that much longer, here or anywhere else, and there is a danger that when they are withdrawn, demand will flop back and unemployment will continue to climb. There is a real danger of a W-shaped recession, with another downward dip in activity next year.

As a result, far from helping the world economy through recession, the charge runs, government policies may have at best been ineffective, and at worst, may actually have impeded the recovery. The danger is that, a year from now, we might be back in recession and there would be nothing government could do about it.

It is a charge that all governments face in some measure, but it is one that applies more seriously to the UK than elsewhere, as our fiscal position is worse than that of any other major developed nation. Accordingly, as the Fitch ratings agency has warned, Britain is at the greatest danger of losing its prime credit rating. As a result not only has the country's debt shot up; it may cost more to service it in the future.

It is a serious charge and deserves a serious answer. Simply asserting that government is doing all it can to help people and companies through the recession, as has our own and others, won't do. Saying that because the policy isn't working very well we have to do more of it, is not a very credible response either. There are things that can sensibly be said but in the maw of politics the sensible thoughts tend to be drowned out by the stupid ones. So let's step back and look at where we are.

The first thing to say is that stopping things going down is not to be dismissed as an inadequate outcome. Of course it is not the sort of success that politicians like to boast about and it is certainly very different from the stuff we used to get from Gordon Brown in his successive budgets. But it is a start. The world's banking system is functioning again. That has been achieved at great cost, to be sure, and maybe the system is not functioning as well as it should but we are no longer looking over the precipice. In any case the world economy, viewed as a whole, is growing reasonably strongly. True, most of the developed world is not doing well but China and India are; so is most of Latin America and Africa.

The next thing to say is that recessions typically take a while to turn round. In previous cycles economies have bounced along the bottom for 18 months or so before staging a proper recovery. It is not pleasant and it would be great if we were clever enough to crank up growth faster. But we are not.

The third thing is that the initial effect of monetary expansion, be it through low interest rates or unorthodox measures, will be to boost asset prices. Thus the Bank of England had a check list of things it expected to happen when it announced its "quantitative easing" programme this spring. The list started with a rise in money supply and a fall in long-term interest rates; ran through a rise in corporate credit and share and bond prices; and finished up with a rise in real spending and output – and finally, a rise in inflation.

We will get more of a view about where we are, or at least where the Bank thinks we are, with the forthcoming Inflation Report but meanwhile I think it is right that a recovery in asset prices is a crucial element in restoring confidence. Think what things would be like if stock markets round the world were still flat on their back and house prices here and elsewhere were still falling.

That is the case for the defence of monetary policy and I for one think it stacks up pretty well. Yes, monetary policy has puffed up asset prices but it was the right thing to do. Our fiscal policy, running up debts on an incredible scale, has been a catastrophe. But monetary policy has been relatively successful so far. The problem is what happens next.

Next year fiscal policy goes into reverse. It has to, whoever forms the next government. So some combination of higher taxes and lower public spending will be a drag on the economy, maybe enough to push it down into a second dip. That will put great pressure on monetary policy to remain easy. The unorthodox measures to boost money supply will be scaled back but interest rates will remain very low. There will then be a very real danger of an unsustainable bubble.

Think about the UK housing market. If house prices continue to climb and would-be owners start to feel they are missing out, there could be a scramble to buy, fuelled by very low interest rates. Or think about US share prices. If the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates at near-zero levels and the US keeps flooding the world with dollars that may in the short-term help prices but in the long-term we have another dollar crisis. That could be profoundly unsettling for the world economy, in fact just the sort of thing that might plunge it into another and maybe more serious dip.

So, a bubble or not a bubble? Right now I think the best answer is: not yet. We are still just about OK. Share prices and house prices have recovered but are not yet at unsustainable levels. But we are in more peril than most people realise. The peril is not so much that asset prices will plunge back next year, though they may fall somewhat. The peril is that if the recovery were to falter next year there would be tremendous pressure on monetary authorities around the world to keep printing the money to try to keep the economies puffed up. That would lead to another crash when people realised what they were doing was unsustainable.

Meanwhile we have to have a credible medium-term plan to repair the fiscal disaster and to get back to normal monetary policy. We don't have either and that is scary indeed.

h.mcrae@independent.co.uk

More from Hamish McRae

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
One of the benefits of Capitalism and its periodic crashes is that it clears the deadwood and allows us to grow in new directions, achieving greater overall efficiency and hence greater overall growth. The danger of too much loose financial policies to prevent the recession (or rather lessen it) is we run the risk of losing those benefits and keeping too much under-performing parts of the economy. This will ultimately lead to lower overall growth but ensures a return of inflation. The additional danger is that it encourages an expansion of government leading to an unbalanced economy. This I think is what lead us to the 1970s devastation and stagflation and ultimately the IMF.

The problem we now have is that if government eases off QE etc we may well slip back into recession (not having left it yet anyway), but if it doesn't, we end up with deeper government debts and much higher long term government costs to service it. And we may well be damaging our longer term prospects for short term gain.

Where do I start...
[info]guidoamm wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
Succinctly -

In the presumably "democratic" West, the monetary system is not voted upon by society. The monetary system is imposed arbitrarily and unilaterally by government.

The particular variety that has been imposed in the West is a fiat monetary system. It began in the USA in 1913 and was gradually expanded to Europe in 1971 and then to the rest of the world through globalization.

Today, the US$ is the reserve currency of all central banks. Thus we are all on a US$ based, fiat monetary system.

Fiat money in a "democratic" context can only lead to an accelerating inflationary dynamic (more at link below)

http://guidoromero.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/the-utility-of-a-fiat-monetary-system/

or this one

http://guidoromero.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/has-it-really-escaped-you-that/

However, inflation is exponential in nature thus limited mathematically. This is borne out by the below graph:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT

Now, regarding your article.

Other than the fact that the authorities and the regulators should never have allowed us to reach this point, you say the monetary authorities have responded appropriately to the crisis and you call for even more of the same.

I challenge that opinion and if you read the my post at the above link and others you will realize why.

Essentially, QE and government bailouts can only work if there is room left for inflation to run. However, if you've reached the technical limit of inflation - that is, if government can no longer expand credit markets, then QE only destroys the currency and devastates the economy. Has the credit market been restored?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=TOTBKCR&s[1][transformation]=pc1

Nope

I will leave you with a final thought.

In a fiat monetary context based on floating exchange rates (and fractional reserve banking), "value" can only be relative to something.

You say the stock market has benefited from monetary measures? I direct you to this set of charts and, particularly, to chart number 120 on page 2. I also direct you to the currency charts on page 3

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/Favorites.CServlet?obj=ID3585763

Essentially, that is the reason QE is wreaking more damage still

One last post for good measure:

http://guidoromero.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/im-telling-you-again-your-pension-and-insurance-contributions/


Re: Where do I start...
[info]peter_holl wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 01:06 pm (UTC)
Correct - Quantitive easing is inflationary and simply is a fraud perpetrated on the holders of money rather than the holders of things whose supply cannot be manipulated by printing more money or issuing more IOU's. The aim of Governments all over the world over the past 100 years has been to borrow long and repay in devalued currency or even worse just print money to pay for things the Government wants without bothering to collect taxes. The true value of money is always falling as its supply by governments exceeds the value of goods and services for which it can be exchanged.

The whole banking crisis has been a fraud whereby banks have used their IOUs to speculate / gamble on products that were wrongly valued: bets were placed without the bookies holding the reserves to cover them if the odds went against them. Banks speculating on whatever financial products don't create wealth, they merely redistribute it in the same way as the lottery, and the Government taxes the winners and bails out the losers!
Addendum
[info]guidoamm wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 01:01 pm (UTC)
That should have been chart number 220 on page 2 rather than 120

Apologies
g

Columnist Comments

hamish_mcrae

Hamish McRae: A time for giving with a difference

With the recession, there is a shift from giving people things to giving them services

mark_steel

Mark Steel: Come rain or revo- lution, it's money they want

Haven't the 20th anniversary celebrations of the overthrow of communism been miserable?

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Science must never be political or emotional

Politicians and action groups select favourable data, ignoring inconvenient evidence


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion