You are here:   Columns >  Marketplace > QE Qualities
 
QE Qualities
January/February 2011

In the 15 to 20 years of the Great Moderation, running up to the banking crisis of 2007, the world combined man-made fiat currency with stable low inflation, steady output growth and high and rising employment. During the Great Moderation, central bankers saw monetary stability as, above all, concerned with preventing a return to inflation. But from summer 2007, and more particularly from autumn 2008, the game changed. The quantity of money stopped growing. As the advanced countries entered the Great Recession, the new policy challenge was to avoid deflation

The details of QE operations are of mind-blowing complexity, although their essence — the creation of money by the state — is straightforward. To repeat, the dominant monetary assets of our times are bank deposits. As deposits are liabilities of the banking system, their growth depends on that of banks' assets. What went wrong in mid-2007 was that banks' claims on the private sector started to shrink. If nothing had been done, the quantity of money would also have declined and deflation would have set in. 

But the recessionary forces could be easily checked by the state replacing the private sector as the principal new borrower from the banking system and, hence, by becoming the main creator of money. That was and remains the purpose of the operations, the diverse and manifold operations, which come under the label "quantitative easing". If the leading central banks display enough intelligence (which admittedly remains far from certain), QE operations can be designed and calibrated to ensure that the total of bank deposits grows at a rate consistent with macroeconomic stability.

What has this to do with "money printing"? Far less than the backwoodsmen think. The Bank's QE exercise began in March 2009 and ended in February 2010, with £200 billion of asset purchases. Did that mean that the note issue also rose by £200bn? No, it didn't. The Bank return shows that notes in circulation were £45.5bn in March 2009 and £49.5bn in February 2010. In other words, money printing as such was only £4bn and was little more than 2 per cent of the programme. 

QE prevented deflation, as Britain's current inflation is about 3 per cent. It worked not because of its effect on money printing and the note issue, but because it ensured that the quantity of money — broadly defined to include all bank deposits — did not fall too heavily. QE prevented the Great Recession from becoming the second Great Depression, and for that we should be grateful.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Ralph Mugrave
January 3rd, 2011
3:01 AM
Castigating QE because it allegedly amounts to nothing more than “money printing” is over simple, as Tim Congdon rightly points out. But the article of Liam Halligan to which Congon refers is more subtle than that. For example one of Halligan’s main points is that banks have captured governments, and QE won’t solve that problem. Quite right. Congdon then argues (not for the first or second time) that the money supply declines in recessions, and that since QE raises the money supply, this helps avoid the worst of recessions. While some QE is better than nothing, the latter argument of Congdon’s confuses cause and effect. Private bank created money (as distinct from central bank created money) comes into existence as a RESULT of the private sector’s desire to do business and borrow for the latter purpose. Conversely, this stock of money declines in recessions, as a result of a REDUCED desire to do business. That is, deleveraging takes place. Nothing new there: Walter Bagehot described this process a hundred and fifty years ago. Or as Robert Skidelsky put it in an earlier Standpoint article “….the basic cause of the collapse of the money supply was a collapse in the demand for loans…” Congdon, it seems, still does not understand this point. See: /node/2423/full QE consists of the central bank offering the private sector cash in exchange for the latter’s shares or bonds. Now shares or bonds are a form of SAVING. If I get around £X for my £X worth of shares or bonds I am NOT going to run out and spend the money. I am still going to regard that chunk of my wealth as savings. So there is little effect on aggregate demand. To that extent, QE is useless.

ASW Jenks
December 28th, 2010
1:12 PM
Another outstanding analysis by Tim. It's a shame he isn't in office.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.