I’ve made it clear that I very much approve of Japan’s new monetary aggressiveness. But I gather that some readers are confused — haven’t I been arguing that monetary policy is ineffective in a liquidity trap?
The brief answer is that current policy is ineffective, but that you can still get traction if you can change investors’ beliefs about expected future monetary policy — which was the moral of a paper I wrote on Japan, lo these 15 years ago. But I thought it might be worthwhile to go over this again.
So, at this point the United States and Japan (and Europe) are all in liquidity traps: private demand is so weak that even with short-term interest rates at zero, spending falls far short of what would be needed for full employment. And interest rates can’t go below zero (except trivially, for very short periods), because investors always have the option of simply holding cash. Incidentally, this isn’t just a hypothetical: there has been a surge in currency holding, although a lot of it is $100 bills held overseas.
Under these circumstances, normal monetary policy, which takes the form of open-market operations in which the central bank buys short-term debt with money it creates out of thin air, has no effect. Why?
Well, the reason open-market operations usually work is that people are making a tradeoff between yield and liquidity — they hold money, which offers no interest, for the liquidity but limit their holdings because they pay a price in lost earnings.
So if the central bank puts more money out there, people are holding more than they want; as they try to offload it, they drive rates down in the process.
But if rates are zero, there is no cost to liquidity, and people are basically saturated with it; they’re holding money simply as a store of value. And a central-bank operation that swaps money for debt basically changes nothing. Ordinary monetary policy is ineffective. The flip side of this, by the way, is that all those fears about how “printing money” in this slump would lead to runaway inflation were predictably wrong.
If you paid attention to the Japanese story from the last decade, you knew that simply expanding the central bank’s balance sheet did little, and certainly wasn’t inflationary. Here’s the thing, however: the economy won’t always be in a liquidity trap, or at least it might not always be.
And while investors shouldn’t care about what the central bank does now, they should care about what it will do in the future. If investors believe that the central bank will keep the pedal to the metal even as the economy begins to recover, this will imply higher inflation than if it hikes rates at the first hint of good news — and higher expected inflation means a lower real interest rate, and therefore a stronger economy.
So the central bank can still get traction if it can change expectations about future policy.
The trouble is that central bankers have a credibility problem — one that’s the opposite of the traditional concern that they might print too much money.
Instead, the concern is that at the first sign of good news they’ll revert to type, snatching away the punch bowl.
The Bank of Japan did just that in the 2000s. The hope now is that things have changed enough at the Bank of Japan that this time it can, as I put it all those years ago, “credibly promise to be irresponsible.”
And that’s why I’m bullish on the Japanese experiment, even though current monetary policy has little effect.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.