Frances Coppola
and Raghuram Rajan
want international cooperation on QE because of the destabilising effect that
QE has on developing countries.
False
logic there, I suggest.
The
problems caused in developing countries by QE and its tapering or unwinding
does not demonstrate a need for international cooperation: it demonstrates the
flaws in QE and the merits in the form of stimulus advocated (I think) by most
MMTers and Positive Money: that’s
simply creating fiat money and spending
it (and/or cutting taxes).
QE
shovels money into the pockets of the asset rich or investors. Their obvious
response is to seek yield anywhere in the world, hence the flows of hot money
into or out of developing countries. In contrast, if fiat money is simply
created and paid to say pensioners, or spent on infrastructure or education etc
within a given country instead of implementing QE, most of that money stays
within that country. Same applies if the new fiat money is distributed via tax
cuts for the average household in the relevant country.
Moreover,
if QE really is a sensible way of implementing stimulus, the mind boggles at
exactly what the above “cooperation” would consist of. E.g. country X wants to
do QE, but country Y objects because it doesn’t need stimulus. Now what’s
country X supposed to do: abstain from stimulus and endure excess unemployment?
Of
course you COULD implement capital controls, but that involves bureaucracy, and
the idea that bureaucrats are good judges of what capital investments make
sense is a joke.
The capital controls/import controls you'll need to put in place are essentially auto-stabiliser brakes. Just like what they have on the stock markets to slow down a meltdown or excessive rise - either in a particular share or the whole market.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't prevent changes in real terms of trade, but if you slow them down so they occur over time then people have the chance to adjust.