Today's Economic History: The New Jones-Romer Growth Facts

Must-Read: Also Larry Summers.

The important thing here, I think, is to have Bernanke's back. Bernanke is right: QE was worth trying ex ante, and ex post it looks as though it was worth doing--and I would say it was worth doing more of it than he did. If there are arguments that Bernanke's QE policy is wrong, they need to be arguments--not mere expressive word-salad.

Spence and Warsh are attacking Bernanke's monetary policy. Why? It's not clear--they claim that business investment is low because Bernanke's QE policies have retarded it. But they do not present anything that I would count as an argument or evidence to that effect. As I see it, they are supplying a demand coming from Republican political masters, who decided that since Obama renominated Bernanke the fact that Bernanke was a Republican following sensible Republican policies was neither here nor there: that they had to oppose him--DEBAUCHING THE CURRENCY!!

And Warsh and Spence are meeting that demand, and meeting it when a more sensible Republican Party--and more sensible Republican economists--would be taking victory laps on how the George W. Bush-appointed Republican Fed Chair Ben Bernanke produced the best recovery in the North Atlantic.

I don't know why Warsh is in this business, lining up with the Randites against Bernanke, other than hoping for future high federal office. And I am with Krugman on Spence: I have no idea why Spence is lining up with Warsh here--he is very sharp, even if he did give me one of my two B+s ever. What's the model?

Joseph E. Gagnon: Is QE Bad for Business Investment? No Way!: "There is no logical or factual basis for their claim...

...It is the reluctance of businesses and consumers to spend in the wake of a historic recession that is forcing the Fed and other central banks around the world to keep interest rates unusually low--not the other way around.... Economies in which central banks were most aggressive in conducting QE early in the recovery (the United Kingdom and the United States) have been growing more strongly than economies that were slow to adopt QE (the euro area and Japan). At the top of their piece, the authors pull a classic bait and switch, noting ‘gross private investment’ has grown slightly less than GDP since late 2007. Yet the shortfall in private investment derives entirely from housing. No one believes that Fed purchases of mortgage bonds tanked the housing market. The whole premise of the article, that business investment is excessively weak, is simply false....

But the piece also fails a basic test of common sense. Spence and Warsh posit that ‘QE has redirected capital from the real domestic economy to financial assets at home and abroad.’ This statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what financial assets are. They are claims on real assets. It is not possible to redirect capital from financial assets to real assets, since the two always are matched perfectly. Equities and bonds are (financial) claims on the future earnings of (real) businesses. Spence and Warsh accept that QE raised the prices of equities and bonds. Yet they seem ignorant of the effect this has on incentives to invest.... True, some businesses have used rising profits to buy back their own stock. But that is a business prerogative that points to lackluster investment prospects and cannot be laid at the feet of easy Fed policy.... [If] QE has raised stock prices, it discourages businesses from buying back stock because it makes that stock more costly to buy...

http://blogs.piie.com/realtime/?p=5224

Comments