3 Comments

It’s stock vs. flow. QE-forever does exactly the opposite of what the advocates of N-gDp level targeting says is important (“It is the real interest rate that affects spending”).

Adding infinite and misdirected money products (LSAPs on sovereigns) while remunerating IBDDs (inducing nonbank disintermediation), generates negative real rates of interest; has a negative economic multiplier; creates asset bubbles (results in an excess of savings over real investment outlets); exacerbates income inequality, and depreciates the exchange value of the U.S. $.

Whereas the regulatory release of savings invokes a spontaneous chain reaction, an expanding sequence of reactions, a self-propelling and amplifying chain of events.

The activation and discharge of $15 trillion of finite savings products (near money substitutes), via targeted real investment outlets has a positive economic multiplier, a ripple effect (increases productivity and real wages), while increasing both the real rate and nominal rates of interest.

No, contrary to Bankrupt-u-Bernanke’s claim that: “Money is fungible”…“One dollar is like any other”, pg. 357 in “The Courage to Act”, the utilization of savings is a catalyst, it is not a matching of economic accounts, not a 1-2-1 economic transaction (correlation between two sets). This is demonstrated by debits to particular deposit accounts.

“In economics, a multiplier broadly refers to an economic factor that, when increased or changed, causes increases or changes in many other related economic variables. In terms of gross domestic product, the multiplier effect causes gains in total output to be greater than the change in spending that caused it.”

It’s a disputation of the Gurley-Shaw thesis (that there is no difference between money and liquid assets).

N-gDp LPT is nothing other than stagflation reincarnated. It caps real output and maximizes inflation.

See: “Should Commercial Banks Accept Savings Deposits?” Conference on Savings and Residential Financing 1961 Proceedings, United States Savings and loan league, Chicago, 1961, 42, 43.

“Profit or Loss from Time Deposit Banking”, Banking and Monetary Studies, Comptroller of the Currency, United States Treasury Department, Irwin, 1963, pp. 369-386

The fact is that an increase in bank CDs adds nothing to GDP. In fact, it shrinks AD.

Expand full comment

Friedman was only good at math.

Expand full comment

LOL. Banks aren't intermediaries.

Expand full comment