|
103,103
This article proposes that loose monetary policy at this time will benefit the economy rather than arouse inflation.The suggestion is based on the following reasons:
First, in a gloomy economy, people need more money balances, which results in less money in circulation. To meet the demand for natural economic growth, more money should be printed. And the Great Moderation showed that real growth averaged at 3%, which could be regarded as the baseline to make monetary policy decision. Nominal GDP fell faster in the last several decades, giving an indication that monetary policy may be too tight.
Second, nominal debts are rising. People are more conservative and pessimistic about the economy. Loose monetary policy will increase nominal spending, and part of the added spending will increase economic activity.
I think the author made too much emphasis on the benefit of the monetary policy. Obviously, it is to support the coming QE3. Although the past QE1 and QE2 exactly boost the stock market with an acceptable inflation rate, the unemployment rate soared, which is a sign of unhealthy economy, resulting in the prejudice that the loose monetary policy actually covered up the decline in real economy, giving us a fake prosperous illusion.
Of course, theoretically, now the monetary policy may at least keep the commodity price above a certain level and increase masses' confidence, hence increasing their investment and consumption and reducing their reserved balance. Besides, the relatively depreciated money will make payback of debts much easier, with the absolute amount unchanged. It may relieve some burdens on the borrowers.
In this sense, I think the loose monetary policy is one choice sounds feasible when there are no other better ways to solve the economic problem.
|