But those of us who started worrying about liquidity traps in the face of Japan’s experience were well aware of that pitfall. In fact, I wrote down my original liquidity trap model starting from a firm belief that the liquidity trap was nonsense: even if the interest rate is zero, I thought, increasing the money supply must raise demand. So I set out to write a model with all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed, so as to demonstrate that point ― and found, to my shock, that the model actually said the reverse.
What comes down to is this: once you’ve pushed the short-term interest rate down to zero, money becomes a perfect substitute for short-term debt. And any further increase in the money supply therefore displaces an equal amount of debt, with no effect on anything. Period, end of story.
My view, which I thought was pretty clear, is that the liquidity trap is real: no matter how much the Fed increases the monetary base, it has no effect, because it just substitutes one zero-interest asset for another. If the Fed could credibly commit to inflation at rates higher than the 2-ish percent target it’s already believed to have, that would be effective. But right now I don’t see that as a realistic option, hence the emphasis on fiscal policy and bank recapitalization.
アゴラ読みました。このごろしょっちゅう「ガラパゴス」という単語を耳にします。知識人のあいだで人気のフレーズなんでしょうか。
この前テレビで「ガラパゴス的発達を遂げた書面審査重視の日本の司法制度が・・・」と解説していました(NHKスペシャル)。
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/optimal-fiscal-policy-in-a-liquidity-trap-ultra-wonkish/
記事の中でwith all their t’s dotted and eyes(誤植) crossed, or something. と言っています。
インタゲについてはよくわかりませんが、いまは財政出動にシフトしているみたいです。ただ、マネーサプライを増やさずとも、リスク債権や長期国債の購入は効果があるかもと言っていますね。
My view, which I thought was pretty clear, is that the liquidity trap is real: no matter how much the Fed increases the monetary base, it has no effect, because it just substitutes one zero-interest asset for another. If the Fed could credibly commit to inflation at rates higher than the 2-ish percent target it’s already believed to have, that would be effective. But right now I don’t see that as a realistic option, hence the emphasis on fiscal policy and bank recapitalization.
つまりFRBがcredibly commitできれば、インフレ目標は効果がある――これは誰でも認めるでしょう。問題は、それができるかどうかです。彼が前半で書いているように、ゼロ金利ではFRBはマネーストックをコントロールできないので、人為的インフレは「現実的なオプションではない」わけです。
日本に対しては無責任にインタゲをあおっておきながら、いざアメリカで同じような状況になると「現実的」に考えるのは、ダブルスタンダードといわざるをえない。日本人をバカにしてるんじゃないの。まぁ彼の穴だらけの論文をかつぎまわった連中は、バカにされてもしょうがないけどね。
ブログ作成者から承認されるまでトラックバックは反映されません