Coppola Comment

Below are the slides from my presentation at Beyond Covid on 12th June. The whole webinar can ve viewed here . The pandemic seems to me to resemble the "nuclear disaster" scenarios of my youth: hide in the bunker, then creep out when the immediate danger is over, only to find a world that is still dangerous and has fundamentally changed in unforeseeable ways.  Rabbits hiding from a hawk is perhaps a kinder image, though hawks don't usually leave devastation in their wake. And I like rabbits. So this presentation is illustrated with rabbits, not nuclear bombs.  This is where we were in March/April/May. Hiding in our homes, waiting for the danger to pass: And this is what central banks should have been doing then: To their credit, this is exactly what they did. By supporting sovereign finances and warding off a financial crisis, they enabled fiscal authorities to take the extraordinary measures needed to keep people and businesses alive in their burrows.  Some economists mi...

The economy slumbers in its induced coma. Businesses are closed, workers furloughed or laid off. But the astonishing headline falls in economic indicaters such as GDP and PMI conceal a grim reality. Businesses are closing not just because they have been ordered to do so, but because they are running out of money. And people who have lost their jobs or become ill are also running out of money. If businesses fail instead of being mothballed, the eventual economic recovery will be slow. And if people die of starvation or untreated disease, what is the point of the lockdown? Everyone agrees that there is an urgent need to get money to people and businesses so they can stay alive. But the waters are being muddied by terms such as "helicopter money" and "people's QE" being bandied about with little thought as to what they are, or whether they really would meet the current need. So I want to start by clarifying what, in my view, these terms mean. In my book, I...

“Give me chastity and continence, but not yet,” sighed St. Augustine in his Confessions . Today, as the world reels under the impact of coronavirus, policymakers are at last reaching for tools I have long advocated: helicopter money and Universal Basic Income. And yet, like St. Augustine, I find myself sighing, “Lord, grant us helicopter money and Universal Basic Income, but not yet .” I have spent much of the last decade advocating giving people money. Helicopter money  in recessions, to boost spending and kickstart recovery: and Universal Basic Income (UBI) , to set a floor under incomes and ensure that no-one is ever left without the means to live. Now, because of the coronavirus, both are for the first time being widely, and seriously, considered. The US Government is about to give payments directly to every American adult: strictly speaking this is fiscal policy, not helicopter money, since it isn’t directly financed by the central bank, but as the Fed is buying Treasu...

As many of you know, I have spent much of the last seven years explaining to anyone who will listen that banks do not "lend out" deposits or reserves. Rather, they create both loan assets and matching deposit liabilities "from nothing" by means of double entry accounting entries. Creating money with a stroke of the pen (or a few taps on a computer keyboard) is what banks do. But this does not mean that the money that banks create comes from nowhere. It doesn't. It is only created when they lend (or when they purchase assets, which is equivalent to lending). As Pontus Rendahl explains in a comment on my previous blogpost , what banks do is liquidity transformation - exchanging long-term illiquid assets for short-term liquid ones: How do private banks create money? They create a deposit. A deposit is a Barclays-pound/Bank of America-dollar, or what not, that is traded and accepted as a means of payment at a one-to-one exchange rate with the underlying natio...

"Best diss of the Quantity Theory of Money comes from Keynes", commented Toby Nangle on Twitter, referring to this paragraph from Keynes's Open Letter to Roosevelt   (Toby's emphasis) : The other set of fallacies, of which I fear the influence, arises out of a crude economic doctrine commonly known as the Quantity Theory of Money. Rising output and rising incomes will suffer a set-back sooner or later if the quantity of money is rigidly fixed. Some people seem to infer from this that output and income can be raised by increasing the quantity of money. But this is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt. In the United States to-day your belt is plenty big enough for your belly. It is a most misleading thing to stress the quantity of money, which is only a limiting factor, rather than the volume of expenditure, which is the operative factor. But is Keynes really dissing the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM)? Well....no. He is objecting to the way in which it...

The ever-optimistic OBR has some encouraging forecasts for interest rates and global government bond yields: Well, ok, they were rather more encouraging in November than they are now. The uplift was supposed to start ANY DAY NOW, but there has been an interruption to normal service. Leaves on the line, perhaps. Or the wrong sort of snow. The trouble is, the OBR has a long record of hockey-stick forecasting. Not that it is unique in having a noticeable bias to the upside: If ever there were evidence that economic forecasting owes more to magic than science, it is this pair of charts. Markets expected that interest rates would start rising in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014......it is now 2016 and markets are beginning to wonder if they will ever rise. There is a feeble uplift pencilled in for 2018, and the ghost of a suggestion that there could even be a rate cut this year. The runes have failed, not once but repeatedly. Sack the shamans. Why the runes have failed is not at all ...