QE doesn’t work, and is in fact counterproductive. That’s evidently news to The Financial Times, but not to Zero Hedge or SLL, who predicted its failure six years ago. How, we have repeatedly asked, can a central buying exchanging its fiat money for a government’s indebtedness, promote anything—notably economic growth—other than paper swapping? From zerohedge.com:
When “very serious people” (even if it is those who once ran now defunct Bear Stearns) announce it, with a 6 year delay, they make the Financial Times.
On the other hand, when Zero Hedge said precisely this 6 years ago, it was cast as a tin-foil clad group of conspirators who see the worst in every situation.
What is “it”? This:
The long-term consequences of global QE are likely to permanently impair living standards for generations to come while creating a false illusion of reviving prosperity.
In this case, it was said this week by Guggenheim’s Chairman of Investments and Global Chief Investment Officer, Scott Minerd. We are happy that increasingly more “serious people” come to the same conclusion which we posited first a 6 years ago.* * *
Here is the full note:
The Monetary Illusion
As economic growth returns again to Europe and Japan, the prospect of a synchronous global expansion is taking hold. Or, then again, maybe not. In a recent research piece published by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, global economic growth, as measured in nominal U.S. dollars, is projected to decline in 2015 for the first time since 2009, the height of the financial crisis.
In fact, the prospect of improvement in economic growth is largely a monetary illusion. No one needs to explain how policymakers have made painfully little progress on the structural reforms necessary to increase global productive capacity and stimulate employment and demand. Lacking the political will necessary to address the issues, central bankers have been left to paper over the global malaise with reams of fiat currency.
With politicians lacking the willingness or ability to implement labor and tax reforms, monetary policy has perversely morphed into a new orthodoxy where even central bankers admittedly view it as their job to use their balance sheets as a tool to implement fiscal policy.
One argument is that if central banks were not created to execute fiscal policy, then why require them to maintain any capital at all? Capital is that which is held in reserve to absorb losses. If losses are to be anticipated, then a reasonable inference is that a certain expectation of risk must exist. Therefore, central banks must be expected to take on some risk for policy purposes, which implies a function beyond the creation of a monetary base to maintain price stability.
To continue reading: Finally The “Very Serious People” Get It
