기대Expectation가 경제에 미치는 영향기대Expectation가 경제에 미치는 영향

Posted at 2012.09.18 11:52 | Posted in 경제학/2008 금융위기


美 연방준비위원회(FRB or Fed)의 3차 양적완화(QE3)에서 발표에서 주목해야 하는 건


If the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially, the Committee will continue its purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities, undertake additional asset purchases, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability. (...)


To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm

FOMC statement – 13 Sept 2012


경제가 침체의 길에서 벗어나더라도 현재의 통화정책-0%~0.25%대의 초저금리-를 적절한 시간까지 유지하겠다고 밝히고 있다. 이 발언은 미국경제가 유동성 함정에 빠지는 것을 방지할 뿐 아니라, "경제가 완전히 회복될 때까지, FRB가 할 수 있는 모든 것을 하겠다" 라는 신호를 보낸 것이다.


Derek Thompson이 지적하듯이, FRB는 경제위기에서 벗어나기 위한 모든 것을 할 수는 없다. 가계부채 문제·유럽경제위기·신흥국 시장의 침체·교육 질의 저하 등등. 그러나 기대 인플레이션 변화 등을 통해 경제가 회복될 수 있다는 자신감을 시장참여자에게 심어줄 수 있다.


the Fed doesn't control all the variables for growth. High household debt, a weak global economy, and awful residential investment are all contributing to our economic drought.


The Federal Reserve doesn't have explicit answers for these problems. Unlike Congress, it cannot send checks to families in the mail to raise income, or increase spending for defense contractors to raise employment. Instead, its policies can change expectations to encourage families and businesses to invest with confidence. By raising inflation expectations, QE can give the stock market a boost, and by lowering long-term interest rates it can encourage families to buy houses. 


(...)


Two weeks ago, Michael Woodford, a monetary economist, presented a very celebrated and wonky paper making a simple point.  The Federal Reserve's greatest power isn't the ability to buy bonds. It's the ability to make promises. 


In a world where the Fed makes stimulus contingent on bad economic news, it creates a start-stop psychology for businesses. When a jobs report is bad, people expect more QE. But when a jobs report is good, people expect less QE. That's weird! In an ironic way, it makes good economic reports bad for the long-term economy because it makes the Fed less likely to offer further support.


Today's announcement changes that. Bernanke essentially said: I'm going to keep my foot on the gas even after the economy starts to recover. Good economic reports or bad, the Federal Reserve will be working to keep interest rates low "for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens." We don't know what impact this will have on the housing and jobs market. But we're all about to learn the value of a Ben Bernanke promise.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/qe3-the-feds-new-stimulus-is-a-monster-but-how-will-it-help-the-economy/262351/

Derek Thompson. "QE3: The Fed's New Stimulus Is a Monster, but How Will It Help the Economy?". <the Atlantic>. 2012.09.13



또한, FRB는 1·2차 양적완화 당시 채권 매입 규모와 기간을 명시했던 것과 달리 무제한unlimited 채권 매입 방식을 쓰겠다고 밝힘으로써 "경제회복을 위해 우리가 할 수 있는 모든 것을 하겠다" 라는 신호를 보내고 있다. 무제한이라는 단어가 시장 투자자에게 미치는 심리적인 영향은 무시할 수 없다.


There are two key innovations here, both aimed at altering expectations. First is the commitment to open-ended bond purchases. Last week, the European Central Bank put its unlimited capacity to print money to bear on the euro crisis by promising to buying peripheral country bonds with no “ex ante quantitative limit”.  The Fed has done the same thing, though in the cause of boosting output rather than saving the euro. Do not underestimate the psychological impact on investors of "unlimited."


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/federal-reserve-launches-qe3

"The power of positive thinking". <The Economist>. 2012.09.13




물론, 사람들의 기대Expectaion을 변화시키는 방법이 효과를 볼 수 있을지 의문을 표하는 목소리도 존재한다.

일반적인 사람들은 FRB가 무슨 발표를 하는지 별로 관심이 없을 뿐더러, 그것이 무엇을 의미하는지 이해하지 못하기 때문에 미래 경제에 대한 기대Expectation을 변화시키지 않을 것이라고 말한다.


But here is the problem with the applicability of this philosophical thought experiment.  In the real world, very few people are really paying much attention to the Fed and its illustrious Chairman, much less forming their expectations in the light of his words. If you work in an ordinary place of business, filled with a broad cross section of folks, try asking a few random co-workers what they thought of Ben Bernanke’s press release or press conference on Wednesday.  And for those among them who listened, and can say something non-vague about it, go on to ask them how they are changing their behavior in response.


http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/09/shamanistic-economics.html

Dan Kervick. "Shamanistic Economics". <New Economic Perspective>. 2012.09.13


그렇지만, 시장의 많은 부분은 이른바 큰 손Big Players들이 좌지우지 하고 있다. Big Players들의 기대를 변화시키고 이것이 주식·부동산 시장의 활성화를 불러온다면, 많은 사람들에게 "경제가 회복되고 있다"라는 구체적인 신호를 보낼 수 있게 된다. 



Name __

Password __

Link (Your Website)

Comment

SECRET | 비밀글로 남기기

소득불균등을 증가시키는 양적완화?소득불균등을 증가시키는 양적완화?

Posted at 2012.09.17 11:45 | Posted in 경제학/2008 금융위기

3차 양적완화에 대한 비판은 주로 "금융·자산·상품시장의 거품만 키우고 소득불균등을 증가시킨다"에 초점을 맞춰서 제기되고 있다. 

양적완화는 쉽게 말하면 시장에 돈을 푸는 것인데, 급격히 증가된 유동성은 일자리를 창출하는 기업이 아니라 주식·부동산시장으로 흐를 수 있다. 소득상위 10%가 주식시장의 75%를 차지하고 있는 현실을 감안한다면 이는 소득불균등만 증가시킨다.

또한, 석유·식품 등의 상품거래시장으로 유동성이 투입된다면 석유·식품 가격만 인상시키는 결과를 낳는다. 소득상위 20%는 소득의 2%, 5%만 석유와 식품 구매에 쓰는데 비해, 소득하위 20%는 소득의 8%, 20%를 석유와 식품 구매에 사용한다. 즉, 석유·식품 가격의 인상은 저소득층의 삶을 악화시킨다. 
(식품이 금융시장에서 거래되는 모습을 설명한 글 - 골드만삭스는 식량위기를 어떻게 만들어냈는가?)

Worse, the Fed’s campaign is increasing inequality. The hope is that quantitative easing will drive up stock prices, making consumers feel richer and spend more. But this glow is felt mainly by families in the top 10 per cent of incomes, because they own 75 per cent of all stocks. Meanwhile, the poor are hit hardest by rising commodity prices: families in the bottom 20 per cent of incomes spend 8 per cent of their income on petrol and 30 per cent on food, while the top 20 per cent spend just 2 per cent on petrol and 5 per cent on food. This link between monetary easing and inequality is a byproduct of the new liquidity link between stock prices and oil prices.


As the Fed started to hint at QE3 a few weeks ago, oil and food prices started to rally again. Fed officials used to cite strong demand in the developing world to explain commodity price inflation, but with growth slowing in emerging markets, supply-and-demand dynamics cannot explain this rally. Trading fuelled by easy money can, however: actively traded commodities such as gold, copper and coal are selling at prices 20-65 per cent higher than the marginal cost of production. Prices of less actively traded commodities, such as steel and iron ore, are falling.


(...)


Meanwhile, the US is pushing a third round of quantitative easing, which could be more counterproductive than the first two, since oil and food prices are now dangerously close to levels that have acted as a tipping point for the global economy in the past. Some economists trace oil and food prices to non-monetary factors such as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and drought conditions. Maybe. But at this point, abandoning QE3 would do more good than pushing it, because dropping it would lead to a fall in oil and food prices. That would be equivalent to a significant tax cut for the middle class and would act as a true stimulus for the global economy.


Ruchir  Sharma. "For true stimulus, Fed should drop QE3". <the Financial Times>. 2012.09.10


Name __

Password __

Link (Your Website)

Comment

SECRET | 비밀글로 남기기

美 FRB의 QE3 - 유동성함정 & 하이퍼인플레이션美 FRB의 QE3 - 유동성함정 & 하이퍼인플레이션

Posted at 2012.09.14 10:07 | Posted in 경제학/2008 금융위기


미 연방준비위원회(FRB)가 매달 400억 달러 규모의 주택저당증권(MBS)을 사들이는 3차 양적완화(QE3, quantitative easing 3)를 발표했다. 또, 2008 금융위기 이후 이어져온 0%~0.25%대의 초저금리를 유지기한을 2014년 말에서 2015년 6월까지 연장했다.


the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in June, and it is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities.


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm

FOMC statement – 13 Sept 2012


※ 2008 금융위기 이후 FRB는 금리를 계속해서 내려, 0.25%의 초저금리를 4년째 유지하고 있다.

<출처 : http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate>




FRB가 걱정하는 것은 초저금리에도 불구하고 미국 경제가 유동성 함정에 빠지는 것이다. 유동성 함정이란 0에 가까운 낮은 금리 상태에도 불구하고 소비와 투자가 늘지 않는 상태를 말하는데, 경제가 유동성 함정에 빠지게 되면 확장적 통화정책이 더 이상 효과를 보지 못한다.




<출처 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap>


위 그래프는 유동성 함정에 빠진 경제를 나타내는데, 이와 같이 LM 곡선의 이자율 탄력성이 무한대가 된다면 확장적 통화정책을 쓰더라도 총생산은 증가하지 않는다. 


이때, 효과를 보는 것이 바로 재정정책. 경제가 유동성 함정에 빠졌을 시 재정정책은 큰 효과를 보게 된다.

많은 사람들은 케인즈주의를 단순히 정부지출 증가로 알고 있는데, 정확히 말하자면 "경제가 침체에 빠지고 유동성 함정에 빠졌을 때" 확장적 재정정책이 유의미한 결과를 가져온다.


Today’s case in point: by now, five years into the financial crisis, you might have imagined that people would stop spouting this line: “You say government spending can create jobs — but then why isn’t Greece booming? Huh? Huh?”


You might think that by now people would have gotten the conditional nature of the claim: fiscal expansion has a positive effect if the economy is depressed and monetary policy won’t move to offset it — typically, if the economy is in a liquidity trap. 


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/it-depends-on-the-situation/

Paul Krugman. "It Depends on the Situation". 2012.07.24




그런데 문제는 미국의 국가부채가 이미 과도한 상태라는 것이다. GDP 대비 국가부채가 103%인 상황에서 재정지출을 늘리기에는 무리가 따른다. 


<출처 : http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp>


달러가 기축통화인 상황에서 미국은 정부부채를 신경쓰지 않아도 된다라는 반론이 제기될 수 있다. 


그러나 2011년, 정부부채 상한선 조정을 놓고 공화당-민주당이 정치적 대립을 벌였었고... (이른바 부채천장 위기Debt Ceiling Crsis

2013년에 세금인상·재정지출 축소가 계획됨에 따라 재정절벽Fiscal Cliff 문제가 야기될 수 있는 상황에서 정치권에서 논란이 지속되고 있는데, 이와중에 추가 재정지출은 정치적으로 어려운 선택이다.




그렇다면 유동성 함정을 방지하기 위해서는 어떻게 해야할까?

다시 말하자면, 유동성 함정은 낮은 금리에도 불구하고 소비·투자가 늘지 않는 상태를 말한다. 


왜 이런 일이 발생할까?

가계와 기업은 인플레이션을 유발하는 초저금리 상황이 계속 지속될 수 없다고 생각한다. 

미래에 금리가 오를 것이라고 기대하기 때문에 현재 지출을 늘리는 대신 화폐를 계속 보유하는 선택을 하게 된다.


No matter how much Japan increases the monetary base now, expectations of future money supplies won’t move if people believe that the Bank of Japan will move to stabilize the price level as soon as the economy recovers. And once you realize that central banks may not be able to move expectations about future money supplies, it becomes a real possibility that the economy will be in a liquidity trap: if interest rates are near zero, money printed now just gets hoarded, and monetary policy has no traction on the real economy.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/macro-policy-in-a-liquidity-trap-wonkish/

Paul Krugman. "Macro policy in a liquidity trap (wonkish)". 2008.11.15



그러니까 유동성 함정을 벗어나기 위해서는 미래에도 계속해서 저금리를 유지할 것임을 다른 경제주체들에게 확신시켜야 한다. 

쉽게 말하자면, 미래에 인플레이션이 발생하더라도 이를 감수할 것이라는 신호를 보내야 한다.


The whole subject of the liquidity trap has a sort of Alice-through-the-looking-glass quality. Virtues like saving, or a central bank known to be strongly committed to price stability, become vices; to get out of the trap a country must loosen its belt, persuade its citizens to forget about the future, and convince the private sector that the government and central bank aren’t as serious and austere as they seem.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/macro-policy-in-a-liquidity-trap-wonkish/

Paul Krugman. "Macro policy in a liquidity trap (wonkish)". 2008.11.15


Current monetary policy is indeed ineffective in a liquidity trap; but there is still scope for central bank action in the form of credible commitments to keep monetary policy easy in the future, when the economy is no longer at the zero lower bound.


The trouble is how to make those credible commitments. Actually, it’s a two-stage problem. First you have to convince the central bank itself that it’s a good idea to signal that you won’t return to normal policy (say a standard Taylor rule) as soon as the economy lifts off from the liquidity trap; then you have to convince the private sector that the central bank will not, in fact, just revert to type once the crisis is past.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/monetary-versus-fiscal-policy-revisited/

Paul Krugman. "Monetary Versus Fiscal Policy, Revisited". 2012.09.01



미 연방준비위원회(FRB)가 "0%~0.25%대의 초저금리를 2015년 6월까지 유지한다"는 말은 하는 이유가 여기에 있다. 또, FRB는 다소 높은 인플레이션도 감수할 것임을 알리고 있다.


To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee also decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid-2015.


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm

FOMC statement – 13 Sept 2012


the Fed’s policy-making committee suggested Thursday that it might tolerate a period of somewhat higher inflation, promising to maintain stimulus efforts “for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/business/economy/fed-announces-new-round-of-bond-buying-to-spur-growth.html

"Fed Ties New Aid to Jobs Recovery in Forceful Move". <NYT>. 2012.09.13




이러한 양적완화가 하이퍼 인플레이션을 불러오면 어떡할까?

1차·2차 양적완화 당시에도 이러한 비판이 제기되었지만, 하이퍼 인플레이션은 발생하지 않았다.

현재의 경제위기는 유효수요의 부족이기 때문에 FRB의 양적완화는 효과를 볼 것이라는 말이다.


그리고 현재 물가가 안정된 상태이기 때문에 하이퍼 인플레이션이 발생할 가능성이 낮다고 FRB는 판단한 것이다.


더욱이 소비자·도매 물가와 수·출입 가격이 안정됨으로써 물가상승률을 연간 2%로 묶어두고 경기 진작책이 절대 인플레이션을 자극해서는 안 된다는 방침을 정한 연준의 부담도 덜어줬다는 분석이다.


http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2012/09/14/0200000000AKR20120914002954071.HTML?did=1179m

"美연준 '무기한' QE3..초저금리 연장". <연합뉴스>. 2012.09.14


Name __

Password __

Link (Your Website)

Comment

SECRET | 비밀글로 남기기