저금리 정책에도 불구하고, 세계경제가 계속해서 침체인 이유는?

2008 금융위기 이후, 세계 각국은 기준금리를 인하를 통해 경기부양에 나서고 있지만 경제는 여전히 침체상태이다. 

아래 그래프에서 볼 수 있듯이, 미국은 0.25%, 영국은 0.50%, 유로존은 0.75%로 기준금리를 낮게 유지하고 있다.

그러나 세계경제는 여전히 시궁창;;;

<출처 : http://www.economist.com/node/21562177 "The mystery of Jackson Hole". <The Economist>. 2012.09.08 >

이러한 현상에 대해 여러가지 분석이 나오고 있는데, <The Economist>는 이 중 2가지를 소개하고 있다.

① 금융시장이 제대로 작동하지 않기 때문에 통화정책이 효과를 내지 못하고 있다. 따라서 시장의 부실자산을 직접 매입하는 방법을 구사해야 한다. 이런 방법을 통해 금융시장에 신용을 공급해야 한다.

Adam Posen, who recently left the Bank of England’s monetary-policy committee, had a different explanation for the apparent impotence of monetary policy. Since many financial markets are dysfunctional, the monetary medicine isn’t getting into the economy’s bloodstream. The solution is for central banks to buy more assets in the markets that are most obviously impaired. That is what the Bank of England is doing by providing subsidised credit to banks that lend more, what the ECB is set to do when it resumes purchasing sovereign bonds, and what the Fed could do by buying more mortgage-backed securities.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562177 

"The mystery of Jackson Hole". <The Economist>. 2012.09.08 

② 저금리 정책은 redistributive effects를 초래한다. 예금주에서 은행으로 소득을 이전시키고, 연금채권이자에 의존해서 살아가는 연금소득자의 소득을 감소시킨다. 

(경제정책이란 것이 이러한 상반된 효과를 초래하는 건 당연하지만) 문제는 가장 나은 효과를 낼 수 있는 지점이 어디인지 모른다는 것. 

(현재 경제위기는 유효수요의 부족때문인데) 이미 많은 빚을 지고 있는 가계는 저금리 정책에도 불구하고 대출을 할 수 있는 여력이 없다.

In another paper, Markus Brunnermeier and Yuliy Sannikov of Princeton University provided theoretical justification for this approach. Monetary easing usually works by encouraging businesses and households to move future consumption and investment forward to today. But it also has “redistributive” effects. For example, low short-term interest rates redistribute income from depositors to banks, which allows them to rebuild capital and encourages them to lend more. Similarly, purchases of ten-year government bonds enrich some investors while hurting others, such as pension funds, that depend on bond income to meet longer-dated liabilities. By tailoring their instruments to sectors most in need of support, central banks can get more bang for their buck.

One problem is identifying the areas where direct intervention will do the most good. Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago told the conference that raising banks’ profits has not done much to restart demand because the real problem is that indebted households cannot or will not borrow. He presented evidence that retail spending and car sales have been weaker in states that entered the recession with higher household debt.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562177 

"The mystery of Jackson Hole". <The Economist>. 2012.09.08