In the wake of the credit crunch, the Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) reduced interest rates to virtually zero in December 2008 and embarked on a huge round of quantitative easing over the following 15 months, ending in March 2010. This involved the purchase of some $1.7 trillion of assets, mainly government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. There was also a large planned fiscal stimulus, with President Obama announcing a package of government expenditure increases and tax cuts worth $787 billion in January 2009.
By late 2009, the US economy was recovering and real GDP growth in the final quarter of 2009 was 5.0% (at an annual rate). However, the fiscal stimulus turned out not to be as much as was planned (see and also) and the increased money supply from quantitative easing was not having sufficient effect on aggregate demand. By the second quarter of 2010 annual growth had slowed to 1.7% and there were growing fears of a double-dip recession. What was to be done?
The solution adopted by the Fed was to embark on a second round of quantitative easing – or “QE2”, as it has been dubbed. This will involve purchasing an additional $600 billion of US government bonds by the end of quarter 2 2011, at a rate of around $75 billion per month.
But will it work to stimulate the US economy? What will be the knock-on effects on exchange rates and on other countries? And what will be the effects on prices: commodity prices, stock market prices and prices generally? The following articles look at the issues. They also look at reactions around the world. So far it looks as if other countries will not follow with their own quantitative easing. For example, the Bank of England announced on 4 November that it would not engage in any further quantitative easing. It seems, then, that the USA is the only one on board the QE2.
Articles
QE2 – What is the Fed Doing? Will it Work? Kansas City Star, William B. Greiner (5/11/10)
The ‘Wall Of Money’: A guide to QE2 BBC News blogs: Idle Scrawl, Paul Mason (2/11/10)
Federal Reserve to pump $600bn into US economy BBC News (4/11/10)
Beggar my neighbour – or merely browbeat him? BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (4/11/10)
Too much cash, bubbles and hot potatoes Financial Times (5/11/10)
Bernanke Invokes Friedman’s Inflation-Fighting Legacy to Defend Stimulus Bloomberg, Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews (7/11/10)
The QE backlash The Economist (5/11/10)
Former Fed Chairman Volcker says bond buying plan won’t do much to boost US economy Chicago Tribune, Kelly Olsen (5/11/10)
Ben Bernanke’s QE2 is misguided Guardian, Chris Payne (6/11/10)
Effects on commodity prices and stock markets
Gold hits record high, oil rallies on Fed stimulus Taipei Times (7/11/10)
Analysis: Fed’s QE2 raises alarm of commodity bubble Reuters, Barbara Lewis and Nick Trevethan (5/11/10)
Fed’s Bernanke defends new economic recovery plan BBC News (7/11/10)
Sit back and enjoy the ride that QE2 has set in motion Financial Times, Neil Hume (5/11/10)
US accused of forcing up world food prices Guardian, Phillip Inman (5/11/10)
Effects on other countries
The rest of the world goes West when America prints more money Telegraph, Liam Halligan (6/11/10)
Backlash against Fed’s $600bn easing Financial Times, Alan Beattie, Kevin Brown and Jennifer Hughes (4/11/10)
China, Germany and South Africa criticise US stimulus BBC News (5/11/10)
G20 beset with fresh crisis over currency International Business Times, Nagesh Narayana (5/11/10)
European Central Bank Keeps Rates at Record Lows New York Times, Julia Werdigier and Jack Ewing (4/11/10)
Official statements by central banks
FOMC press release Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (3/11/10)
News release: Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 0.5% and the Size of the Asset Purchase Programme at £200 Billion Bank of England (4/11/10)
ECB Press Conference ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB, Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB (4/11/10)
Questions
- How has the Fed justified the additional $600 billion of quantitative easing?
- What will determine the size of the effect of this quantitative easing on US aggregate demand?
- How will QE2 influence the exchange rate of the dollar?
- Why have other countries been critical of the effects of the US policy?
- What will be the effect of the policy on commodity prices?
GDP (or Gross Domestic Product) measures the value of output produced within a country over a 12-month period. It is this figure which we use to see how much the economy is growing (or shrinking). We can also look at how much different sectors contribute towards this figure. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant change in the output of different sectors, as a percentage of GDP, within the UK economy. In particular, the contribution of manufacturing has diminished, while services have grown rapidly.
However, there is one specific area that is making a growing contribution towards UK GDP and is expected to see acceleration in its growth rate by some 10% annually over the next few years: the internet. Although the internet is not an economic sector, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) said that if it was, it would be the UK’s fifth largest sector and according to a report by Google, it is worth approximately £100 billion per year to the UK economy. Furthermore, it is an area in which the UK is one of the leading exporters. The emergence of the internet has transformed industries and individual businesses and the trend looks set to continue. The report by Google found that some 31 million adults bought goods and services online over the past year, spending some £50 billion.
What are the benefits for businesses of internet shopping and does it have an impact on the retail outlets on Britain’s highstreets? The answer is undoubtedly yes, but is it good or bad? What does the emergence of this new ‘sector’ mean for the UK economy?
Articles
UK net economy ‘worth billions’ BBC News (28/10/10)
UK’s internet industry worth £100 billion report Guardian, James Robinson (28/10/10)
’Nation of internet shopkeepers’ pumps £100 billion into economy Independent, Nick Clark (28/10/10)
UK internet is now worth £100bn to UK economy Telegraph, Rupert Neate (28/10/10)
Google at 10 BBC News, Success Story, Tim Weber (4/9/08)
Britain’s £100bn internet economy leads the world in online shopping Guardian, James Robinson (28/10/10)
Report
How the internet is transforming the UK economy The Boston Consulting Group October 2010
Government Statistics
United Kingdom: National Accounts, The Blue Book 2009 Office for National Statistics 2009 edition
Questions
- What is the UK’s GDP? How does it compare with other countries and how has it changed over the past 10 years?
- How does internet provision contribute towards growth? Think about the AD curve. Illustrate this on a diagram and explain the effect on the main macroeconomic objectives.
- Is there a problem with becoming too dependent on this emerging sector?
- How has the internet and online environment helped businesses? Think about the impact on costs and revenue and hence profits.
- What explanation is there for the change in the structure of the UK economy that we have seen over the past few decades.
- Will internet shopping ever replace the ‘normal’ method of shopping? Explain your answer.
Multinational companies bring many advantages to host nations. Whether it is creating jobs, income, investment or sharing technology, governments across the world try to encourage firms to set up in their country. However, once a multinational has been set up, it’s natural for the owners and managers to favour their own countries when decisions have to be made. If there is some new investment planned, where to put it will be a key decision and not just for the firm. New investment may mean new jobs and better working environments. If job cuts are necessary, the decision-maker’s country of origin may determine where they occur.
This so-called ‘Headquarters effect’ is apparent in the case of Siemens, which has guaranteed the safety of all German jobs, both now and in the future. Those employees in the UK are understandably concerned. If job cuts are needed and German workers will not be affected, it takes little intelligence to realise that their jobs may be at risk. The following discussion by Robert Peston considers this issue.
British jobs, for German workers BBC News blogs, Peston’s Picks, Robert Peston (7/10/10)
Questions
- What is the ‘Headquarters effect’?
- The article states: “The HQ effect implies that when a British plant is owned by an overseas company, it may be more vulnerable to being closed down if the going gets tough”. Why is this the case?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of multinational investment to (a) the multinational company and (b) the host country?
- How is multinational investment affected by the business cycle?
- It Trent UK were to shut down or if a particular office was closed in one part of the country, what type of unemployment would be created?
With countries around the globe struggling to recover from recession, many seem to believe that the answer lies in a growth in exports. But how can this be achieved? A simple solution is to lower the exchange rate.
Under a pegged exchange rate, the currency could be devalued. Alternatively, if the country’s inflation is lower than that of other countries, merely leaving the exchange rate pegged at its current level will bring about a real devaluation (in purchasing-power parity terms).
Under a floating exchange rate, one answer would be to lower interest rates. This would involve open market operations to support the lower rate and that would increase the money supply. But with central banks’ interest rates at virtually zero, it is not possible to lower them further. In such circumstances a solution would be a deliberate policy of increasing the money supply through “quantitative easing”. For example, the USA is considering a second round of quantitative easing (known as “QE2”). This would tend to push down the exchange rate of the dollar.
But stimulating exports through devaluation or depreciation is a zero-sum game globally. If currency A depreciates against currency B, currency B necessarily appreciates against currency A. Country A’s gain in exports to Country B are an increase in imports for Country B. It is logically impossible for every currency in the world to depreciate! Yet depreciation is exactly the policy being pursued by countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, all of which have directly intervened in the currency markets to lower their exchange rates. And, in each case of course, other countries’ currencies have an equivalent appreciation against them.
Economists and politicians in the USA argue that the dollar is fundamentally over valued against the Chinese yuan (or ‘renminbi’ as it is sometimes called). They are calling on China to revalue by far more than the 2% increase since June 2010. But what if China refuses to do so? On 29 September the House of Representatives passed a bill giving the executive branch the authority to impose a wide range of tariffs on imports from China. The bill was passed with a huge majority of 348 to 79.
So is this the start of a trade war? Many in the USA argue that China is already waging such a war by giving subsidies to a wide range of exports. And that war is hotting up. China has just announced that it is imposing traiffs ranging from 50% to 104% on various poultry imports from the USA. And if it is a trade war, will there be any winners? The following articles investigate.
Global recovery’s weakness raises possibility of trade war Guardian, Larry Elliott (4/10/10)
Tension mounts as China and US trade insults over currency Independent, Stephen Foley (1/10/10)
Is the world in a trade war? Time Magazine blogs: The Curious Capitalist, Michael Schuman (29/9/10)
Trade War Is Here – and We’ve Disarmed The Huffington Post, Robert Kuttner (3/10/10)
US House Passes Anti-China Trade War Bill GlobalResearch.ca, Barry Grey (1/10/10)
Currencies the key to market’s next move BBC News, Jamie Robertson (3/10/10)
A Message for China New York Times (30/9/10)
Taking On China New York Times, Paul Krugman (30/9/10)
Krugman Makes Two Powerful Arguments Against “Taking on China” Wall Street Pit, Scott Sumner (2/10/10)
Why the U.S. can’t win a trade war with China The Globe and Mail (Canada), Carl Mortished (4/10/10)
China-Japan trade war looms CTV News (Canada), Mark MacKinnon (23/9/10)
IMF chief’s warning of currency war ‘real threat’ BBC News, interview with Dominique Strauss-Khan, head of the IMF (7/10/10)
Could disputes over currency levels lead to a depression? BBC World Service, interview with Robert Zoellick (8/10/10)
China stands firm over yuan move BBC News, Andrew Walker (9/10/10)
What to do about China’s currency? Washington Post (10/10/10)
How to stop a currency war The Economist (14/10/10)
What’s the currency war about? BBC News, Laurence Knight (23/10/10)
Nominally cheap or really dear? The Economist (4/11/10)
Questions
- Why are competitive devaluations globally a zero sum game while global trade wars are a negative sum game?
- What are the arguments for and against using tariffs as a means of stimulating recovery?
- Why has quantitative easing so far had a more discernible effect on asset prices than on the real economy?
- Do a search on “Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act” of 1930 and describe its impact on the global economy in the 1930s. Are there any parallels today?
- How is it possible for massive trade surpluses and deficits to persist and yet for individual countries’ exchange rates and overall balance of payments to be in equilibrium?
- Are global trade imbalances widening, and if so why?
- What would determine the size of the effect on the US balance of trade of an appreciation of the yuan?
One of the structural problems facing the UK economy is that people have been borrowing too much and saving too little. As a result, vast numbers of people have been living on credit and accumulating large debts, and many people have little in the way of savings when they retire.
So should the government or Bank of England be encouraging people to save? Not according to Charles Bean, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England – at least not in the short term. While acknowledging that people should be saving more over the long term, he argues that the main purpose of the historically low Bank Rate since the beginning of 2009 has been to encourage people to spend, thereby boosting the economy. In other words, if the purpose of a loose monetary policy is to increase aggregate demand and stimulate the economy, then what is needed is increased consumption and reduced saving, not increased saving.
In the following webcast, Charles Bean gives his views about interest rates and counters the criticism that savers are being pid too little interest. He argues that for many the solution is to start drawing on some of their capital – not a solution that most savers find very appealing!
Webcast
Bank of England: savers should eat into cash Channel 4 News, Faisal Islam (27/9/10)
Articles
Savers told to stop moaning and start spending Telegraph, Robert Winnett and Myra Butterworth (28/9/10)
Bean Says Bank of England Trying to Get Reasonable Economic Activity Level Bloomberg, Scott Hamilton and Gonzalo Vina (27/9/10)
Spend, spend, spend, demands Bank of England deputy governor Investment & Business News , Tom Harris (28/9/10)
Data
International saving data (see Table 23) Economic Outlook, OECD
AMECO on line (see tables in section 15.3) AMECO, Economic and Financial Affairs (European Commission)
Economic and Labour Market Review (see Table 1.07) National Statistics
Questions
- What is meant by the ‘paradox of thrift’?
- Reconcile the argument that it is in the long-term interests of the UK economy for people to save more with the Bank of England’s current intention that people should save less?
- Is there a parallel argument about fiscal policy and government spending (see the news item The ‘paradox of cuts’?)
- What are the determinants of saving?
- Look at the data links above and compare the UK’s saving rate with that of other countries.
- What has happened to the UK saving rate over the past four years? Attempt an explanation of this.