"How can I know what I think until I read what I write?" – Henry James

There are a few lone voices willing to utter heresy. I am an avid follower of Ilusion Monetaria, a blog by ex-Bank of Spain economist (and monetarist) Miguel Navascues here.
Dr Navascues calls a spade a spade. He exhorts Spain to break free of EMU oppression immediately. (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard)

martes, 7 de febrero de 2012

Por qué Australia y Suecia han salido mejor de la crisis (Respuesta a Scott Sumner)

Razón: sus estados financieros eran ejemplares. Ni bancos en crisis, ni deuda pública. Política monetaria muy agresiva para facilitar la transición del deleveraging. Comparen con EEUU, que ya va por un 100% de deuda bruta/PIBN. Esto supongo refuta a los keynesianos "viejos" (Krugman), emperrados en la política fiscal. No ha hecho falta política fiscal en estos dos países. Es más, en USA ha sido perjudicial.
También refuta a los Markets Monetarist, en que las condiciones iniciales desequilibrios de  los balances sectoriales condicionan la efectividad de la PM y el tiempo de salida de la crisis.
Me dice Scott Sumner que qué tiene que ver unan cosa con la otra. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=12985
Respuesta: Efecto Ricardiano sobre expectativas. No puede suscitar la mismas expectativas una política monetaria expansiva con una deuda del 100% que con una del 30%. Es imposible.

Gross debt in % of NGDP
En inglés

To Mr Scott Sumner: this is why Australia, Sweden succeed against the crisis

open arguments
By Luis Arroyo, in Madrid | The reason? Well, their States are exemplary. No banks in trouble, no massive public debt but a very aggressive monetary policy to grease the inevitable deleveraging process. Let us compare them to the US, for instance, whose gross debt to national GDP has already touched the 100pc base. This, I suppose, should shake the beliefs of old Keynesians like Krugman, stubbornly champions of a fiscal bust that neither Australia nor Sweden have felt the need for. Equally, this refutes market monetarists in their logic that the initial conditions of unbalances mark how efficient a monetary policy can be and when it is convenient to push the brakes.
Professor of Economics at Bentley University Scott Sumner, though, tells me there is no correlation here. My answer: Ricardian equivalence over expectations. An expansive monetary policy with a 100pc debt to GDP will not spark the same expectations as one with a 30pc debt to GDP. It is impossible.

3 comentarios:

João Marcus dijo...

You are being too "radical" in your opposition to MM". Note that the Gross Debt of the US only "jumped" AFTER the crisis began. That was because the conventional view was that monetary policy "couldn´t help". After all thare was the ZLB! So everyone went on to propose "fiscal stimulus".
Australia and Sweden acted "as if" they were targeting nominal spending, so thare was no need for much "fiscal stimulus".
See my old post on Australia:

www.MiguelNavascues.com dijo...
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
www.MiguelNavascues.com dijo...

Yes, it is perhaps only facts without correlation. But I think that a diffrence in conditions is evident. Not all is NGDP.

7 de febrero de 2012 21:09