« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Less Than ZIRP

Keynes? Euthanasia of The Rentier (Saver) In Modern America

The justification for a moderately high rate of interest has been found hitherto in the necessity of providing a sufficient inducement to save. But we have shown that the extent of effective saving is necessarily determined by the scale of investment and that the scale of investment is promoted by a low rate of interest…Thus it is to our best advantage to reduce the rate of interest to that point relatively to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital at which there is full employment. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution.

- John Maynard Keynes The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money(HT: The Beacon)

With each meeting of The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a certain effort is made to read the tea leaves of what took place. Charles Kadlec accuses them of devaluing the US Dollar. While Simone Foxman suggests they are working up the gumption to unleash QE3. This perhaps takes place because reading the actual minutes of an FOMC Meeting would rival watching paint dry on a wall.

Histrionics and prognostications aside, not a lot is actually happening at The Fed. Not a lot will happen between now and 2014. The policy direction is ZIRP and it will stay there for a long time. This is intended to remove all doubt that credit will remain abundant and capital will stay cheap over the short to intermediate time horizon. This is supposed to make people want to invest and expand more because they will have more confidence in the stability of current conditions.

Gonzalo Lira suggests that the Federal Reserve has this psychology precisely backwards. He compares three guaranteed years of ZIRP to free chocolate and makes the analogy below.

In point of fact, if the chocolate is free, you might not eat any chocolate at all. Every time you make the decision as to what to eat, you might well find yourself repeating the same mantra: “Chocolate is free—I can have it any time I want. So I won’t have any now.” This is the problem Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve currently have—and it’s their own stupid fault: They have promised to maintain interest rates at effectively 0% until at least the end of 2014—they have in fact announced this zero interest-rate policy (ZIRP) as the hallmark of their strategy to reignite the economy—but then they’re surprised when businesses aren’t borrowing more. They’re surprised when lending is in fact contracting. They’re surprised when the American economy doesn’t start borrowing—and thus growing—like crazy.

If energy consumption can be considered a reliable barometer of economic activity, America is not growing more prosperous under ZIRP. According to the US Energy Information Administration gasoline consumption has declined by 13% between 2007 and 2011.

To the ecologically conscience, a 13% drop in gasoline consumption is a feature; not a bug. All hail Solyndra and The Almighty Chevy Volt! But it’s not just Gasoline consumption that is dropping. US electricity consumption has also never recovered to where it was in 2008 and it began to fall off again throughout 2011.

US Electrical Consumption Fell Off in 2011

So if people aren’t consuming energy, and therefore must not be increasing their level of economic activity, they must be saving their money. If this is actually so, their level of reward for this thrift has fallen off the cliff. Personal Interest Income (PII) has been in terminal freefall since 2008.

The Euthanasia Of The Saver

So we aren’t growing our economy, haven’t created substantial new employment, aren’t using as much energy or electricity as we used to. What then is the ZIRP policy accomplishing? It has done exactly what John Maynard Keynes wanted; The Euthanasia of the Saver.

COMMENTS

  • dajeeps

    Or make it five by adding “credit crunch.” Rightly or wrongly, the Fed is focused like a laser on housing, and I wouldn’t expect any movement from the zero bound until there some recovery there.

    • acat

      and the two ways they can go about this are either letting inflation bring the dollar cost of a home down to historical norm values, or to re-inflate the housing bubble.

      Assuming the latter – re-inflating a burst balloon – is impossible, the alternative is to let the dollar de-value a bit. Eventually, housing will stabilize, although they’ve got quite a way to go … one source tells me the last time housing dollar cost and value were in line, historically, was the early 1990s …

      And yes, everyone with an ARM is in deep, deep trouble… but I don’t recall agents of Golden West holding guns to customers’ heads.

      Mew

      • dajeeps

        Without taking a position.

        I don’t think it is at all helpful for the Fed to be focused on individual sectors of the economy. The Fed is blunt instrument, not a scalpel. It can either raise all boats or hold them all down, and is really lousy at producing generally positive outcomes while focused on a single tree instead of the whole forest.

        This is the kind of chaos that happens when there is lack of political leadership, and everyone wanders off to take care of issues they think are important because no one else is doing it, while their own responsibilities are neglected. The Fed really is no different, although one would think that because what it does impacts everyone, that those in it would have more professional and ethical sense to not be so distracted.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          This always winds up in tears.

          • dajeeps

            The whole of the housing/financial crisis up to now has been one disgusting event after another.

  • Adjoran

    It’s suicide. The Bank of Japan tried it in the wake of their own banking crisis in the late ’80s; it resulted in a long period of neglible growth, now known as the “Lost Decade.”

    The most interesting thing about Keynes is that virtually everything he posited has proven wrong over time.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      If you want government to control the flow of capital to the highest degree of precision, than destroying the motivation for individual savings almost becomes an engineering necessity. While you and I think of the interest paid on savings as a reward for prudence and foresight, Keynes sees this interest as a form of viscosity that keeps money from flowing as rapidly as he would like it to.

      Which leaves we wondering what Keynes’ ultimate goals really were. Did he want people to actually be better off, or did he merely want the state to more completely control whether people could successfully become better off? The answer to that question informs whether you think Keynes was really wrong on this issue.

      • baserunr

        He was, at heart, an eliteist. He never grasped the fact that the free market was efficient. He saw temporary and transitional inefficiencies, and like most modern-day liberals, believed that the normal course of correction was too slow, and too ineffective.

        The true mark that ZIRP is a failure is this test: in what free-market environment would a saver accept 0.2% interest on money saved?

    • skorrent1

      Who said something like “Everything (Keynes) said that was true was not new, and everything he said that was new was not true.”