Ask an Economist

The way the economy is today, would it be bad if rich countries (US, EU and Japan) print money and instead of doing the QE (top bottom) inserted the money on a bottom up approach? And I know about the risk of inflation, but isn't it what we want right now? A little bit?

1) I'm talking here about rich countries with deflation or very little inflation, so a bit more of extra money in the market wouldn't be bad (it would be up to them to calculate this amount)

2) The money could be give to the poorest in the society. This money would go straight back to the economy since lower classes save very little (usually they spend the extra money or pay debts). So instead of the trickle down economics (which usually doesn't work) we would have a trickle up economics. Australia did it just after the 2008 GFC and it was one of the only developed countries that didn't go into recession. (although it took the money from its budget).

3) The QE amounted in trillions of dollars and not much of this money went to the real economy in terms of investment and the creation of jobs. A lot of it created an inflation of assets such as the growth of the stock market in US, a housing price hike in world cities such as NY, London, Sydney, LA and so on and even Art prices exploded...but not much to the real economy.

4) Corporations don't need more money in the form of tax breaks and cheap loans (they are swimming in cash). They need consumers to consume! So they know they have a market and be confident to invest in new projects. And with the squeeze of the middle class in rich countries, we are not consuming as much as we need to keep the economy growing.

5) I don't know how much money would be enough to kick start (or improve) the economy of Japan, Europe and US without a dangerous inflation but it could be done in 4 installments along the year to the poorest families. Image something like 4 x 200 USD in one year. This money would make a big difference for low-income families and would flood directly to the economy...and companies would know that the money would come and they could prepare themselves.

6) The dollar is pretty strong now and it's becoming a problem for the US and the rest of the world. So printing a bit might not hurt much.

7) A few years ago negative interest rates were seen as something out of this world. But now Japan, Switzerland and Sweden have it. We just need to think out of the box to improve this economy in a more inclusive way....no middle class, no economy and no democracy!

8) Obviously, this wouldn't work with developing countries with weak currencies and inflation...but for US, EU and Japan...why not?

Generally speaking, an efficient allocation of ‘ownership’ or ‘control’ of a business is one that matches contribution to capital or input. For example, if I commit 60% of the resources a business requires (human or other capital), then I would expect approximately 60% control (ownership). It seems that both Partner 1 and Partner 2 contributed the same amount of cash equity (each secured “the same” loan to fund Business 2). Therefore, a starting point is that each Partner has equal ownership (on grounds of invested risk capital). One might also consider that Business 1 is a ‘partner’ because of the subsidization of land (rent) and Partner B’s salary. Business 1’s contribution is an amortized amount of rent and salary over the years in which Business 1 will subsidize Business 2. In this case, Business 1’s ownership is not trivial and should be recognized as risk capital to be repaid by Business 2 or purchased by either Partner A or Partner B at some point, giving the purchasing Partner a greater share of the remaining control.

In a recent article in the New York Times about free trade, the author talks about the negative impact on the US of low cost Chinese goods entering the market not being experienced by Germany and other European countries. The article goes on to explain that part of the reason is low US interest rates caused in part by a low American savings rate.

Why would a low savings rate put downward pressure on rates? If savings is capital available to be borrowed, and less savings means less capital available, shouldn't that put upward pressure on rates (everything else being equal)? Isn't that a fundamental economic principle? Restricted supply in the face of fixed demand = increasing price (interest rates)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/business/economy/on-trade-angry-voters...

"Mr. Autor suggests that Americans’ low savings rate was a big part of the story, coupled with foreigners’ appetite for accumulating dollar assets, which helped keep American interest rates low and the dollar strong, in that way fueling a persistent trade deficit."