David Glasner
"I pointed out that whether monetary policy has been simulative depends on whether the demand to hold the monetary base or the size of the monetary base has been increasing faster. I should have pointed out explicitly that the payment of interest on reserves has guaranteed that the demand to hold reserves would increase by at least as much as the quantity of reserves increased, thereby eliminating any possibility of monetary stimulus from the increase in bank reserves."
Pushback on the 'interest on reserves debate'
Stephen Williamson comenta sobre esa política. Scott Sumner también
Algunas observaciones
Scott Sumner le comenta a Mark Thoma
Quantitative easing and bank lending
The reserve requirement confusion
La Fed de NY: Interest on excess reserves and cash “parked” at the Fed. Cullen Roche comenta
Scott Sumner está en desacuerdo: The fallacy of composition lies at the very heart of monetary economics
Viejo post de Nick Rowe: Fallacies of composition and decomposition: The supply of money and reserves
Karl Smith tambien critica a la Fed
Otro sobre las reservas bancarias
Macroresilience
Cullen Roche y Noah Smith
Matt Klein aclara confusión sobre las reservas de Robert Hall
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario