Fedは金利を引き下げない - #3

Alan Greenspanは今週“The Age of Turbulence”というタイトルで 、タイミング良く長く待たれた回顧録を出版するそうです。そこで彼がFed在任中行った一連のRate Cutに対してどう言及するか興味が持たれているそうです。さてそれとは別にまたDonald Luskin氏が再度“利下げはインフレーションを悪化させる”という記事を９月１４日に書いていますので簡単に以下にご紹介します。

“Bernankeは、金利がかなり低い今、どうしてさらに利下げをする必要があるのか、その理由付けに苦慮していると思う。過去３０年間、本来インフレーションを調整するための金利が現在のようにこんなに低い時、利下げすることは無かった。最近の雇用統計など多少の例外はあるものの、大部分の経済指標は経済が上手く行っていることを示している。先週書いたとおり、石油・金の価格及びドルの動きを見ればインフレーションは既に進んでいる。この様な動きは今に始まったことではなく、金利を非常識に引き下げた２００２年、2003年から始まったトレンドである。Fedは非常に安く非常に大量にドルを供給したため、石油や金の価格は上がり、ドルの価値は下落したのだ。Fedが余りにも大量のドルを刷ったため不動産価格は高騰し、金融機関に対し本来資格がない人々に安易にローンを供給することを容易にさせてしまったのだ。
Fedはこの様な混乱を脱出するために、さらに金利を引き下げようとするのか？　Fedはこれをmonetary policyと言うのかもしれないが、私にとればむしろ、酔っ払いが、昨夜のドンチャン騒ぎの翌朝目が覚めて、迎え酒を飲むようなものだ。Bernankeに望むことは、Greenspanの失敗を学んで、ここで何とか踏ん張って欲しいということだ。“

Luskinのこの様な意見は彼だけではなく、同様な意見をthe Everyday Economistと言うブロッグを主催しているJosh Hendricksonが言っているので、以下に原文で掲載しておきます。

SmartMoney.com: Why do you think a rate cut is the wrong move?
Josh Hendrickson: I think it's sounding more and more like they will cut rates next week. But I still think it's not a good decision for two reasons. I'm concerned about the moral hazard it's going to create. People took on too much risk. If the Fed lowers rates to bail them out, it shows them they can take on more risk in the future and the Fed will be there to help. And by any measure of inflation we are still a little bit above Bernanke's comfort zone. He'd like to keep it between 1% and 2%.... Even the core CPI is still growing at 2.8% a year. That's well above the comfort zone of the Federal Reserve.
I think what we're doing is if you lower the federal-funds rate, you're going to have a tradeoff. You'll get a temporary boost to the economy. You might help bail out some borrowers, but I think all it will do is cause prices to rise in the future. To think that monetary policy can somehow do something to get us out of this is very Keynesian, it's 1970s-era thinking. In the long run, the effects on the economy are only going to be temporary. I think it's attractive to want to help out homeowners struggling to make payments, or help people in the lending industry to keep their jobs. Those things are great, but they come at a cost. That cost is going to be rising prices, and increasing risky behavior in the future. People will think the Fed will bail them out when they take on too much risk.

SM: Why do you think it will only be a temporary boost?
JH: Over the last couple of decades we've kind of drifted away from the idea that injecting money into the system is going to produce economic growth in the long term. Cutting rates can provide a short-term boost; it might help improve growth for a few quarters, but as this happens you'll end up having too much money chasing too few goods. You'll end up with higher prices rather than greater growth.

SM: Is it pretty much a foregone conclusion by now that Bernanke will cut rates?
JH: There have been some comments by people at the Fed [indicating as much]. Also, if you look — it might just be wishful thinking — but the fed-funds futures tend to reflect the belief that the Fed is getting closer to easing rates. It's hard to resist that pressure. I'd hope Bernanke would resist that temptation to jump in and do what some of these people are asking for.
The Fed doesn't want instability in the markets. The housing market is clearly having spillover effects. I'm not of the belief that we are headed for recession. I think we'll see somewhat slower growth into next year. There is this sort of pressure because spillover effects are there and are somewhat larger than what the Fed originally thought they would be.

SM: Do you think the Fed takes the housing market — and the rising number of homes facing foreclosure — into consideration when deciding monetary policy? Isn't inflation their primary concern?
JH: The Fed's primary objective should be to fight inflation. But we don't have much to go on, on Bernanke. That certainly wasn't Alan Greenspan's method. He was always willing to provide liquidity when things got tight or volatile. We haven't seen enough from Bernanke, but at the same time, I'd hope he should continue to focus on inflation.

SM: Lyle Gramley, a former Fed member who has served as an economist for the mortgage banking industry, said that if the Fed doesn't lower the fed-funds rate, "it will be one of the largest mistakes in Federal Reserve history."
JH: I think that's a bit of hyperbole. I think a lot of the problems we have in the housing market and credit market were caused by the Fed in the first place. They were a little too loose with monetary policy for too long. I think if you're willing to admit it was their fault in the first place, you'd want to advocate something to do to fix it.