Submitted by Azizonomics
The Truth About Excess Reserves
Tyler [15] enquires about excess reserves:
While the current iteration of the Fed, various recent voodoo economic theories, and assorted blogs, all claim that excess bank reserves are never an inflationary threat, it is precisely two Federal Reserve chairmen’s heretic claims that reserves will light an inflationary conflagration, that forced then president Truman to eliminate not one but two Fed Chairmen, and nearly result in the “independent” Federal Reserve being subsumed by the Treasury to do its monetization and market manipulation/intervention bidding. Which then begs the question: who is telling the truth about the linkage of reserve accumulation to inflation — the Fed of 1951, or every other Fed since, now firmly under the control of the Treasury-banker syndicate?
This is of course a live question. Excess reserves are at never-before-seen levels:
[16]
Thats’ right — throughout the postwar period, banks have almost always lent out all the way up to the reserve requirement.
So, does the accumulation of excess reserves lead to inflation?
Only so much as the frequentation of brothels leads to chlamydia and syphilis.
Excess reserves are only non-inflationary so long as the banks — the people holding the reserves — play along with the Fed-Treasury game of monetising debt and trying to hide the inflation . The banks don’t have to lend these reserves out, just as having sex with hookers doesn’t have to lead to an infection.
But eventually — so long as you do it enough [17] — the condom will break.
As soon as banks start to lend beyond the economy’s inherent productivity (which lest we forget is around the same level as ten years ago [18]) there will be inflation.
So, will they?
I think that would mean biting the hand that has fed them. The financial complex owes a great deal to the Fed for bailing them out in 2008, and throwing a pig’s ear of slush money their way in 2009 and 2010 in the form of QE. Like any Fat Tony, Bernanke commands the allegiance of his minions. But even the most enduring mafia bosses sometimes get shot. There is no status quo that a black swan cannot shatter.
But there are greater inflationary risks (which also, we must note, may set alight the inflationary potential of the excess reserves). A severe oil shock [19] — caused by (say) Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, something that America, NATO and the UN seem totally set upon — is one. So too could be a global trade shock caused by a regional war — there are lots of danger zones (North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, etc, etc, ad infinitum).
And how about the return of some of the trillions of dollars now floating around Asia?
[20]
As more Asian nations ditch the dollar [21] for bilateral trade, more dollars will end up getting dumped back into the American market. (Paul Krugman says this is a good thing. Nope [22].)
So while the amassing of excessive reserves perhaps does not pose quite the same inflationary risk as collapsing reserve currency status, I think it is safe to say that while the 00s securitisation bubble [23] was akin to juggling dynamite, this trend of amassing excess reserves (done, lest we forget, as a stability measure to protect primary dealers against another shadow banking collapse) is closer to going to sleep upon a bed of dynamite.