The Problem with REITs
February 7, 2025
Bankruptcy is one of the natural states which a company may find itself in. Entrepreneurship is primarily about taking risks. When companies take risks, some of them succeed, whereas others fail. Hence failure is a natural part of the business. However, many critics of bankruptcy laws believe that there isn’t a need for an elaborate […]
The Wirecard and Infosys Scandals are a Lesson on How NOT to Treat WhistleblowersWhat is the Wirecard Scandal all about and Why it is a Wakeup Call for Whistleblowers Anyone who has been following financial and business news over the last couple of years would have heard about Wirecard, the embattled German payments firm that had to file for bankruptcy after serious and humungous frauds were uncovered leading […]
Why the Digital Age Demands Decision Makers to be Like Elite Marines and Zen MonksHow Modern Decision Makers Have to Confront Present Shock and Information Overload We live in times when Information Overload is getting the better of cognitive abilities to absorb and process the needed data and information to make informed decisions. In addition, the Digital Age has also engendered the Present Shock of Virality and Instant Gratification […]
Why Indian Firms Must Strive for Strategic Autonomy in Their Geoeconomic StrategiesGeopolitics, Economics, and Geoeconomics In the evolving global trading and economic system, firms and corporates are impacted as much by the economic policies of nations as they are by the geopolitical and foreign policies. In other words, any global firm wishing to do business in the international sphere has to be cognizant of both the […]
Why Government Should Not Invest Public Money in Sports Stadiums Used by Professional FranchisesIn the previous article, we have already come across some of the reasons why the government should not encourage funding of stadiums that are to be used by private franchises. We have already seen that the entire mechanism of government funding ends up being a regressive tax on the citizens of a particular city who […]
The goal of the monetary policy of any economy is to provide stability. That is the purpose for which the central banks were created in the first place. The charter of each of the central banks like Fed, Bank of England and Bank of Japan mention fiscal stability as their number one objective.
However, critics believe that policies such as quantitative easing work in the opposite direction. In the short term, they provide monetary stimulus. However, in the long run, they create monetary instability which defeats the entire purpose of having a central bank. In this article, we will have a closer look at some more criticisms of the quantitative easing policy.
The goal of the central banks is to keep inflation at a bare minimum. However, the policy of quantitative easing does the exact opposite. Since this policy creates money and uses this money to further amplify lending by using this money as reserves, it is inherently inflationary. There is not much empirical evidence about the quantum of inflation that is caused by quantitative easing. This is because quantitative easing is a relatively recent phenomenon.
However, economic policy suggests that quantitative easing will be used in a depressed economy and therefore the first effects of inflation will be good as they will stimulate the economy. The later effects of such stimulation will be difficult to manage when the economy recovers. Therefore it is highly likely that quantitative easing solves one problem but creates another in the next few years. It is therefore only a temporary quick fix and not a long term solution.
Like inflation, the goal of the central banks is to keep the interest rates at somewhat stable levels. The more fluctuation there is in the interest rates in the economy, the worse is the performance of the central bank. It is stability that brings about a strong consumer confidence which in turn brings about a strong economy. On the other hand, if prices fluctuate wildly, consumers do not feel the same level of confidence and economy gets depressed in the long run as consumers tend to delay spending and avoid purchases.
The policy of quantitative easing brings about a fall in the interest rates in the short run. However, in the long run it leads to inflation which causes the interest rates to rise causing the exact opposite of financial stability. Therefore, critics of quantitative easing believe that it is a disruptive policy that creates negative effects in the economy.
Many critics believe that quantitative easing is the culprit behind creation of the business cycles. They believe that quantitative easing creates easy money in the economy. This money then reaches lenders who want to lend it out at any cost. They compete amongst themselves to find borrowers. In the process of this competition, they end up lending money to people who shouldn’t have received the loans in the first place. Therefore, the policy of quantitative easing first creates a boom i.e. an expansionary phase wherein the banks are lending money to everyone and when all businesses are growing.
However, later the same monetary policy leads to deleveraging by the banks. This is because when quantitative easing stops, money becomes tight. This causes banks to call in their loans and as a result businesses start contracting i.e. a recession ensues. Therefore the same policy of quantitative easing caused both the boom as well the recession phase in the economy!
Employment is closely linked with the business cycles. The boom phase witnesses massive creation of employment. Banks lend easy money to businesses and they then use this money to expand, creating jobs in the process. Thus, the use of quantitative easing does create jobs in the short run. However, in the process the economy gets used to growing only after receiving monetary injections from the central bank. Therefore, as and when the bond buying stops so does the bank lending and businesses start to contract. It is a well known fact that as and when businesses contract, they reduce the number of employees that they can hire. As a result, people get fired and therefore employment levels plummet. Once again, quantitative easing was supposed to stabilize the employment rate. Instead it destabilized it by first raising it and then making it fall.
Abundance of money always creates bubbles in the asset markets. Higher salaries and higher profits always find their way into these markets raising the prices of assets that are traded in them. Therefore the policy of quantitative easing leads to an asset bubble forming in the market. Once again, the market, like the economy in general becomes hooked to the increasing amounts of monetary stimulus that are received on a day to day basis and once this stimulus stops people start pulling their money out of the markets causing the prices to crash. Thus, the policy of quantitative easing could lead to an increase as well a sudden crash in the market prices bringing about huge transfers of wealth.
The theory of quantitative easing is therefore relatively untested. There are big arguments on both sides of this theory. Some people believe that it is extremely useful whereas others believe that it is dangerous and can bring down entire economies.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *