What if Japan had helicopter-dropped money on its economy?

Bernanke in his famous deflation speech made reference to “helicopter drop” of money. This “helicopter drop” though was defined by Milton Friedman, it was Bernanke that came to be known as Helicopter Ben .

What does Helicopter drop mean?  It simply means that in times of deflation, Government can simply print money and drop via helicopter to the public (implying throwing monies to public). The excess money would create demand, leading to higher inflation.

This is the simple way but economists don’t like things to be that simple. Infact I learnt there are 2 ways one can transfer money to the public.One way is money financed and other is bond financed.

  • Money Financed or Helicopter drop. In this government raises money by issuing bonds which are subscribed by the central bank. The Central bank in turn prints money and passes to the government and government passes the stimulus to the public. This is also called monetisation of deficit
  • Bond Financed. In this government simply raises money by issuing bonds to the market and passes on the proceeds to the public. There is no monetisation of deficit and this is called traditional Keynes approach.

I learnt all this in an excellent Laurence Ball paper where the author tries to stimulate what would have happened if Japan had transferred monies using both the methods. He starts the drops from 2003 onwards.

The findings are:

Overall, the results are favorable to the idea of helicopter drops. For base parameter values, a money-financed transfer of 6.6 percent of GDP returns output to potential in a year, and thereafter only small transfers are needed to keep it there. The output recovery ends deflation and the interest rate becomes positive, allowing the central bank to return to a more normal monetary policy.

The helicopter drop also has benign effects on the debt-income ratio. This ratio starts falling as the economy recovers, whereas it would rise without the helicopter drop. Part of this fiscal gain is permanent: a helicopter drop reduces the debt-income ratio in the long run as well as the short run.

There is an important qualification to this success story. The monetization of the fiscal transfer does not mean the transfer is forever free for the government. After the economy recovers, the central bank has to undo its monetary expansion to prevent inflation from rising. This requires contractionary open market operations, which cause a jump in privately held debt. Nonetheless, the overall effect of a helicopter drop is to reduce the debt-income ratio: the decrease in the ratio during the recovery exceeds the increase when the central bank sells debt.

A bond-financed fiscal expansion has different short-run effects than a helicopter drop. The sale of bonds causes a temporary run-up in the debt-income ratio before the output recovery starts to reduce it. In the long run, however, a bond-financed fiscal expansion leads to the same debt-income ratio as a helicopter drop. The reason is that the initial benefit from monetization is offset by the later need to undo monetization.

Hmm. Money financed leads to higher debts later and bond – financed to higher debt initially. However, both lead to similar benefits on output and inflation. But still, money financed is preferred as high debt initially could lead to confidence crisis.

This paper fills the literature which supports fiscal transfers can help come out of liquidity trap (See debate between fiscal and monetary policy here).

Some economists argue that fiscal transfers, whether financed by money or debt, are ineffective for stimulating Japan’s economy. They claim that Japan tried fiscal expansions during the 1990s without success. If this view were correct, it would undermine this paper’s argument for helicopter drops. However, Posen (1998) and Kuttner and Posen (2001) show that fiscal policy is effective in Japan. As noted earlier, Kuttner and Posen (2001) present econometric evidence of a substantial fiscal multiplier. They also discredit the alleged examples of unsuccessful fiscal policy, showing that several “expansion” programs failed because they were not really expansions—they consisted mainly of normal expenditures. When true fiscal expansions occurred, as in 1995, output responded.

Ball also does not agree that monetary policy can generate inflation via the expectations route:

The policies considered in this paper—transfers financed with money or bonds—differ from those discussed in much of the literature on liquidity traps. Papers such as Eggertsson and Woodford (2003) and Auerbach and Obstfeld (2004) analyze models with forward-looking inflation expectations. In these models, central banks can engineer an escape from a liquidity trap through policies that manipulate expectations. Announcing an inflation or price-level target, for example, can raise expected inflation. Higher expected inflation reduces the real interest rate, stimulating spending.

This paper has ignored such policies because, in contrast to fiscal transfers, there is little evidence that they are effective. Policy announcements affect inflation expectations in theory, but not in practice. Empirical work generally finds that inflation expectations are tied to past inflation—they are backward-looking. Expectations do not shift when new policies are announced; they only shift when people see inflation change.

This debate between whether inflation expectations are forward looking or backward looking is quite interesting and am sure monetarists would not agree to what Ball says.

Anyways, an excellent paper which tries to walk the talk. Am not sure whether the walk would have worked?

About these ads

6 Responses to “What if Japan had helicopter-dropped money on its economy?”

  1. Shalom P. Hamou Says:

    Sorry, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, But Quantitative Easing Won’t Work.

    In a Liquidity Trap although Saving (S) is abnormally high investment (I) is next to 0.

    Hence, the Keynesian paradigm I = S is not verified.

    The purpose of Quantitative Easing being to lower the yield on long-term savings and increase liquidity it doesn’t create $1 of investment.

    In a Liquidity Trap the last thing the Market needs is liquidity.

    Quantitative Easing does diminish the yield on long-term US Treasury debt but lowers marginally, if at all, the asked yield on long-term savings.

    Those purchases maintain the demand for long-term asset in an unstable equilibrium.

    When this desequilibrium resolves the Market turns chaotic.

    This and other issues are explored in my tract:

    A Specific Application of Employment, Interest and Money
    Plea for a New World Economic Order

    Abstract:

    This tract makes a critical analysis of credit based, free market economy, Capitalism, and proves that its dysfunctions are the result of the existence of credit.

    It shows that income / wealth disparity, cause and consequence of credit and of the level of long-term interest-rates, is the first order hidden variable, possibly the only one, of economic development.

    It solves most of the puzzles of macro economy: among which Unemployment, Business Cycles, Under Development, Trade Deficits, International Division of Labour, Stagflation, Greenspan Conundrum, Deflation and Keynes’ Liquidity Trap…

    It shows that no fiscal or monetary policy, including the barbaric Quantitative Easing will get us out of depression.

    A Credit Free, Free Market Economy will correct all of those dysfunctions.

    The alternative would be, on the long run, to wait for the physical destruction (through war or rust) of most of our productive assets. It will be at a cost none of us can afford to pay.

    A Specific Application of Employment, Interest and Money

    http://www.17-76.net/interest.html

    Press release of my open letter to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke:

    Sorry, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, But Quantitative Easing Won’t Work.

    http://www.prlog.org/10162465.html

    Yours Sincerely,

    Shalom P. Hamou
    Chief Economist & Master Conductor
    1776 – Annuit Cœptis.

  2. What if Japan had helicopter-dropped money on its economy? | beginnerforex.com Says:

    [...] What if Japan had helicopter-dropped money on its economy? [...]

  3. Conspirama Says:

    What if Japan had helicopter-dropped money on its economy ……

    Some economists argue that fiscal transfers, whether financed by money or debt, are ineffective for stimulating Japan’s economy. They claim that Japan tried fiscal expansions during the 1990s without success. If this view were correct, ……

  4. Bill Cash Says:

    Very Interesting! I will definitely be back here.

  5. valery Says:

    the post is great!!

    very interesting! I will definitely be back here.

    nice job~:)

  6. Ralph Musgrave Says:

    Good post. The point that Amol makes seems intuitively obvious. So why do so many economists not get it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,224 other followers

%d bloggers like this: