 |
| Image credit. |
Die Ausgabe von staatlichen Schuldtiteln verringert das Inflationsrisiko, das von einem staatlichen Haushaltsdefizit deshalb ausgeht, weil dem Privat-Sektor (aufgrund solcher Emissionen) weniger Geld für eigene Ausgaben zur Verfügung steht.
Wahr oder falsch:
Meine Antwort: Falsch
Meine Erklärung: Ein Staat, der seine eigene Währung emittiert, ist nicht darauf angewiesen, sich zur Finanzierung seiner Ausgaben, Geld vom Privat-Sektor zu borgen. Der Verkauf von Staatsanleihen ist lediglich eine von mehreren Methoden, aufgrund derer die Zentralbank sicherstellt, dass der ihr angemessen erscheinende Leitzins obwaltet — wir haben es hier also mit einer zinspolitischen Maßnahme zu tun und nicht mit einem Verfahren zur Finanzierung von Staatsausgaben. Das Rein-Vermögen des Privat-Sektors wird durch dieses Verfahren nicht tangiert.
So hatte ich gestern in meiner Schnellantwort geschrieben. Heute will ich den Fragekomplex etwas "aufdröseln".
Leider war die Frage schon nicht ganz klar gestellt (von Bill Mitchell), man muss sich einiges dazu denken, um sie richtig einzuordnen.
Die unausgesprochene Implikation ist, dass wegen der Ausgabe von Staatstiteln, die Zinsen steigen, so dass der Privat-Sektor wegen der höheren Zinsbelastung sich vergleichsweise weniger Projekte leisten kann, in geringerem Maße Ausgaben tätigen wird, welche die Wirtschaft stimulieren. Das heißt aber auch, der Inflationsdruck ist geringer als wenn der Staat keine Anleihen begeben würde. Wir werden gleich sehen, warum dieses Räsonnement aber unzutreffend ist.
Zuvor noch dies: Inflation entsteht, wenn die nominelle Nachfrage das Leistungsvermögen der Wirtschaft übersteigt. Wenn dieses Kriterium erfüllt ist, entsteht unweigerlich Inflation, und zwar gleichgültig, von wem die Nachfrage ausgeht, dem Staat oder dem Privat-Sektor.
Jetzt zum Kern der Frage — der falschen Annahme nämlich, dass der (währungssouveräne) Staat sich von anderen Parteien die Mittel besorgen müsse, die er benötigt, um Ausgaben zu tätigen. Tatsächlich besteht für den Staat keine Notwendigkeit, sich zu verschulden oder die Steuerzahler anzuzapfen, um Ausgaben tätigen zu können.
Er kann die benötigten Mittel ex nihilo schaffen ("Geld drucken", besser "Konto-Gutschriften verteilen"). Unter den oben genannten Voraussetzungen kann dies zu Inflation führen, muss es aber nicht.
Der Unterschied zwischen dem Verfahren der Staatsverschuldung und dem des "Geld-Druckens" macht sich im geldpolitischen Zinsmanagement bemerkbar.
Will die Zentralbank Herrin des Zinsniveaus bleiben, will sie den Leitzins exakt steuern, dann muss sie je nach Regime unterschiedliche Methoden anwenden. Im Falle des "Geld-Druckens" muss sie Zinsen auf Bank-Reserven zahlen, um den gewünschten positiven Leitzins zu verteidigen, oder aber sie lässt zu, dass der Leitzins auf Null fällt. In einem Regime, in dem die Ausgabe von Staatstiteln vorgesehen ist, hat die Zentralbank die Möglichkeit, Staatsanleihen zu verkaufen, um das gewünschte Leitzinsniveau zu behaupten.
Wie ist das zu verstehen?
Ein Staatsdefizit bedeutet, dass der Staat mehr Geld in den Privat-Sektor steckt als er (vor allem durch Steuern) aus ihm herauszieht. Das führt dazu, dass der Privat-Sektor einen Zuwachs an Rein-Vermögen erfährt. Denn der Staat "verteilt Gutschriften" unter den Bankkonten der durch seine Ausgaben begünstigten privaten Wirtschaftssubjekte. Auf der Aktivseite der Bilanz des Privat-Sektors steigen die Bankguthaben/Einlagen, ohne dass auf der anderen Seite der Bilanz Verbindlichkeiten entstehen — es erhöht sich also das Rein-Vermögen.
Den neuen Verbindlichkeiten der Banken ihren Kunden gegenüber, in Gestalt von Einlagen, stehen Bank-Reserven gegenüber, die ihnen die Zentralbank bei der Verteilung von Gutschriften an die Bank-Kunden gutgeschrieben hat.
Staatsausgaben unter Bedingungen eines Haushalts-Defizits machen somit den Privat-Sektor als Ganzes reicher, in dem Sinne, dass dessen Aktiva steigen, bei unveränderten Verbindlichkeiten. Außerdem bedeuten Staatsausgaben unter Bedingungen eines Haushalts-Defizits, dass die Guthaben der Banken bei der Zentralbank, die so genannten Bank-Reserven, steigen.
Wenn diese Bank-Reserven unverzinslich sind, wollen die Banken sie nach Möglichkeit in verzinsliche Aktiva tauschen. Viele Banken bieten also Bank-Reserven im Interbanken-Markt an, so dass der dort gültige Satz bis auf Null fallen kann. Möchte jedoch die Zentralbank ihren Leitzins bei einem Satz über Null fixieren, muss sie Liquidität aus dem Interbanken-Markt absaugen. Das tut sie, indem sie den Banken rentierliche Aktiva anbietet, gegen die die Banken die ungeliebten Überschuss-Reserven eintauschen können. Sie bietet verzinsliche Staatspapiere an. Die Banken vollziehen einen Aktivtausch, unverzinsliche Reserven gegen rentierliche Staatspapiere.
Der Witz: die Vermögenslage des durch die Staatsausgaben begünstigen Privat-Sektors bleibt davon gänzlich unberührt. Es gibt kein crowding out. Das Zins-Niveau ist dort, wo die Zentralbank es haben will, egal, welches Niveau sie vorsieht. Sie kann immer so viel Liquidität aus dem Interbanken-Markt abschöpfen wie erforderlich ist, um den Leitzins zu behaupten.
Einfacher ist es, Zinsen auf Bank-Reserven zu zahlen, und zwar in solcher Höhe, dass die Banken keinen Anreiz haben, Überschuss-Reserven am Interbanken-Markt zu einem Preis anzubieten, der den Leitzins untergräbt.
— — —
Issuing government debt reduces the risk of inflation arising from deficit spending because the private sector has less money to spend.
True or false?
My answer: false.
The above is what I wrote in my quick response to the question yesterday. Today, I shall unravel the issue at somewhat greater detail.My explanation: Spending by a currency issuing government does not depend on tapping into/depleting (a finite fund of) money held by the private sector. Selling debt (bonds) is only one way in which the government (central bank really) ensures that the target (interest) rate it deems desirable can be maintained — it is a monetary operation, and not a means to fund government spending. The private sector's net worth is not affected by this operation.
Unfortunately, the question was not put in the clearest fashion (by Bill Mitchell); you need to add your own previous knowledge to be able to place the question in its full context.
The tacit implication is that owing to the issuance of government bonds, the interest rate will increase, so that thanks to the higher interest burden there are fewer affordable projects available to the private sector and less spending by it to stimulate the economy. That is to say, inflationary pressure is lesser than if the government had not issued bonds. We shall see at once that this reasoning is flawed.
Beforehand, let me add: inflation is created when nominal demand surpasses the productive capacity of the economy. This criterion being fulfilled, inflation is bound to occur, irrespective of who is behind the demand — the state or the private sector.
Now, let us turn to the essence of the question — the false assumption that (a state that is) a sovereign currency issuer needs to obtain funds from other parties in order to finance its spending. Actually, there is no need for the state to incur debts or to tap taxpayers to be able to spend.
Government can create the required fund ex nihilo ("print money" or more accurately "hand out (bank account) credits"). Under the conditions specified above, this may or may not lead to inflation.
The difference between the method that relies on government incurring debt and the one based on "printing money" is turns out to be a matter of monetary interest rate management.
If the central bank wishes to remain in control of the interest rate, if she is intent on determining fairly accurate the bellwether interest rate of monetary policy, then, depending on the chosen regime (public debt or "printing money") it must revert to different methods.
When "printing money", the central bank must pay interest on bank reserves, so as to defend the desired level of the interest rate, unless it is prepared to let the interest rate drop to zero. In a regime relying on public debt, the central bank is able to sell government bonds to maintain the interest rate it wishes to establish.
What does that means?
A government deficit means that the state is putting more money into the private sector than it is taking out of it (mostly in the form of taxes). This brings about an increase in the private sector's net worth. For government is handing out credits to those economic agents of the private sector that benefit from government spending.
This shows up in the sector's balance sheet in the form of increased deposits on the asset side with no increase in liabilities — thus, net worth is increasing.
From the point of view of commercial banks, the new liabilities in the form of customer deposits are balanced by new bank reserves that the central bank has credited to their accounts with the central bank when handing out credits to the banks's customers.
Under conditions of a government deficit, government spending makes the private sector as a whole richer, in that the sector's assets increase with no change in liabilties. Under conditions of a government deficit, government spending also increases the deposits that commercial banks maintain at the central bank, the so called bank reserves.
If these bank reserves earn no interest, banks are eager to swap them into interest bearing assets. Hence, many banks offer bank reserves in the interbanking market, so that the interest rate prevailing in it may drop to zero. When the central bank wishes to keep the interest rate at a level above zero, it needs to drain the excess liquidity from the interbanking market.His it does by offereing banks an interest bearing asset that the banks can acquire in exchange for their (unpopular) excess bank reserves. The central bank offers government bonds. The commercial banks engage in an asset swap, zero-interest bank reserves against interest bearing government bonds.
The essential point here is that the level of the private sector's wealth (boosted by government spending) is unaffected by this. There is no crowding out. The interest rate is where the central bank wants it to be, regardless of the level it deigns to choose.
In a less complicated procedure one would simply pay interest on bank reserves, to wit at a level where banks have no incentive to offer excess reserves in the interbanking market at a price that would undermine the central bank's bell wether interest rate.
See also Scott Fullwiller here.
The tacit implication is that owing to the issuance of government bonds, the interest rate will increase, so that thanks to the higher interest burden there are fewer affordable projects available to the private sector and less spending by it to stimulate the economy. That is to say, inflationary pressure is lesser than if the government had not issued bonds. We shall see at once that this reasoning is flawed.
Beforehand, let me add: inflation is created when nominal demand surpasses the productive capacity of the economy. This criterion being fulfilled, inflation is bound to occur, irrespective of who is behind the demand — the state or the private sector.
Now, let us turn to the essence of the question — the false assumption that (a state that is) a sovereign currency issuer needs to obtain funds from other parties in order to finance its spending. Actually, there is no need for the state to incur debts or to tap taxpayers to be able to spend.
Government can create the required fund ex nihilo ("print money" or more accurately "hand out (bank account) credits"). Under the conditions specified above, this may or may not lead to inflation.
The difference between the method that relies on government incurring debt and the one based on "printing money" is turns out to be a matter of monetary interest rate management.
If the central bank wishes to remain in control of the interest rate, if she is intent on determining fairly accurate the bellwether interest rate of monetary policy, then, depending on the chosen regime (public debt or "printing money") it must revert to different methods.
When "printing money", the central bank must pay interest on bank reserves, so as to defend the desired level of the interest rate, unless it is prepared to let the interest rate drop to zero. In a regime relying on public debt, the central bank is able to sell government bonds to maintain the interest rate it wishes to establish.
What does that means?
A government deficit means that the state is putting more money into the private sector than it is taking out of it (mostly in the form of taxes). This brings about an increase in the private sector's net worth. For government is handing out credits to those economic agents of the private sector that benefit from government spending.
This shows up in the sector's balance sheet in the form of increased deposits on the asset side with no increase in liabilities — thus, net worth is increasing.
From the point of view of commercial banks, the new liabilities in the form of customer deposits are balanced by new bank reserves that the central bank has credited to their accounts with the central bank when handing out credits to the banks's customers.
Under conditions of a government deficit, government spending makes the private sector as a whole richer, in that the sector's assets increase with no change in liabilties. Under conditions of a government deficit, government spending also increases the deposits that commercial banks maintain at the central bank, the so called bank reserves.
If these bank reserves earn no interest, banks are eager to swap them into interest bearing assets. Hence, many banks offer bank reserves in the interbanking market, so that the interest rate prevailing in it may drop to zero. When the central bank wishes to keep the interest rate at a level above zero, it needs to drain the excess liquidity from the interbanking market.His it does by offereing banks an interest bearing asset that the banks can acquire in exchange for their (unpopular) excess bank reserves. The central bank offers government bonds. The commercial banks engage in an asset swap, zero-interest bank reserves against interest bearing government bonds.
The essential point here is that the level of the private sector's wealth (boosted by government spending) is unaffected by this. There is no crowding out. The interest rate is where the central bank wants it to be, regardless of the level it deigns to choose.
In a less complicated procedure one would simply pay interest on bank reserves, to wit at a level where banks have no incentive to offer excess reserves in the interbanking market at a price that would undermine the central bank's bell wether interest rate.
See also Scott Fullwiller here.
No comments:
Post a Comment