• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • QE4: Another Big Step Down a Dangerous Road

    The Federal Reserve Board today announced the introduction of yet another hyper-aggressive monetary policy, dubbed “QE4” by some for the fourth round of quantitative easing. Three times a dud, fourth time a charm? Not likely.

    The Fed’s concerns for the economy are well-founded. The economy continues to struggle badly under President Obama’s economic policies of deep uncertainty and high regulations, and it threatens to get worse as the President plays a dangerous game with the fiscal cliff.

    As long as inflation remains contained (it is), and as long as there appear to be no unfavorable long-term side effects (oops), it is reasonable for the Fed to be as aggressive as it knows how to try to stimulate the economy.

    And thus, QE4. Previously, in QE3, the Fed vowed to buy $40 billion a month in mortgage-backed securities, and in Operation Twist, it vowed to exchange short-term Treasury securities for long-term securities. In its latest move, the Fed will now also buy $45 billion a month in long-term Treasury securities.

    Moreover, it has committed to maintaining at least these policies until the unemployment rate falls to 6.5 percent or inflation rises above 2.5 percent. (Under the White House’s most recent rosy forecasts, unemployment does not fall to 6.5 percent until 2015.)

    The Fed has resorted to quantitative easing because traditional monetary policy involving the Federal Funds rate is now irrelevant. Once the Funds rate dipped essentially to zero, traditional monetary policy ceased. Quantitative easing essentially tries to push down long-term interest rates as opposed to pushing down very short-term rates, which is the focus of traditional policy.

    So far, so good. But the 10-year Treasury rate has held at or below 1.7 percent since early summer. This is about equal to the inflation rate over the past year, suggesting a zero real (inflation-adjusted) interest rate. According to monetary policy textbooks, this should be awesomely stimulative, yet the economy continues to languish. Whatever effect the Fed’s new purchases of long-term Treasury bonds will have on interest rates—and the effect is likely to be very small—the positive effects on the economy will surely be insignificant.

    And what are the risks from QE4? The first risk obviously is that inflation may pick up quickly. Some argue that this is unlikely because there is too much slack in the economy, as evidenced by the high unemployment rate. Those making this argument echo a similar refrain from the 1970s. They were wrong then (the unpleasant term “stagflation” was created during this time), and they could well prove wrong again. Economic slack is no defense against strong, sustained inflationary impulses. Thankfully, inflation remains tame—for now.

    A second risk arises from the amazing expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet since 2008, which now accelerates under QE4. Some day the Fed will have to unload all the bonds it is buying. When it does, the Fed will be pushing up long-term interest rates. The Fed is pushing on a string today and will be yanking on a taut rope tomorrow.

    Can it be done safely? Of course. But it has never been done before, and serious doubt is the only reasonable attitude. The consequences of failure could well be to hold the economy at below-par growth for many years as the Fed’s bond sales artificially elevate long-term interest rates.

    In short, the Fed’s concerns about the economy are well-founded. But our troubles are not monetary, but fiscal and regulatory in nature. There is only so much that sound monetary policy can do, and little that even radical monetary policy can hope for. The risks are substantial, the gains minimal.

    We won’t know for some years whether QE4 or its predecessor policies will have been worth it. We won’t know until the Fed is forced to unwind all its current activities. Then and only then will we know for sure whether Ben Bernanke’s Fed deserves praise or pillory.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to QE4: Another Big Step Down a Dangerous Road

    1. Stirling says:

      It's almost become laughable at this point to know that were living in a "banana-republic" in the making, and that John Q Public voted for it.. The Fed is just trying to make "Kensian" Economics work by twisting and maniplulating the financial system, but history shows that it's always a last ditch effort before failure..

    2. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Just like Pelosi saying we must pass the bill so we can learn what's in it, when are we going to learn that whatever any Obama lackey does it's to continue the distruction of our economical system to user in a total socialist takeover. Everything from QE4 to ObamaCare to Reid taking over the Senate, it's all about "transforming" this nation into a socialist country.

    3. sue wilson says:

      Mortgage rates sound great, but who can qualify under new gov't regulations on bank lending? Good sound bite with no bite!

    4. Can it be done safely? Of course NOT! If you think there is any chance of this ending well, you are delusional.

    5. MtMan says:

      What happens if the Fed can't sell the mortgage securities and bonds it holds?

    6. rdthestickman says:

      Truly – keep blaming Obama and disremember that CONGRESS is the real job killer. Obama's policies mean nothing without the complicit or complacent agreement by the House and Senate. We are SUPPOSED to have three branches of Government, NOT just one. Congress has abrogated their existence – what are they there for? The Supreme Court had nothing to adjudicate if either the Congress NOR the President bring it to their attention – ie: ObamaCare being a "TAX". The Senate chamber of congress was established to give the States representation in the Federal Government and to protect states rights

    7. Jim Molock says:

      Why have most of America just accepted the first year Obama spending level of 2009 for a so called one time emergency to now become the budget bottom base line. We are discussing cuts over 10 years! Why have we not reverted back to the “pre-emergency” budget levels or spending. We should cut 700 billion in 2013 easily and in fact should revert back to the 2008 budget level. Please start this national informational discussion. We are moving toward a socialist progressive state and please define these progressives in this manner. We are moving and, in fact are close to a position of bringing about the need to re-declare our independence from our current government. I surely hope this can be done at the ballot box starting in 2014.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.