[NYT펌] Betting the Bank

폴 크루그먼의 NYT 사설입니다. 현재 미국의 금융위기에 대처하는 FED의 방식이 시장의 위기를 진정시키는 궁극적인 해법이 되지 못할 것임을 예측하면서, 결국 미국의 경제 문제가 정치권의 이슈가 되리라는 이야기를 하고 있습니다. 지난 주 나온 베어스턴스의 유동성 위기에 대처한 부분에 대해서도 시장에 잘못된 메시지를 던지는 정책이라는 이야기를 하고 있는데... 전반적으로 현재의 위기에 대처하는 FED의 방법에 대해서 비판적인 듯 합니다.

미국의 경제학자들은 장기적으로 주택거품이 깨져야 경기회복이 올 것이라는 해결책을 이야기하는 걸까요? 중요한 점은 미국의 주류 경제학자 마저도 최근 FED의 정책을 믿고 있지 않다라는 점입니다. 미국의 경기침체와 금융위기에 대해서는 재론의 여지가 없다는 듯이 말하고 있네요.

이러한 미국의 경기침체가 우리나라에 미치는 영향은 무엇일까요?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Four years ago, an academic economist named Ben Bernanke co-authoreda technical paper that could have been titled “Things the FederalReserve Might Try if It’s Desperate” — although that may not have beenobvious from its actual title, “Monetary Policy Alternatives at theZero Bound: An Empirical Investigation.”

Today, the Fed is indeeddesperate, and Mr. Bernanke, as its chairman, is putting some of thepaper’s suggestions into effect. Unfortunately, however, the BernankeFed’s actions — even though they’re unprecedented in their scope —probably won’t be enough to halt the economy’s downward spiral. Andif I’m right about that, there’s another implication: the uglyeconomics of the financial crisis will soon create some ugly politics,too. To understand what’s going on, you have to know a bit about how monetary policy usually operates.

TheFed’s economic power rests on the fact that it’s the only institutionwith the right to add to the “monetary base”: pieces of green paperbearing portraits of dead presidents, plus deposits that private bankshold at the Fed and can convert into green paper at will.

Whenthe Fed is worried about the state of the economy, it basicallyresponds by printing more of that green paper, and using it to buybonds from banks. The banks then use the green paper to make moreloans, which causes businesses and households to spend more, and theeconomy expands.

This process can be almost magical in itseffects: a committee in Washington gives some technical instructions toa trading desk in New York, and just like that, the economy createsmillions of jobs. But sometimes the magic doesn’t work. And this is one of those times. Thesedays, it’s rare to get through a week without hearing about anotherfinancial disaster. Some of this is unavoidable: there’s nothing Mr.Bernanke can or should do to prevent people who bet on ever-risinghouse prices from losing money. But the Fed is trying to contain thedamage from the collapse of the housing bubble, keeping it from causinga deep recession or wrecking financial markets that had nothing to dowith housing.

So Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues have been doingthe usual thing: printing up green paper and using it to buy bonds.Unfortunately, the policy isn’t having much effect on the things thatmatter. Interest rates on government bonds are down — but financialchaos has made banks unwilling to take risks, and it’s getting harder,not easier, for businesses to borrow money.

As a result, theFed’s attempt to avert a recession has almost certainly failed. Andeach new piece of economic data — like the news that retail sales felllast month — adds to fears that the recession will be both deep andlong. So now the Fed is following one of the options suggested inthat 2004 paper, which was about things to do when conventionalmonetary policy isn’t getting any traction. Instead of following itsusual practice of buying only safe U.S. government debt, the Fedannounced this week that it would put $400 billion — almost half itsavailable funds — into other stuff, including bonds backed by, yes,home mortgages. The hope is that this will stabilize markets and endthe panic.

Officially, the Fed won’t be buying mortgage-backedsecurities outright: it’s only accepting them as collateral in returnfor loans. But it’s definitely taking on some mortgage risk. Is this,to some extent, a bailout for banks? Yes.

Still, that’s not whathas me worried. I’m more concerned that despite the extraordinary scaleof Mr. Bernanke’s action — to my knowledge, no advanced-country’scentral bank has ever exposed itself to this much market risk — the Fedstill won’t manage to get a grip on the economy. You see, $400 billionsounds like a lot, but it’s still small compared with the problem. Indeed,early returns from the credit markets have been disappointing.Indicators of financial stress like the “TED spread” (don’t ask) are alittle better than they were before the Fed’s announcement — but notmuch, and things have by no means returned to normal. What ifthis initiative fails? I’m sure that Mr. Bernanke and his colleaguesare frantically considering other actions that they can take, butthere’s only so much the Fed — whose resources are limited, and whosemandate doesn’t extend to rescuing the whole financial system — can dowhen faced with what looks increasingly like one of history’s greatfinancial crises.

The next steps will be up to the politicians.

Iused to think that the major issues facing the next president would behow to get out of Iraq and what to do about health care. At this point,however, I suspect that the biggest problem for the next administrationwill be figuring out which parts of the financial system to bail out,how to pay the cleanup bills and how to explain what it’s doing to anangry public.