Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBezemer, Dirken_US
dc.contributor.authorGardiner, Geoffreyen_US
dc.description.abstractThis paper discusses recent UK monetary policies as instances of John Kenneth Galbraith's 'innocent fraud,' including the idea that money is a thing rather than a relationship, the fallacy of composition (i.e., that what is possible for one bank is possible for all banks), and the belief that the money supply can be controlled by reserves management. The origins of the idea of quantitative easing (QE), and its defense when it was applied in Britain, are analyzed through this lens. An empirical analysis of the effect of reserves on lending is conducted; we do not find evidence that QE 'worked,' either by a direct effect on money spending, or through an equity market effect. These findings are placed in a historical context in a comparison with earlier money control experiments in the UK.en_US
dc.publisher|aLevy Economics Institute of Bard College |cAnnandale-on-Hudson, NYen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aWorking paper, Levy Economics Institute |x622en_US
dc.subject.keywordquantitative easingen_US
dc.subject.keywordUK innocent fraudsen_US
dc.titleInnocent frauds meet Goodhart's Law in monetary policyen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US

Files in This Item:
187.17 kB

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.