FT: Die Notenbanken sollten nichts gegen Inflation tun
Nichts tun gegen die Inflation? Martin Sandbu von der FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) denkt, es wäre der bessere Weg:
- Zunächst erinnert er an die Beschlüsse der Notenbanken während der Pandemie: “After a decade of below-target inflation, and employment taking achingly long to return to earlier peaks, interest-rate setters promised to be relaxed about inflation running temporarily above target so long as ongoing monetary stimulus was otherwise warranted.” – bto: Ich könnte mir jedoch denken, dass sie da andere Inflationsniveaus im Hinterkopf hatten.
- “This should have steeled central bankers’ nerves in the face of several bad supply-side surprises. And for a while they did keep their cool during the resulting inflationary burst. But they have not sustained the courage of their new convictions.” – bto: Statt bei ihrem Kurs zu bleiben, haben die Notenbanken die Verantwortung übernommen, die Inflation zu dämpfen, obwohl diese doch andere Ursachen hat.
- “At first the rise in inflation was near universally attributed to supply shocks. But despite the obvious role of Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine and the subsequent tightening of gas supplies, prevailing opinion has somehow shifted to blaming excessive demand.” – bto: Die Inflation war schon vor dem Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine sehr hoch.
- “Yet it is only this year that nominal spending surpassed the pre-pandemic trend in the US; and it still has not done so in the UK or eurozone. (…) Not so much demand running amok, then, as recovering demand facing higher prices for supply-side reasons.” – bto: Das istein Argument. Andererseits wäre mit knapperem Geld die Nachfrage geringer und damit auch die Inflation.
- Was kann man dann tun? Nun: “(…) central banks could arrest it with their determination to curtail demand growth. So the question arises: is what our economies most need now really to have fewer people in work? Even with the lens of inflation, isn’t letting employment and hence supply continue to grow strongly what is needed to sustainably reduce price pressures?” – bto: Wir sollten Investitionen, die zu mehr Angebot führen, ermutigen und nicht behindern. Wir sollten aber mehr Staatsausgaben und Konsum verhindern, weil das die Inflation anheizt.
- “The same goes for the energy crisis. For net energy importing economies, high oil, gas and power prices make them poorer, so they will have to export more and consume less to provide for their energy needs. How is that problem ameliorated by reducing their own production as well, when contractionary policy hits both employment and investment?” – bto: Das führt zur Frage, ob man einfach zusehen soll und vor allem, ob die sogenannten Inflationserwartungen dann nicht zu einem Problem werden.
- “The last line of argument for tightening into a supply-triggered recession is to avoid a wage-price spiral. But the rationality of this depends on the risk being more than theoretical. By themselves, wage increases are of course something to welcome — and robust profit margins suggest wage costs are not driving prices up. It is also worth noting that countries with the greatest collective bargaining coverage (France, Italy, the Nordics) have the lowest inflation rates.” – bto: vermutlich auch, weil dort die Nachfrage nicht so stark ist.
Schlussfolgerung FT: “(…) monetary contraction on the cusp of a recession will make things worse for no benefit. Governments have to put in place support for those worst hit by the jump in prices. But maybe central banks — for the very sake of monetary and economic stability — should treat inflation with more benign neglect.” – bto: Das Problem der staatlichen Kompensation ist allerdings, dass dies zu mehr Nachfrage führt. Nur wenn man die Nachfrage quasi umverteilt, kann das Ganze funktionieren.
→ ft.com (Anmeldung erforderlich): „Central banks should keep their cool on inflation”, 3. Juli 2022
