Theoretically, yes. If loans are 2% instead of 4% then that may induce people to take one up to do some kind of economic activity (start business, renovate house, buy a new car, etc).
But it is not guarantee: people may feel too financial vulnerable to take risks with borrowed money. This is where the limits of monetary policy are run it.
There are points where the government starts spending on various projects: if a contractor is hired to build a bridge, and it will take "x" years, then all of its employees may feel more confident and do more spending because for the next "x" years they're set. Their money then goes into other people's pockets, into other people's pockets, etc.
Public/government spending to kickstart demand is what Keynesian economics basically is.
Only if there is a net margin between what the central bank pays on reserves and what the bank has to pay out on the matching deposits.
Once central bank renumeration gets low, the cost of unsecured deposits matches or exceeds the central bank remuneration because of the draw to cash.
On this chart [0] you can see how lending increase when crisis started, kind of matching inflation of the dollar. But lending is slowing down, and no amount of QE can speed it up, indicating probable deflation of the dollar.
The quantity of reserves in the system limit the quantity of money that the private banks can lend to the real economy (actually, not really, but that's another discussion), but the existence of reserves doesn't make the bank to lean. For the banks to lean, it's necessary that there is demand for credit first.
Because there is not demand for credit, never mind the number of reserves in the system. The central bank have not power to stimulate the economy in this situation, that's the reason central bankers are pushing the governments to spend directly.
Sounds very political for a supposedly independent central banking system!
This system is a disgrace and is governed by unelected technocrats who are able to yield a crazy amount of power over the economy without ever being subject to inquiries from the public, all in the interest of experimenting on the population with highly questionable economic models.
In my opinion we would never have been in this situation in the first place were it not for the artificial credit growth and consequent boom caused by central bankers.
> Sounds very political for a supposedly independent central banking system!
The phraseology makes it sound political, but it is not political.
Basically when a central bank cuts its rate down to 0.25%, 0%, or even negative (e.g., Switzerland), it's a signal that the central bank has done all it can do to get the economy going. (There are some other mechanism employed in recent years as well ("quantitative easing"), but the message is the same: we are at the limits of monetary policy.)
After that it is up to governments, if they so choose, to also do fiscal policy initiatives, e.g., Keynesian economics: create economic demand through public spending (since private business spending/demand is in the toilet).
Of course government are free not to do anything at all, which would generally entail lower economic growth and higher employment.
But central banks have a mandate to make sure the economy is in a certain middle-ground: not too hot to induce a lot of inflation, and not too cold to have a lot of people out of work.† Everyone agrees to these goals ahead of time:
> The Federal Reserve works to promote a strong U.S. economy. Specifically, the Congress has assigned the Fed to conduct the nation’s monetary policy to support the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
* https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does...
The "unelected technocrats" are doing what they were hired to do. They each have a fixed term (though renewable), and if they don't do what they're supposed to they are replaced.
They did not sneak into these positions: they were told to work towards certain goals, and they are using the tools at their disposal. They are no different than the Board of a corporation hired by the shareholders of the company: it's just that the "shareholders" are elected representatives (Congress, parliaments, etc).
If the Board is not doing a satisfactory job it can be sacked with cause if necessary.
† Sometimes you actually have both: see "stagflation".
I suppose you mean "unemployment".
Also, a bank is not limited by reserves to lend. In fact, in practice, banks first lend and then search for the reserves in the inter-bank market. Those demand-offer dynamics between banks determine the interest rate. If the Central Bank doesn't want to loss control of the interest rate, it has to increase reserves in the system when there is demand.
Central Banks have to choose, or they control the quantity or reserves or they control the interest rate. They target the later. The quantity is kind of irrelevant.
Not necessarily, no. But in practice they create inflationary pressure.
> Also, a bank is not limited by reserves to lend. In fact, in practice, banks first lend and then search for the reserves in the inter-bank market. Those demand-offer dynamics between banks determine the interest rate. If the Central Bank doesn't want to loss control of the interest rate, it has to increase reserves in the system when there is demand.
This is exactly what my original post said. Of course they search for reserves in the inter-bank lending market. But the more reserves there are in that market, the cheaper they are to borrow, which reduces the rate that banks have to charge to earn their spread, which increases demand for credit, which increases the money supply.
Generally correct, but it should be noted that if a bank has a lot of reserves, and the over-night lending market is cheap, that means the bank has access to 'cheap money' on the 'wholesale' end of things.
So if a retail bank can get 'cash' cheaply, it can lower its interest rates to its 'retail' customers (mortgages, business loans, etc).
If a bank wants (say) at least a 2% spread between its wholesale source of money/reserves and what it gives out to the real economy, then the Fed raising liquidity such that the over-night rates go from (e.g.) 2% to 0.5%, that means banks can drop their public facing rates as well.
Someone who was not considering borrowing money at 4% may change their mind at 2.5%.
We agree: when the interest rate arrive down to zero there is nothing more than the central bank can do to stimulate the economy. They could add infinite reserves to the economy and nothing would happen, because, obviously, the private sector is not interested in investment. Monetary policy is a blunt instrument.