A Quote by Urjit Patel

Government should eschew suasion and directives to banks on interest rates that run counter to monetary policy actions. — © Urjit Patel
Government should eschew suasion and directives to banks on interest rates that run counter to monetary policy actions.
The degree of monetary policy ease should be associated with the level of real interest rates, not nominal interest rates.
Monetary policy has less room to maneuver when interest rates are close to zero, while expansionary fiscal policy is likely both more effective and less costly in terms of increased debt burden when interest rates are pinned at low levels.
Monetary policy transmission encompasses the whole continuum of interest rates; of course, the central bank only determines the overnight policy rate.
Monetary conditions exert an enormous influence on stock prices. Indeed, the monetary climate - primarily the trend in interest rates and Federal Reserve policy - is the dominant factor in determining the stock market's major direction.
However, in spite of the general perception that monetary policy should be conducted so as to avert deflation, a central bank cannot lower interest rates below the zero lower bound.
The supply-side effect of a restrictive monetary policy is likely to be perverse, in that high interest rates enter into costs and thus exert inflationary pressure.
The one instrument that has relative political autonomy is monetary policy. Central banks do not need to go to Congress to get approval for an interest rate hike.
Logically, it may be argued that banks could indeed lower interest rates and make up their profits through larger borrowing volumes. But banks, in turn, could justify exorbitant rates by arguing that they cater to a riskier segment.
A higher IOER rate encourages banks to raise the interest rates they charge, putting upward pressure on market interest rates regardless of the level of reserves in the banking sector. While adjusting the IOER rate is an effective way to move market interest rates when reserves are plentiful, federal funds have generally traded below this rate.
You know policy is driven purely in self interest. The Federal Reserve Bank and the commercial banks and the Wall Street banks are not acting in the interests of the population at large, they're acting purely in their own self-interest, which is a shame because they're actions dictate the reality for 300 million Americans. But they don't see it that way, they see it only as a way to preserve their own self-interest.
Of course I welcome all the normalization of monetary policy. I think monetary policy should be normal.
Stronger productivity growth would tend to raise the average level of interest rates and, therefore, would provide the Federal Reserve with greater scope to ease monetary policy in the event of a recession.
I've always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly - that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum.
The supply-side effect of a restrictive monetary policy, moreover, is likely to be perverse. High interest rates enter into costs and thus exert inflationary pressure, as well as inhibiting the expansion of capacity or the introduction of cost -reducing capital improvements.
Negative interest rates hurt banks' balance sheets, with the 'wealth effect' on banks overwhelming the small increase in incentives to lend.
The orders and directives issued on the basis of government decisions should be exhaustive and factual. Deep and thorough examination is required before taking a decision on important policy matters.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!