Hubbry Logo
Liquidity trapLiquidity trapMain
Open search
Liquidity trap
Community hub
Liquidity trap
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Liquidity trap
Liquidity trap
Liquidity trap
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Macroeconomics
Federal Reserve
Basic concepts
Policies
Models
Related fields
Schools
Mainstream

Heterodox

People
See also

A liquidity trap is a situation, described in Keynesian economics, in which, "after the rate of interest has fallen to a certain level, liquidity preference may become virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers holding cash rather than holding a debt (financial instrument) which yields so low a rate of interest."[1]

A liquidity trap is caused when people hold cash because they expect an adverse event such as deflation, insufficient aggregate demand, or war. Among the characteristics of a liquidity trap are interest rates that are close to zero lower bound and changes in the money supply that fail to translate into changes in inflation.[2]

Origin and definition of the term

[edit]

John Maynard Keynes, in his 1936 General Theory,[1] wrote the following:

There is the possibility...that, after the rate of interest has fallen to a certain level, liquidity-preference may become virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to holding a debt which yields so low a rate of interest. In this event the monetary authority would have lost effective control over the rate of interest. But whilst this limiting case might become practically important in future, I know of no example of it hitherto.

This concept of monetary policy's potential impotence[3] was further worked out in the works of British economist John Hicks,[4] who published the IS–LM model representing Keynes's system.[note 1] Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, in his work on monetary policy, follows the formulations of Hicks:[note 2]

A liquidity trap may be defined as a situation in which conventional monetary policies have become impotent, because nominal interest rates are at or near zero: injecting monetary base into the economy has no effect, because [monetary] base and bonds are viewed by the private sector as perfect substitutes.[2]

In a liquidity trap, people are indifferent between bonds and cash because the rates of interest both financial instruments provide to their holder is practically equal: The interest on cash is zero and the interest on bonds is near-zero. Hence, the central bank cannot affect the interest rate any more (through augmenting the monetary base) and has lost control over it.[5]

In Keynes' description of a liquidity trap, people simply do not want to hold bonds and prefer other, more-liquid forms of money instead. Because of this preference, after converting bonds into cash,[note 3] this causes an incidental but significant decrease to the bonds' prices and a subsequent increase to their yields. However, people prefer cash no matter how high these yields are or how high the central bank sets the bond's rates (yields).[6]

Post-Keynesian economist Hyman Minsky posited[7] that "after a debt deflation that induces a deep depression, an increase in the money supply with a fixed head count of other [financial] assets may not lead to a rise in the price of other assets." This naturally causes interest rates on assets that are not considered "almost perfectly liquid" to rise. In which case, as Minsky had stated elsewhere,[8]

The view that the liquidity-preference function is a demand-for-money relation permits the introduction of the idea that in appropriate circumstances the demand for money may be infinitely elastic with respect to variations in the interest rate… The liquidity trap presumably dominates in the immediate aftermath of a recession or financial crisis.

Historical debate

[edit]
Liquidity trap visualized in the context of the IS–LM model: A monetary expansion (the shift from LM to LM') has no effect on equilibrium interest rates or output. However, fiscal expansion (the shift from IS to IS") leads to a higher level of output (from Y* to Y") with no change in interest rates. And, ostensibly, since interest rates are unchanged, there is no crowding out effect either.

In the wake of the Keynesian Revolution in the 1930s and 1940s, various neoclassical economists sought to minimize the effect of liquidity-trap conditions. Don Patinkin[9] and Lloyd Metzler[10] invoked the existence of the so-called "Pigou effect",[11] in which the stock of real money balances is ostensibly an argument of the aggregate demand function for goods, so that the money stock would directly affect the "investment saving" curve in IS/LM analysis. Monetary policy would thus be able to stimulate the economy even when there is a liquidity trap.

Monetarists, most notably Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz, Karl Brunner, Allan Meltzer and others, strongly condemned any notion of a "trap" that did not feature an environment of a zero, or near-zero, interest rate across the whole spectrum of interest rates, i.e. both short- and long-term debt of the government and the private sector. In their view, any interest rate different from zero along the yield curve is a sufficient condition to eliminate the possibility of the presence of a liquidity trap.[note 4]

In recent times, when the Japanese economy fell into a period of prolonged stagnation, despite near-zero interest rates, the concept of a liquidity trap returned to prominence.[12] Keynes's formulation of a liquidity trap refers to the existence of a horizontal demand-curve for money at some positive level of interest rates; yet, the liquidity trap invoked in the 1990s referred merely to the presence of zero or near-zero interest-rates policies (ZIRP), the assertion being that interest rates could not fall below zero.[note 5] Some economists, such as Nicholas Crafts, have suggested a policy of inflation-targeting (by a central bank that is independent of the government) at times of prolonged, very low, nominal interest-rates, in order to avoid a liquidity trap or escape from it.[13]

Some Austrian School economists, such as those of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, reject Keynes' theory of liquidity preference altogether. They argue that lack of domestic investment during periods of low interest-rates is the result of previous malinvestment and time preferences rather than liquidity preference.[14] Chicago school economists remain critical of the notion of liquidity traps.[15]

Keynesian economists, like Brad DeLong and Simon Wren-Lewis, maintain that the economy continues to operate within the IS-LM model, albeit an "updated" one,[16] and the rules have "simply changed."[17]

2008 financial crisis

[edit]
The IS-LM model modified for endogenous money: The central bank controls interest rates but not the money supply. The LM curve is now flat, since, when the money supply increases, the interest rate r does not move. Income Y increases from ya to yb without any rise in interest rates.

During the 2008 financial crisis, as short-term interest rates for the various central banks in the United States and Europe moved close to zero, economists such as Paul Krugman argued that much of the developed world, including the United States, Europe, and Japan, was in a liquidity trap.[18] He noted that tripling of the monetary base in the US between 2008 and 2011 failed to produce any significant effect on domestic price indices or dollar-denominated commodity prices,[19] a notion supported by others, such as Scott Sumner.[20]

U.S. Federal Reserve economists assert that the liquidity trap can explain low inflation in periods of vastly increased central bank money supply. Based on experience $3.5 trillion of quantitative easing from 2009–2013, the hypothesis is that investors hoard and do not spend the increased money because the opportunity cost of holding cash (namely the interest forgone) is zero when the nominal interest rate is zero.[21] This hoarding effect is purported to have reduced consequential inflation to half of what would be expected directly from the increase in the money supply, based on statistics from the expansive years. They further assert that the liquidity trap is possible only when the economy is in deep recession.

COVID-19 recession

[edit]

Modest inflation during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, despite unprecedented monetary stimulus and expansion, was similarly ascribed to hoarding of cash.

Post-Keynesians respond[22] that the confusion by "mainstream economists" between conditions of a liquidity trap, as defined by Keynes and in the Post-Keynesian framework, and conditions of near-zero or zero interest rates, is intentional and ideologically motivated in ostensibly attempting to support monetary over fiscal policies. They argue that, quantitative easing programs in the United States, and elsewhere, caused the prices of financial assets to rise across the board and interest rates to fall; yet, a liquidity trap cannot exist, according to the Keynesian definition, unless the prices on imperfectly safe financial assets are falling and their interest rates are rising.[23] The rise in the monetary base did not affect interest rates or commodity prices.[24]

Taking the precedent of the 2008 financial crisis, critics[25] of the mainstream definition of a liquidity trap point out that the central bank of the United States never, effectively, lost control of the interest rate. Whereas the United States did experience a liquidity trap in the period 2009/10, i.e. in "the immediate aftermath" of the crisis,[note 6] the critics of the mainstream definition claim[22] that, after that period, there is no more of any kind of a liquidity trap since government and private-sector bonds are "very much in demand".[6] This goes against Keynes' point as Keynes stated that "almost everyone prefers cash to holding a debt."[1] However, modern finance has the concept of cash and cash equivalents; Treasuries may in some cases be treated as cash equivalents and not "debt" for liquidity purposes.[26]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Liquidity trap

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A liquidity trap is an economic condition in which nominal interest rates approach or reach zero, rendering expansionary monetary policy ineffective because economic agents prefer to hoard cash rather than spend or invest, even as central banks increase the money supply. The concept originates from John Maynard Keynes' observation in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money that at sufficiently low interest rates, the demand for money becomes infinitely elastic, as holding non-interest-bearing cash offers no opportunity cost relative to bonds or other assets. In the IS-LM model, this appears as a horizontal segment of the LM curve at the zero lower bound, where shifts in money supply fail to shift equilibrium output, trapping the economy in a low-activity state. Liquidity traps are characterized by deflationary expectations, low confidence, and deficient aggregate demand, potentially leading to prolonged stagnation unless addressed by fiscal measures or unconventional policies like quantitative easing. Empirical instances, such as Japan's post-1990s deflation or the U.S. zero lower bound period after 2008, have fueled debates, with some analyses questioning whether true traps occurred or if outcomes reflected structural rigidities and policy credibility issues rather than inherent monetary impotence. Critics, including monetarist and Austrian perspectives, contend the theory overemphasizes liquidity preference while underplaying prior distortions from credit expansion or the role of expectations in sustaining hoarding.

Theoretical Foundations

Keynesian Origins and Definition

The concept of the liquidity trap emerged in ' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published on February 13, 1936. In Chapter 15, titled "The Psychological and Business Incentives to ," Keynes analyzed through the lens of the speculative motive for holding money, where individuals weigh the yield from bonds against the convenience and safety of cash amid expectations of future rate fluctuations. He posited that at sufficiently low rates, the could exhibit infinite elasticity, as holders anticipate bond prices to fall if rates rise, prompting a universal preference for over debt instruments. Keynes articulated this as a scenario where "after the rate of has fallen to a certain level, liquidity-preference may become virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to holding a which yields so low a rate of ," thereby depriving monetary authorities of control over rates. In such conditions, even substantial increases in the supply fail to reduce rates further, as "an increase in the of will have no effect whatever on the rate of , however large the increase may be." He referenced the U.S. in as an approximate instance, where "scarcely anyone could be induced to part with holdings of on any reasonable terms," illustrating the practical limits of monetary expansion amid high liquidity . Although Keynes did not employ the precise phrase "liquidity trap," his framework described a threshold where loses traction due to absolute , shifting reliance toward fiscal measures to stimulate demand. The term itself originated with economist Dennis H. Robertson in 1940, who adapted Keynes' idea to critique the inefficacy of additional liquidity injections in saturated money markets. This Keynesian foundation underscored that low rates alone cannot guarantee if elevates the precautionary and speculative beyond responsiveness to policy.

Core Mechanisms and Conditions

The liquidity trap arises when nominal interest rates approach or reach the (ZLB), at which point central banks cannot further reduce short-term rates to stimulate economic activity through conventional . In this state, increases in the money supply fail to lower interest rates or boost , as agents exhibit infinite , preferring to hold cash rather than invest or spend due to expectations of , economic , or adverse shocks. Even when future rates are expected to be higher, low current rates do not always lead to an immediate surge in borrowing and investment, as weak aggregate demand and pessimistic expectations deter businesses and households from committing to new projects; balance sheet repair through deleveraging prioritizes debt reduction over new borrowing; credit supply constraints arise from banks' tightened lending standards due to risk aversion or regulatory pressures; high uncertainty and risk aversion reduce willingness for long-term investments; and liquidity trap dynamics reinforce cash hoarding over spending. This mechanism stems from the equivalence of money and short-term bonds at zero nominal yields, rendering additional liquidity ineffective in altering portfolio choices or transmission to real variables. Key conditions for a liquidity trap include a binding ZLB, where the natural falls below zero due to weak , combined with sticky prices that prevent from equilibrating the economy. High private debt levels can exacerbate this by prompting , further depressing demand and reinforcing expectations of prolonged stagnation. Empirical indicators involve persistent zero or near-zero policy rates alongside subdued or deflationary pressures, as observed in New Keynesian models where the intertemporal Euler equation implies output gaps without policy adjustment. multipliers may rise under these constraints, but monetary tools like face diminished efficacy if liquidity traps involve expectations-driven traps rather than mere reserve hoarding.

Formal Models and Assumptions

The liquidity trap is prominently formalized within the IS-LM model, which synthesizes by equilibrating the goods market (IS curve) and (LM curve). In this framework, the trap emerges when the approaches zero, rendering the LM curve horizontal due to the infinite elasticity of speculative money demand. At this point, individuals and firms prefer holding cash over interest-bearing bonds, as the of money vanishes, allowing them to absorb any increase in without requiring further reductions in interest rates or stimulating . This horizontal LM implies that conventional —aimed at lowering rates—loses traction, though expansions in money supply can theoretically shift the LM curve rightward, increasing output along the IS curve without altering rates. Key assumptions underpinning this model include the (ZLB) on nominal interest rates, stemming from the fact that cash offers a zero nominal return, preventing rates from going negative in equilibrium. Money demand comprises transaction and speculative motives, with the latter dominating at low rates: agents hoard anticipating capital losses on bonds if rates rise or erodes debt burdens. The model presumes fixed prices in the short run, limited by Keynesian , and no portfolio rebalancing effects from under perfect substitutability between and short-term bonds. These assumptions yield a scenario where remains effective, as shifts the IS curve rightward, raising output and potentially interest rates if escaping the trap. Modern extensions, such as New Keynesian (DSGE) models incorporating the ZLB, refine these assumptions by endogenizing expectations and forward guidance. Here, the liquidity trap binds when real rate falls below zero, but nominal rates cannot, leading to deflationary spirals if agents anticipate prolonged ZLB episodes. Assumptions include Calvo-style price stickiness, Euler dynamics for consumption, and rules that hit the ZLB constraint, often requiring unconventional tools like asset purchases to signal future easing. Empirical calibration of these models, using parameters from post-2008 data, shows traps persisting if fiscal multipliers amplify under low rates, though debates persist on whether infinite elasticity holds amid heterogeneous agent behaviors or safe asset shortages.

Historical and Empirical Instances

Great Depression Era

The Great Depression, initiated by the U.S. stock market crash on October 29, 1929, featured a sharp decline in short-term interest rates, with the three-month Treasury bill rate falling below 3 percent by 1930 and approaching zero in the mid-1930s. This period saw widespread banking panics, a 33 percent contraction in the money supply (M1) from 1929 to 1933, deflation rates exceeding 10 percent annually in the early 1930s, and unemployment peaking at approximately 25 percent by 1933. John Maynard Keynes interpreted these conditions in his 1936 The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money as evidence of a liquidity trap, characterized by "absolute " where economic agents hoarded cash amid uncertainty, rendering monetary easing ineffective as interest rates could not fall sufficiently to spur investment. Keynes advocated fiscal stimulus over further monetary expansion, arguing that dominated speculative motives for holding bonds. Monetarists and , in A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960 (1963), rejected the liquidity trap explanation, attributing the Depression's severity to the Federal Reserve's passive response to banking failures and shrinkage rather than an inescapable preference for . They documented how the Fed failed to act as , allowing over 9,000 banks to fail and amplifying through reduced intermediation, while evidence of and a spectrum of positive interest rates contradicted a binding . Empirical tests yield conflicting results on the trap's presence. Some econometric analyses identify a liquidity trap in the 1921–1940 interval, evidenced by muted output responses to money supply increases and breakdowns in the liquidity effect. Others, such as Brunner and Meltzer's study, find insufficient support, noting that reserve supply influenced longer-term rates from 1934 to 1939 despite near-zero overnight rates, and recovery after 1933 stemmed from banking reforms and monetary expansion rather than fiscal measures alone. The 1937–1938 , triggered by Fed reserve requirement hikes and sterilization, further highlighted policy errors over inherent trapping.

Japan's Stagnation (1990s–2010s)

Following the collapse of Japan's asset price bubble in 1990–1991, the economy entered a prolonged period of stagnation characterized by low growth, , and ineffective monetary stimulus, often cited as a prime empirical instance of a liquidity trap. Real GDP growth averaged approximately 1% annually from the early through the , a sharp decline from the 4% average of the preceding decade, amid banking sector distress and corporate . Persistent emerged, with the falling since 1995 and the (CPI) since 1998, resulting in a cumulative CPI decline of about 4% from 1998 to 2012. The (BOJ) responded by slashing policy rates, reaching the by the late , yet broad aggregates grew sluggishly despite expansions in the , signaling where agents hoarded cash equivalents rather than investing or spending. In February 1999, the BOJ introduced its (ZIRP), targeting the overnight call rate at around 0.02%—"as low as possible"—with a commitment to maintain it until ary pressures eased. This policy aimed to stimulate demand but yielded limited effects, as nominal rates near zero coincided with expected , implying positive real interest rates that discouraged borrowing and investment. Economist , in his 1998 analysis, argued that exemplified a liquidity trap wherein conventional monetary easing fails because the public anticipates ongoing price declines and low growth, leading to self-reinforcing expectations of insufficient . Empirical indicators included the outpacing broader aggregates like M2 during 1992–1995, reflecting trapped rather than transmission to real activity. Private fixed investment, particularly plant and equipment, contracted sharply, with annual growth rates dropping by over 7% in the initial slump phase. The stagnation persisted into the and early , with brief policy tightenings—like the BOJ's August 2000 hike to 0.25% amid perceived recovery signals—quickly reversed due to renewed slowdowns, underscoring the trap's stickiness. Deflationary expectations entrenched behaviors such as precautionary and repayment over consumption, rendering further rate cuts impossible and quantitative easing attempts (initiated in 2001) marginally effective at best, as they failed to alter outlooks decisively. While some analyses attribute part of the to structural factors like demographics and slowdowns, the liquidity trap framework highlights how zero-bound constraints amplified demand deficiencies, with real rates remaining restrictive despite nominal zero rates. This period informed global debates on unconventional policies, though Japan's experience revealed challenges in escaping the trap without credible commitments to .

2008 Global Financial Crisis

The 2008 global financial crisis, precipitated by the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market and the bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, led to a sharp contraction in credit and economic activity, with U.S. GDP declining by 4.3% from peak to trough between December 2007 and June 2009. In response, the reduced the target from 5.25% in mid-2007 to a range of 0% to 0.25% by December 16, 2008, reaching the (ZLB) and rendering conventional cuts ineffective. This situation exhibited hallmarks of a liquidity trap, where agents hoarded highly liquid assets amid expectations of or prolonged stagnation, reducing the transmission of to broader spending. Economist contended that the U.S. entered a liquidity trap by early 2008, as evidenced by plunging yields on short-term Treasuries (e.g., three-month bill rates falling to 0.06% in September 2008) and a breakdown in the money demand function, where increased failed to stimulate nominal spending due to precautionary savings and debt deleveraging. Empirical indicators included a surge in held by banks—rising from near zero to over $800 billion by late 2008—as institutions prioritized liquidity over lending, consistent with Keynesian models of infinite elasticity of money demand at low rates. peaked at 10% in October 2009, while core PCE hovered near 1%, underscoring weak despite zero rates. The Federal Reserve responded with unconventional measures, launching quantitative easing (QE1) in November 2008 to purchase $600 billion in agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, aiming to lower long-term rates and bypass the trap by expanding the money base directly into illiquid assets. New Keynesian analyses, integrating forward guidance and balance sheet policies, modeled the Great Recession as a "fundamental-driven" liquidity trap, where pessimistic expectations about fundamentals (e.g., household balance sheets impaired by $7 trillion in housing wealth losses) anchored low neutral rates, prolonging the ZLB episode until mid-2015. However, critics argued the episode deviated from a pure liquidity trap, as QE successfully elevated asset prices and supported a tepid recovery without inducing hyperinflation, suggesting structural credit frictions or regulatory constraints on banks—rather than absolute liquidity preference—impeded transmission. Debates persist on identification: vector autoregression studies testing money demand stability found structural breaks during 2008-2009, supporting a trap-like regime shift, but monetarist perspectives emphasize that base money growth via QE (reaching 800% expansion by 2014) eventually stabilized velocity, challenging claims of permanent ineffectiveness. Fiscal multipliers were estimated higher under ZLB conditions (around 1.5-2.0 for government spending), informing stimulus packages like the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 2009, though outcomes reflected confounding factors such as global spillovers. Overall, while not a textbook trap like Japan's, the crisis highlighted ZLB risks in advanced economies with high public debt, prompting ongoing research into escape mechanisms like negative rates or helicopter money.

COVID-19 Recession (2020–2021)

The COVID-19 recession, triggered by global lockdowns starting in March 2020, led to a sharp contraction in economic activity, with U.S. GDP declining by 31.2% annualized in the second quarter of 2020 and unemployment reaching 14.8% in April 2020. In response, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target range to 0–0.25% on March 15, 2020, hitting the zero lower bound (ZLB), and expanded its balance sheet through quantitative easing (QE), purchasing over $3 trillion in assets by mid-2021 to support liquidity and credit markets. Similar actions were taken by other central banks, such as the European Central Bank, amid fears that conventional monetary policy had reached its limits. Conditions resembling a liquidity trap emerged, characterized by near-zero interest rates, low expectations, and elevated demand for safe assets, with M2 velocity dropping to historic lows around 1.1 in 2020. Bank reserves surged to over $3 trillion as institutions hoarded rather than lending aggressively, reflecting uncertainty from the pandemic's shocks. However, empirical analyses have questioned the presence of a full liquidity trap, noting that QE effectively transmitted policy to asset prices and credit conditions, preventing the prolonged stagnation seen in prior episodes. Debates persist on whether the recession constituted a liquidity trap, with some economists arguing that fiscal stimulus—totaling about 25% of U.S. GDP through measures like the —crowded in private spending and facilitated escape from ZLB constraints, while others contend remained potent via unconventional tools. Recovery was rapid, with GDP rebounding 33.8% annualized in Q3 2020, though supply bottlenecks later drove above 7% by late 2021, suggesting the economy avoided entrapment. Critics of the liquidity trap diagnosis highlight the unique exogenous health shock, distinguishing it from endogenous demand deficiencies in Keynesian models.

Evidence and Identification Challenges

Diagnostic Indicators

A primary diagnostic indicator of a liquidity trap is the binding (ZLB) on nominal short-term interest rates, where central banks cannot further reduce rates to stimulate demand despite persistent economic slack, as rates approach or reach zero and agents view and short-term bonds as perfect substitutes. This condition persists when increases in the , such as through , fail to transmit to broader growth or , reflecting trapped liquidity rather than frictional constraints. Empirical observation of behavior further signals the trap, manifested in declining money velocity—measured as nominal GDP divided by —and elevated held by banks without corresponding lending expansion, indicating infinite elasticity of money demand at zero rates. Stagnant or contracting real output growth accompanies this, even as fiscal deficits widen, underscoring monetary policy's diminished transmission mechanism. Deflationary expectations or entrenched low inflation, often below target levels for extended periods (e.g., core PCE inflation under 1% annually), reinforce the diagnosis by raising real interest rates implicitly, deterring investment and consumption despite nominal rates at zero. Identification requires vector autoregression (VAR) models with structural shocks to money supply, testing for zero or negative output responses to positive liquidity injections, distinguishing traps from mere recessions. Such tests, applying sign and zero restrictions, confirm the trap's presence when conventional multipliers collapse.

Empirical Tests and Data Limitations

Empirical tests for liquidity traps primarily rely on econometric methods that assess the diminished transmission of when nominal interest rates approach the (ZLB). Structural (SVAR) models, often identified using high-frequency data around announcements or external instruments such as oil price shocks, compare impulse responses of output, , and to monetary shocks during ZLB episodes versus normal conditions. For instance, studies of the U.S. (2008–2015) using SVARs with instruments like changes in oil futures prices around OPEC meetings find significantly muted responses to expansionary shocks, with industrial production and exhibiting sign reversals consistent with a liquidity trap's constraints on demand stimulation. Similarly, dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models calibrated to ZLB data, incorporating occasionally binding constraints, test for expectations-driven dynamics by simulating policy irrelevance under fixed future rate expectations, as evidenced in analyses of Japan's 1990s–2010s stagnation where monetary base expansions failed to raise despite doubling the money supply from 2001–2006. Nonlinear approaches, such as threshold-VAR models, address regime-switching by estimating breakpoints where policy effectiveness thresholds, applied to U.S. data (1929–1937), reveal speculative motives amplifying deflationary spirals beyond linear frameworks' capabilities. Event studies further identify traps by measuring asset price and yield responses to forward guidance announcements; yields during 2008–2010 showed reduced sensitivity to macroeconomic news, supporting ZLB binding constraints over standard transmission channels. These tests often corroborate higher fiscal multipliers at the ZLB—estimated at 1.5–2.2 in episodes like Japan's recession and the —indicating monetary policy's substitution by demand-side fiscal impulses when dominates. Data limitations severely hamper robust identification, with only a handful of ZLB episodes—primarily Japan's prolonged stagnation, the U.S. , and the 2008 crisis—providing sparse observations for statistical inference, limiting generalizability and power against alternative explanations like balance-sheet recessions. Measurement errors plague key variables: and expectations data suffer from revisions and survey biases, while the natural rate of interest remains unobservable, complicating distinctions between temporary ZLB bindings and structural demand shortfalls. Endogeneity arises as central banks' unconventional tools (e.g., ) during suspected traps confound , with models debating whether observed policy ineffectiveness stems from true liquidity traps or expectation mismatches under . Model dependence exacerbates issues, as linear approximations fail to capture nonlinearities like the "paradox of toil," and firm-level , while revealing micro-trap thresholds in cases like , aggregate imperfectly to macro dynamics due to unobserved heterogeneity in preferences.

Debates on Occurrence Frequency

Economists debate the frequency of liquidity traps, with skeptics arguing they are exceedingly rare or even nonexistent in practice, while proponents contend they have occurred multiple times in modern history, particularly amid prolonged (ZLB) episodes. Monetarist perspectives, exemplified by and Anna Schwartz's analysis of the , attribute economic stagnation to policy-induced monetary contractions rather than inherent liquidity preference traps, suggesting such scenarios are avoidable through adequate growth and thus infrequent under competent central banking. Similarly, research highlights that suspected historical instances—such as the U.S. (1929–1933), Japan's deflationary period (1990s–early 2010s), and the 2008–2009 global financial crisis—remain empirically murky, as unconventional measures like (QE) often mitigated ZLB effects without confirming a true trap where money hoarding rendered policy impotent. Proponents of higher frequency, including Keynesian economists like , point to Japan's "Lost Decade" as a canonical example, where short-term rates near zero from 1995 to 2006 failed to stimulate demand despite aggressive easing attempts, implying traps arise more readily in aging, high-debt economies with deflationary expectations. Krugman extended this to the U.S. post-2008, arguing the ZLB binding from December 2008 to late 2015 evidenced a trap, necessitating fiscal stimulus to escape, though recovery via QE and forward guidance challenges the persistence claim. Empirical models, such as those in New Keynesian frameworks, simulate traps as rare (occurring in under 5% of simulated paths) but long-lasting when triggered by pessimism-driven shocks, aligning with observed ZLB episodes since the but underscoring identification difficulties amid confounding factors like banking crises. Critics of frequent occurrence emphasize that no episode has conclusively demonstrated infinite liquidity preference, as evidenced by partial successes of QE in (post-2013 ) and the U.S. (where broad money multipliers rebounded despite low rates), suggesting traps are overstated relative to structural issues like or regulatory constraints. Overall, the consensus leans toward rarity—limited to 2–3 debated 20th– cases—driven by the ZLB's novelty in floating-rate regimes, though low neutral rates in advanced economies may elevate future risks without robust empirical confirmation.

Criticisms and Competing Explanations

Monetarist Critiques

Monetarists, led by figures such as Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, have consistently rejected the liquidity trap as an empirical occurrence, classifying it as a theoretical construct without verifiable historical instances. Friedman declared that "there is not now, and there never has been, a liquidity trap," positing that central banks' control over the money supply renders such a state impossible, as aggressive monetary expansion can always stimulate nominal income via the quantity theory of money (MV = PY), even if velocity temporarily fluctuates. This view prioritizes observable data on money stock dynamics over Keynesian liquidity preference theory, which monetarists argue overemphasizes interest rate insensitivity at low levels while underplaying policy execution. A cornerstone of this critique is the reinterpretation of the , where and Schwartz documented a 33% contraction in the U.S. (M2) from 1929 to 1933, attributing the episode's depth to the Federal Reserve's passive allowance of bank failures and deposit outflows rather than an inescapable trap. They contended that proactive open-market purchases to offset this decline—potentially stabilizing the money stock—would have curtailed and output collapse, as evidenced by the partial recovery following the Fed's belated 1932 expansion efforts, which increased money growth but were inconsistently applied. Schwartz later reinforced this by dismissing liquidity trap interpretations as lacking empirical foundation, arguing they conflate crises with liquidity saturation. Extending to post-1990s cases like , monetarists fault the Bank of Japan's constrained growth—averaging below 2% annually in the despite zero rates—for perpetuating stagnation, not a structural trap, as broader expansion could have anchored expectations and boosted . Analyses aligned with Friedman's legacy similarly debunk trap claims in the 2008 crisis and beyond, emphasizing that apparent ineffectiveness stems from central banks' hesitation to pursue sustained, rule-based targets amid political pressures, rather than inherent monetary impotence. This perspective underscores causal realism: economic slumps reflect monetary mismanagement, verifiable through historical and , over speculative preference shifts.

Austrian School Perspectives

Austrian School economists reject the concept of a liquidity trap as a misdiagnosis of economic downturns, attributing recessions instead to the corrective phase of artificial credit expansions under central banking regimes. In their view, the liquidity trap—characterized by zero-bound interest rates and hoarding despite monetary injections—arises not from inherent but from prior malinvestments that distort relative prices and , necessitating liquidation rather than further stimulus. and , foundational figures in the tradition, argued that business cycles stem from central banks lowering interest rates below the natural rate of , fostering unsustainable investments that must be liquidated during downturns to restore market coordination. This perspective critiques Keynesian liquidity preference theory, which posits an infinitely elastic demand for money at low rates, as overlooking the role of price flexibility in a free market. Austrians contend that without government-induced rigidities—such as wage floors or price controls—nominal prices would adjust downward during deflationary corrections, preventing hoarding by maintaining real purchasing power and incentivizing exchange. Steven Horwitz, applying Austrian capital theory, emphasizes that the trap's purported existence depends on pervasive interventions that suppress price signals, leading to persistent errors in intertemporal coordination rather than a failure of monetary policy to stimulate demand. Empirical instances invoked for liquidity traps, such as Japan's stagnation, are reframed by as outcomes of firm preservation through regulatory and fiscal bailouts, delaying necessary rather than evidencing a monetary impasse. extended this by arguing that Keynes confused short-term with long-term imbalances, where additional liquidity merely postpones the bust without resolving underlying distortions. Proponents maintain that escaping such states requires abolishing and central monopolies on money to align rates with voluntary savings, avoiding the moral hazard of endless accommodation.

Behavioral and Structural Alternatives

Behavioral economists contend that liquidity traps, if they occur, are exacerbated by psychological biases and non-rational rather than solely by rational agents' infinite elasticity of money demand at zero rates. In conditions, agents exhibit heightened uncertainty aversion, relying on heuristics like anchoring to past downturns or into safe assets, which sustains deflationary spirals independently of signals. Experimental evidence shows that such behaviors amplify portfolio shifts toward liquidity during low-rate environments, as leads households and firms to prioritize short-term safety over long-term returns, mimicking trap-like outcomes without invoking Keynesian as the core mechanism. Adaptive learning models further illustrate behavioral persistence in traps, where agents update expectations slowly due to bounded rationality, entrenching pessimistic forecasts even as policy accommodates low rates. For example, constant-gain learning rules—reflecting realistic cognitive limits—generate self-reinforcing stagnation by delaying convergence to rational equilibria, contrasting with full-information rational expectations that might resolve traps more readily. These perspectives critique standard liquidity trap theory for assuming hyper-rationality, arguing instead that policy must target belief formation through credible commitments to override entrenched fears. Structural alternatives emphasize supply-side constraints and institutional frictions as primary drivers of prolonged stagnation, viewing liquidity traps as symptoms rather than causes of weak growth. High private debt overhangs from prior credit booms depress by forcing , creating chronic low for capital that persists regardless of near-zero rates, as evidenced in post-2008 economies with elevated leverage ratios. Financial exacerbates this by masking underlying slowdowns during booms, leading to misallocated resources and firms that crowd out viable , a pattern observed in since the where corporate debt burdens and inefficient banking perpetuated low growth. Demographic shifts and slowing further structurally lower the natural rate of interest, fostering environments prone to stagnation without reliance on dynamics. Aging populations reduce savings-investment imbalances needed for growth, as seen in advanced economies where shrinkage and obligations suppress capital deepening from the onward. Institutional rigidities, such as labor market inflexibility and regulatory barriers, compound these effects by hindering reallocation to high-productivity sectors, explaining persistent output gaps better than demand-side constraints alone. Proponents argue these factors necessitate supply-side reforms over monetary easing, as attempts to inflate away traps via demand stimulus often fail against entrenched structural headwinds.

Policy Responses and Outcomes

Conventional Monetary Limits

In a liquidity trap, conventional , which primarily operates through adjustments to short-term nominal s, encounters a fundamental constraint at the (ZLB). Central banks typically stimulate economic activity by reducing policy rates to encourage borrowing, , and consumption; however, once rates approach zero, further cuts become infeasible without inducing agents to hold instead of interest-bearing assets, as offers a zero nominal return. This renders additional monetary accommodation via rate reductions ineffective, as the channel fails to transmit stimulus to the real economy. The ZLB arises because nominal interest rates cannot sustainably fall below zero in most economies, due to opportunities with ; attempts to impose negative rates risk or hoarding, limiting the scope for easing. Empirical evidence from models and historical episodes confirms that at the ZLB, expansions of the through operations do not reliably lower long-term rates or boost , as dominates and declines sharply. For instance, banks and households may prefer holding or cash equivalents over extending credit, neutralizing policy intent. Japan's experience in the 1990s exemplifies these limits: following the asset bubble collapse, the lowered its discount rate from 2.5% in 1991 to 0.5% by 1995, and adopted a in February 1999, yet persisted with GDP growth averaging under 1% annually from 1995 to 2000, as conventional rate cuts failed to revive lending or investment amid recessions and . Similarly, in the United States after the , the reduced the target to 0-0.25% on December 16, 2008, exhausting the conventional toolkit; despite this floor, output gaps widened and inflation undershot targets through 2011, with M2 velocity dropping to historic lows around 1.4 by 2010, indicating hoarding rather than circulation of injected liquidity. These constraints highlight that while conventional policy can prevent rates from rising during downturns, it cannot counteract deflationary pressures or shortfalls once bound-constrained, often necessitating shifts to alternative transmission mechanisms or fiscal coordination to escape the trap.

Unconventional Measures (QE and Forward Guidance)

In a liquidity trap, where short-term interest rates approach zero and conventional loses traction, central banks have employed unconventional tools such as (QE) and forward guidance to influence longer-term rates and economic expectations. involves large-scale purchases of government bonds and other securities to expand the central bank's , aiming to lower long-term yields, enhance bank , and stimulate lending through portfolio rebalancing and signaling effects. Forward guidance complements QE by publicly committing to maintain accommodative policy stances for extended periods, thereby anchoring inflation expectations and encouraging intertemporal substitution in consumption and decisions. The U.S. launched its first QE program (QE1) on November 25, 2008, announcing purchases of up to $600 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities and debt, later expanded to $1.75 trillion by March 2010, including $1.25 trillion in MBS and $300 billion in securities. This intervention occurred amid the global financial crisis, when the was pinned near zero, coinciding with elevated and subdued indicative of a liquidity trap. Subsequent rounds followed: QE2 in November 2010 involved $600 billion in longer-term purchases completed by June 2011, while QE3, initiated September 13, 2012, featured open-ended monthly purchases of $40 billion in MBS tapering to $85 billion including Treasuries, ending in October 2014 after expanding the balance sheet to approximately $4.5 trillion. Empirical analyses attribute QE to reductions in long-term yields by 50-100 basis points per program, facilitating credit easing and supporting household mortgage refinancing, though transmission to broad lending remained constrained as excess reserves accumulated on bank balance sheets rather than fueling new loans. Evidence on QE's macroeconomic impact reveals modest stimulus to output and , primarily through channels like elevated equity prices and reduced volatility, which boosted effects and corporate . One study estimates QE1-QE3 raised U.S. GDP by 1.5-3% and by 2 million jobs cumulatively, yet critics note these gains were uneven, disproportionately benefiting asset owners and exacerbating inequality without proportionally addressing structural deficiencies in the trap. In , prolonged QE since the similarly expanded the Bank of Japan's but yielded limited escape from deflationary pressures, underscoring risks of reserves becoming trapped in financial institutions amid weak . Forward guidance emerged as a zero-cost complement, with the first employing it explicitly in December 2008 by stating rates would remain low for "some time," evolving to calendar-based commitments (e.g., through mid-2013 in January 2012) and state-contingent thresholds (e.g., below 6.5% in December 2012). The and adopted similar tactics post-2010, promising negative rates or asset purchases until targets were sustainably met. In liquidity trap models, effective guidance mitigates deflationary spirals by credibly signaling future accommodation, potentially shortening trap duration; simulations indicate it raises recovery probabilities under , though empirical potency hinges on credibility, with heterogeneous agent models showing diminished effects if doubts persist due to fiscal dominance or inconsistent past actions. Real-world assessments, such as during the 2010s stagnation, link guidance to stabilized long-term rates but limited real activity boosts, as agents discounted promises amid sovereign debt concerns. Overall, while these measures averted deeper crises, their inability to fully bypass impaired monetary transmission highlights liquidity traps' resilience to supply-side liquidity injections absent demand restoration.

Fiscal Interventions and Their Causal Role

In liquidity traps, where nominal interest rates are pinned at the and conventional loses traction, fiscal interventions—primarily increases and reductions—exert a direct causal influence on by injecting resources into the economy without immediate offsetting rises in borrowing costs. This mechanism operates through Keynesian multipliers, where initial spending generates secondary rounds of consumption and , amplified by forward-looking agents anticipating sustained low rates and reduced household constraints. models calibrated to zero-bound conditions demonstrate that such multipliers can exceed unity, often reaching 1.5 to 3 or higher, as fiscal expansion raises output and expectations without crowding out activity via higher real rates. Empirical identification of this causal channel relies on structural vector autoregressions (SVARs), local projections, and approaches to isolate exogenous fiscal shocks from endogenous responses. Historical panel data across advanced economies, spanning episodes like the and post-2008 recessions, reveal government spending multipliers averaging 1.5-2 during zero-bound periods, significantly above the 0.5-1 range in normal times, with effects persisting for 2-3 years due to delayed monetary normalization. In , which endured a multi-decade liquidity trap from the late , military spending shocks identified via high-frequency market reactions yielded multipliers of approximately 1.5, with output responses 50-100% larger and more prolonged than in non-zero-bound states, underscoring fiscal's role in countering deflationary inertia. Case-specific evidence further delineates causality. During the U.S. , when the hit zero in December 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of February 2009—encompassing $288 billion in direct spending and $224 billion in tax cuts—causally boosted GDP by 2-3% over 2009-2010, per SVAR estimates controlling for monetary accommodation, though Ricardian effects from anticipated future taxes tempered long-run gains. Japan's fiscal packages from 2013 onward, including a 5% deferral and outlays totaling 20 trillion yen, correlated with a 1-2% GDP uplift in 2014-2015, attributed to demand-pull rather than supply-side channels in zero-bound DSGE simulations. Post-COVID fiscal responses in 2020, such as the U.S. CARES Act's $2.2 trillion outlays, exhibited multipliers up to 1.7 in euro-area SVARs at the effective lower bound, driving V-shaped recoveries where fiscal shocks Granger-caused output rebounds independent of QE scale. Critically, while these interventions causally elevate short-term activity, their efficacy hinges on shock exogeneity and sustainability; endogenous fiscal expansions tied to output gaps show diminished impacts, and high public debt-to-GDP ratios (e.g., Japan's 250%+ since 2010) risk amplifying future distortionary taxes, potentially offsetting gains via intertemporal substitution. Cross-study meta-analyses confirm higher ZLB multipliers but caution against overreliance, as unconventional monetary tools like QE can partially substitute, reducing fiscal's marginal causal contribution in hybrid policy regimes.

Modern Implications and Escapes

Post-Pandemic Recovery Dynamics

The induced a liquidity trap-like environment in advanced economies during 2020, characterized by policy rates pinned at the and diminished effectiveness of conventional monetary easing amid subdued demand and precautionary cash hoarding. Central banks responded with expansive (QE), expanding balance sheets by trillions—e.g., the Federal Reserve's assets grew from $4.2 trillion in February 2020 to $8.9 trillion by April 2022—yet transmission to broader activity remained constrained due to heightened uncertainty and pressures. Empirical indicators, such as stagnant velocity and persistent output gaps, aligned with liquidity trap dynamics, though fiscal dominance via stimulus packages exceeding 20% of GDP in the and mitigated deeper deflationary risks. Recovery accelerated unevenly from mid-2020, with real GDP rebounding to pre-pandemic levels by Q2 2021 and declining from 14.8% in April 2020 to 5.4% by July 2021, driven by phased reopenings, pent-up demand, and fiscal transfers that boosted household and consumption. Unlike protracted traps in prior episodes, dynamics shifted markedly in 2021: CPI rose from 1.2% year-over-year in August 2020 to 7.0% by December 2021, fueled by disruptions, energy price surges, and stimulus-induced demand pressures rather than pure monetary factors. This inflationary upswing facilitated escape from the trap, as central banks normalized policy; the Fed raised rates starting March 2022, reaching 5.25-5.50% by July 2023, restoring monetary transmission without reliance on unconventional tools. Similar patterns emerged in the , where ECB deposit rates lifted from -0.5% in 2021 to 4% by 2023, underscoring how exogenous supply shocks and fiscal impulses enabled rate hikes absent in demand-deficient traps. Fiscal-monetary coordination played a causal role in this exit, with models indicating that stimulus amplified sufficiently to generate inflationary expectations, averting indefinite ZLB persistence, though it also amplified post-recovery overheating risks and central bank balance sheet losses upon QT. from vector autoregressions supports that without such interventions, output losses could have extended 1-2 years longer, but critiques highlight that supply-side rebounds—not policy—primarily drove the enabling normalization, challenging narratives of fiscal as the sole escape mechanism. By 2023, global growth stabilized at 3.0% amid to 4-5% in major economies, confirming departure from trap conditions without relapse into .

Lessons for 2020s Policy Frameworks

The post-COVID-19 economic recovery demonstrated that liquidity traps, characterized by near-zero interest rates and ineffective conventional , can be escaped more rapidly through aggressive fiscal-monetary coordination than through monetary easing alone, as evidenced by the and achieving pre-pandemic levels within 20 months, compared to over three years after the . This escape was facilitated by substantial fiscal stimuli, including direct income supports and wage subsidies, which offset private sector and prevented a "paradox of thrift" where households hoard cash, thereby boosting without relying solely on rate cuts. In contrast, pre-2020 experiences like Japan's prolonged stagnation highlighted the risks of insufficient fiscal backing, underscoring that commitments to higher targets require credible fiscal multipliers to shift expectations upward. Quantitative easing (QE), deployed extensively in the 2020s—such as the Federal Reserve's expansion to over $8.9 trillion by mid-2022—proved effective in deep traps by providing output and boosts while reducing public burdens through portfolio rebalancing and lower long-term yields. However, its limitations emerged in shallower traps or recovery phases, where it risked overheating, as seen in the 2021-2022 global surge peaking at 9.1% in the U.S., partly fueled by QE amplifying amid supply bottlenecks like shortages. losses from QE unwind, estimated in billions for major institutions, further strained credibility, suggesting future frameworks incorporate escape clauses to limit exposure and prioritize forward guidance tied to verifiable economic slack. For 2020s policy, frameworks must emphasize countercyclical fiscal rules to complement monetary tools, avoiding the procyclical seen in the area post-2010, which prolonged low below 1% targets. With public debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 120% in advanced economies by 2023, reliance on QE for debt sustainability demands enhanced supply-side reforms to mitigate bottlenecks, as fiscal dominance—where accommodates deficits—risks eroding independence and anchoring expectations around 2%. Empirical evidence from the indicates that integrated policy mixes, including targeted fiscal outlays equivalent to 1-2% of GDP, can reconnect growth trajectories without de-anchoring, but require vigilant monitoring of natural interest rates to preempt persistent traps.

References

  1. https://web.pdx.edu/~ito/Liquidity_trap_RE_-HI2.pdf
  2. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/economy/articles/business-review/2010/q2/brq210_monetary-policy-in-a-liquidity-trap.pdf
  3. https://www.thoughtco.com/liquidity-trap-keynesian-economics-definition-1148023
  4. https://www.uvm.edu/~jfarley/UFBAEE/dfch16.pdf
  5. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/dynamic.pdf
  6. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33195/w33195.pdf
  7. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2000/06/japan-recession-is-the-liquidity-trap-back
  8. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1998/06/1998b_bpea_krugman_dominquez_rogoff.pdf
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1059323
  10. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125515/1366_keynestheoryofemployment.pdf
  11. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/imperfect-credibility-and-the-zero-lower-bound-on-the-nominal-interest-rate.htm
  12. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm
  13. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19476/w19476.pdf
  14. https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/debt_deleveraging_ge_pk.pdf
  15. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/debt-deleveraging-and-liquidity-trap
  16. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2010/1001/ifdp1001.htm
  17. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Managing%2520a%2520liquidity%2520trap%2520%2528Werning%2529%25202-7-12.pdf
  18. https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/thinking.pdf
  19. https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro2003/artigos/A13.pdf
  20. https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=11340
  21. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w6015/w6015.pdf
  22. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18828/w18828.pdf
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-history-of-economic-thought/article/reading-keynes-at-the-zero-lower-bound-the-great-depression-the-liquidity-trap-and-unconventional-policy/72E234973C73D7574722AE16BC64967E
  24. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16204
  25. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15584/revisions/w15584.rev0.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165188917300453
  27. https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/quaderni-storia/2004-0002/index.html?com.dotmarketing.htmlpage.language=1
  28. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/nft/2003/japan/index.htm
  29. https://gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/126svensson.pdf
  30. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1503x.htm
  31. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2002/729/ifdp729.pdf
  32. https://www.imes.boj.or.jp/research/papers/english/03-E-05.pdf
  33. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2020/226/article-A001-en.xml
  34. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-baaack-japans-slump-and-the-return-of-the-liquidity-trap/
  35. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12142/w12142.pdf
  36. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap19l.pdf
  37. https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/liquid.html
  38. https://www.nber.org/papers/w33195
  39. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kohn20100513a.htm
  40. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/dec/16/federal-reserve-interest-rates-cut
  41. https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/liquidity-trap/
  42. https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/optimalg.pdf
  43. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm
  44. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Bernanke_final-draft.pdf
  45. https://www.jois.eu/files/BryczV5N2.pdf
  46. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/oil-equities-and-a-nonbinding-zero-lower-bound-the-monetary-policy-response-to-covid-19-20210414.html
  47. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/fed-response-to-covid19/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8091804/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292122002045
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7511673/
  51. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2014/the-liquidity-trap-an-alternative-explanation-for-todays-low-inflation
  52. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2012/q1/~/media/CEFE493732DF4D38A0FE2BAE7A8D11BA.ashx
  53. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2304~8e4b7bb2de.en.pdf
  54. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3571439
  55. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp7096.pdf
  56. https://www.mercatus.org/macro-musings/paul-krugman-liquidity-traps-great-recession-and-isaac-asimov
  57. https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2015/12/31/economists-evolving-understanding-of-the-zero-rate-liquidity-trap
  58. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214342/full
  59. https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2007/2007-048.pdf
  60. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/03/29/who-was-milton-friedman/
  61. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674873
  62. https://www.mercatus.org/hayekprogram/research/working-papers/keynesian-liquidity-trap-austrian-critique
  63. https://mises.org/mises-daily/rise-and-fall-japanese-miracle
  64. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2201.en.pdf
  65. https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/05/25/a-different-liquidity-trap/
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292108000524
  67. https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/conferences/learningconf/2007/Guse.pdf
  68. https://rujec.org/article/38703/
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292118300904
  70. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/liquidity-trap-and-excessive-leverage
  71. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09538259.2024.2358127
  72. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/files/ifdp1243.pdf
  73. https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2015/secularstag/pdf/Benigno.pdf
  74. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2289~1a3c04db25.en.pdf
  75. https://www.bis.org/publ/work384.pdf
  76. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2019003pap.pdf
  77. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomc20081212memo22.pdf
  78. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2013/11/19/monetary-policy-will-never-be-the-same
  79. https://www.bis.org/publ/work804.pdf
  80. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/the-economy/monetary-policy/did-quantitative-easing-work
  81. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr776.pdf?hash=D2CE7B31E152CFA2A2CBAB23F6E09095&sc_lang=en
  82. https://www.imes.boj.or.jp/research/papers/english/17-E-08.pdf
  83. https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/programs-archive/large-scale-asset-purchases
  84. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/05/ten-years-laterdid-qe-work/
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264999322001894
  86. https://drpress.org/ojs/index.php/HBEM/article/download/16798/16302/17843
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560618306806
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016726812030216X
  89. https://www.dnb.nl/media/vm4bnwog/working-paper-no-614_tcm47-380569.pdf
  90. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/News/Seminars/2024/AME/marcin-kolasa-paper.ashx
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426620302600
  92. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/farhi/files/multipliers_handbook_final.pdf
  93. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obes.12382
  94. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2020/preliminary/paper/EAtD48FH
  95. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2021/05/fiscal-multiplier-at-zero-bound-evidence-from-japan/
  96. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/2014107pap.pdf
  97. https://www.mof.go.jp/english/pri/publication/pp_review/ppr17_02_06.pdf
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999325000586
  99. https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/government-spending-multiplier-survey-empirical-literature
  100. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2014/tnm1404.pdf
  101. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2021/html/ecb.sp210628~695f98b30c.en.html
  102. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2025/English/wpiea2025158-source-pdf.ashx
  103. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33857/w33857.pdf
  104. https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-us-economic-recovery-in-international-context-2023
  105. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-federal-reserves-responses-to-the-post-covid-period-of-high-inflation-20240214.html
  106. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/09/macroeconomics-2020s-what-weve-learned-whats-to-come/
  107. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2025/08/08/Macroeconomic-and-Fiscal-Consequences-of-Quantitative-Easing-569267
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.