The clash between fiscal and monetary policy

How is it that within the space of a few weeks Kwasi Kwarteng was as unceremoniously sacked as Greek Gianis Varoufakis in 2015, and Liz Truss’s position is as, if not more, precarious than Silvio Berlusconi’s in 2012? The answer is really not that surprising: It’s Quantitative Tightening meeting political moral hazard.


We are seeing the worst bond market volatility in decades. And when extreme volatility is met by the false assumption that markets can be ignored or even worse, that they ‘need to be taught a lesson’, catastrophe looms.


With QE in reverse, the irony is hard to miss. In 2008, politicians were afraid of financial moral hazard. In 2022, it is the financial system that worries about political moral hazard.


Yet Mr Kwarteng is hardly the first person who entertained the notion that market volatility can be ignored. His transgression, in fact, is probably dwarfed by the present Fed’s belief that it can ignore market volatility in its fight against inflation.


Sharp market reactions to policy decisions, show that they are not Pavlov’s dogs. They are, for lack of a better simile, Pavlov’s very angry Grizzly bears.


The lesson from Mr Kwarteng’s short reign is that policy makers need to quickly embrace the fact that this is not a good time to test markets. A lesson that the Bank of England may also soon learn, if it refuses to proceed with more QE should conditions warrant it. Or even the Fed if it fails to signal an eventual return to accommodation.


As for the UK?
It will take patience for the damage to be undone. Announcing a U-turn in terms of taxes, and even raising them could prove too little to appease markets. In the past, the solution has come through general elections, technocratic governments etc. The final terms and conditions of Brexit will also play a pivotal role in reducing volatility.

George Lagarias – Chief Economist