By Matthew Scholl – The Director’s Corner will highlight how NIST’s cybersecurity, privacy, and information security-related projects are making a difference in the field and leading the charge to make positive changes.
I believe the greatest accomplishment for the division, and what I am most proud of, is how we work globally — and the way we work in an open, transparent, and inclusive process. This is especially true in the development and standardization of cryptography. This process, coupled with NISTs technical excellence in crypto, results in NIST encryption used by commercial IT products across the world. This underlying encryption enables billions of dollars of electronic commerce to function; such as swiping credit cards at the grocery store — to online purchases — to major financial exchanges.
As we look at 2020 and beyond, NIST will update our encryption standards and ensure that encryption will continue to enable the economy and protect our livelihood. The biggest thing coming in the future (that you will hear more and more about), is in the area of quantum resistant cryptography. NIST is building open, transparent, and inclusive encryption methods with our global partners for new sets of encryption that are needed when quantum computing becomes a reality.
Quantum computing is a completely new method and architecture of conducting computational activity (or way to generate information). When a quantum computer finally is strong enough, some of our current encryption will become vulnerable. Therefore, NIST is proactively working to create new encryption standards. more>
Posted in Business, Communication industry, Economy, Education, How to, Net, Science, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, Cybersecurity, Encryption, Internet, Monetary policy, NIST, Quantum Computing
Funding an ecological transition in Europe via ‘green money’ bonds would be economically justifiable.
By Paul De Grauwe – To what extent can the money created by the central bank be used to finance investments in the environment?
This is a question often asked today. The green activists respond with enthusiasm that the central bank—and, in particular, the European Central Bank (ECB)—should stimulate the financing of environmental investments through the printing of money.
The ECB has created €2,600 billion of new money since 2015 in the context of its quantitative easing (QE) program. All that money has gone to financial institutions which have done very little with it. Why can’t the ECB inject the money into environmental investments instead of pouring it into the financial sector?
Most traditional economists react with horror.
Who is right? It is good to recall the basics of money creation by the ECB (or any modern central bank). Money is created when that institution buys financial assets in the market. The suppliers of these assets are financial institutions. These then obtain a deposit in euro at the ECB, in exchange for relinquishing these financial assets. That is the moment when money is created. This money (deposits) can then be used as their reserve base by the financial institutions to extend loans to companies and households.
There is no limit to the amount of financial assets the ECB can buy.
In principle, it could purchase all existing financial assets (all bonds and shares, for example), but that would increase the money supply in such a way that inflation would increase dramatically. In other words, the value of the money issued by the ECB would fall sharply. To avoid this, the bank has set a limit: it promises not to let inflation rise above 2 per cent. That imposes a constraint on the amount of money which the ECB can create. So far, it has been successful in remaining within the 2 per cent inflation target. more>
Posted in Banking, Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, History, How to
Tagged Business improvement, Capital, Credit, Fiat money, Monetary policy
How to make money on Fed announcements—with less risk
By Dee Gill – Andreas Neuhierl and Michael Weber find gains of about 4.5 percent when investors bought or shorted markets in the roughly 40 days before and after Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announcements that ran counter to market expectations. Investors can make money on these “surprises,” even if they did not take positions before the announcements, the findings suggest.
Markets routinely forecast the content of FOMC announcements, which reveal the Fed’s new target interest rates, and usually react when the Fed does not act as expected. An FOMC announcement is an expansionary surprise when its new target rate is lower than the market forecasts and contractionary when it’s higher than expectations.
Share prices moved predictably ahead of and following both types of surprises, the study notes. Prices began to rise about 25 days ahead of an expansionary surprise, for about a 2.5 percent gain during that time. Before a contractionary surprise, prices generally fell. The researchers find that the movements occured in all industries except mining, where contractionary surprises tended to push share prices higher. more>
By Simon Wren-Lewis – Or maybe the middle ages, but certainly not anything more recent than the 1920s. Keynes advocated using fiscal expansion in what he called a liquidity trap in the 1930s. Nowadays we use a different terminology, and talk about the need for fiscal expansion when nominal interest rates are stuck at the Zero Lower Bound or Effective Lower Bound.
When monetary policy loses its reliable and effective instrument to manage the economy, you need to bring in the next best reliable and effective instrument: fiscal policy.
The Eurozone as a whole is currently at the effective lower bound. Rates are just below zero and the ECB is creating money for large scale purchases of assets: a monetary policy instrument whose impact is much more uncertain than interest rate changes or fiscal policy changes (but certainly better than nothing). The reason monetary policy is at maximum stimulus setting is that Eurozone core inflation seems stuck at 1% or below. Time, clearly, for fiscal policy to start lending a hand with some fiscal stimulus.
You would think that causing a second recession after the one following the GFC would have been a wake up call for European finance ministers to learn some macroeconomics. Yet what little learning there has been is not to make huge mistakes but only large ones: we should balance the budget when there is no crisis. more>
Posted in Banking, Business, Economy, Leadership
Tagged Banking reform, Capital, Credit, Currency, Debt, Financial crisis, Government, Monetary policy
By Nick Hubble – For many dozens of years, central bankers have been managing the relationship between inflation and unemployment. Only to discover there isn’t one.
The last ten years proved the point. In fact, the relationship between inflation and unemployment has only held for a preciously short amount of time. And yet it continues to be the most influential economic theory around. That’s because it justifies monetary policy itself. The idea that governments can and must manage the economy.
I know that managing the economy through interest rates sounds like a stupid idea. But people used to believe in similar absurdities.
It’s all down to the Phillips Curve – the relationship between inflation and unemployment.
If unemployment is too high, inflation will be too low because workers aren’t cashed up enough to spend and push up prices. If inflation is too high, it’s because too many workers have too many jobs and too much income, which pushes up prices.
This theory is stupid. It ignores something called supply and demand. If prices rise because workers are cashed up and can buy more, then production increases and increases supply. That returns prices to a lower level. As commodity traders will tell you, the cure for high prices is high prices. It incentivizes supply. But to an economist, the cure for high prices is higher interest rates. Because they can’t help but meddle.
If central bankers can’t control inflation or unemployment, why put up with the problems they create? Like asset bubbles, debt booms, inequality and explicit backdoor bailouts for bankers that encourage absurd levels of risk? more>
By John M. Balder – All of us were taught in Economics 101 that central banks determine the money supply by using their high-powered (base) money and the multiplier. Both of these concepts should be tossed in the trash can. These notions are in error, as both the BOE and the Federal Reserve have recognized. In fact, central banks passively accommodate bank demand for reserves (as doing otherwise could prove disruptive to financial stability).
The influence central banks exert over money and credit creation is achieved via their control of short-term interest rates, and not via quantitative restrictions.
A quick aside here, I have always been curious as to why economists tend to focus so exclusively on the real economy, while choosing to ignore the financial system entirely. Similarly, my work in banking regulation in the early 1990s indicated that most regulators tended to ignore macroeconomic variables.
Is this a case of “where you stand on an issue is often a function of where you sit?” As one who participated in both endeavors, I have perpetually felt a need to connect macro with finance. This may be happening more today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, but it still has a long way to go. more>