Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Has anyone yet estimated how much inflation will result from this 700 billion dollar bailout? I assume that taxes will not be raised to pay for it, so it will be paid for by inflation. An extra 1%, 5%, more?
Forecasting the inflationary impact of this is pretty much a lottery. Are you trying to make a point about the rescues being profligate fiscal policy?
Forecasting the inflationary impact of this is pretty much a lottery. Are you trying to make a point about the rescues being profligate fiscal policy?
I suppose that "technically" it will since money supply has risen, but IMO the links are very weak. And it may be that the US has higher inflation than it *would* have had, but that what it would have had was -3%.No, I'm sure it is better than the alternative, but it will have a cost, right? And won't that cost come in the form of inflation?
I don't know of one. Money supply targetting (which "believes" there is a strong link between money supply growth and price inflation) has fallen out of favour as a reliable policy formula. The last institution to follow it officially was, I think, the Deutsches Bundesbank, which ceded control of monetary policy to the European Central Bank in 1998 (and the ECB does not have a money supply growth target)I freely admit that I'm not an expert, but I thought maybe there was some economic theory or equation that you could plug the number $700 billion into and get an approximate answer. I don't expect an exact answer.
Well regulation changes require legislature time so they can not happen so quickly. It is very likely that the rules are changed, though itr appears that this will fall to the next incoming admin, not the current one. Short selling being banned is a temporary measure.While you're there, Francesca R, on profligate fiscal policy; what I read is that the rules have not changed. IOW, Paulson has stepped in with a massive rescue plan, financed by the USA taxpayer, but the deregulation that led to this mess has not been tackled, and so it's all pretty darned all silly.
By far the smartest regulation in my view is to limit the amount of leverage institutions can take, and not much else. I do not mean 100% reserve lending.I would highly appreciate hearing a solid, real analysis on just what the probable costs and outcomes are going to be; I am well aware that, owing to the nature of AIG's formerly-aggressive far-flung financial empire, it is rather impossible to make predictions with high accuracy, but it is possible to analyse the probable outcomes and at least the nature of the costs.
.... I really don't know what will be the outcome though
I suppose that "technically" it will since money supply has risen, but IMO the links are very weak. And it may be that the US has higher inflation than it *would* have had, but that what it would have had was -3%.
I don't know of one. Money supply targetting (which "believes" there is a strong link between money supply growth and price inflation) has fallen out of favour as a reliable policy formula. The last institution to follow it officially was, I think, the Deutsches Bundesbank, which ceded control of monetary policy to the European Central Bank in 1998 (and the ECB does not have a money supply growth target)
The best way by far to "forecast" inflation IMO is simply to calculate the break-even inflation rate on TIPS (real-return bonds), and that is doing no more than admitting that the collective guess of the market is the best one. I don't think there has been any noticeable rise in break-even inflation rates which are around 2.5% into the distant future. So best guess for now = no inflationary impact.
Substantively—in marked contrast to the inconclusive state of affairs that prevailed in the late 1970s—the new gold-standard research allows us to assert with considerable confidence that monetary factors played an important causal role, both in the worldwide decline in prices and output and in their eventual recovery. Two well-documented observations support this conclusion.
First, exhaustive analysis of the operation of the interwar gold standard has shown that much of the worldwide monetary contraction of the early 1930s was not a passive response to declining output, but instead the largely unintended result of an interaction of poorly designed institutions, shortsighted policy-making, and unfavorable political and economic preconditions. Hence the correlation of money and price declines with output declines that was observed in almost every country is most reasonably interpreted as reflecting primarily the influence of money on the real economy, rather than vice versa.
Second, for reasons that were largely historical, political, and philosophical rather than purely economic, some governments responded to the crises of the early 1930s by quickly abandoning the gold standard, while others chose to remain on gold despite adverse conditions. Countries that left gold were able to reflate their money supplies and price levels, and did so after some delay; countries remaining on gold were forced into further deflation. To an overwhelming degree, the evidence shows that countries that left the gold standard recovered from the Depression more quickly than countries that remained on gold. Indeed, no country exhibited significant economic recovery while remaining on the gold standard. The strong dependence of the rate of recovery on the choice of exchange-rate regime is further, powerful evidence for the importance of monetary factors.
It is--as you note--talking about almost eighty years ago. The (beneficial) proliferation of securitised lending and derivative securities is what is generally believed to render targeting of (base) money supply growth pretty futule today. If Bernanke disagreed with that he would not be chairing today's FOMC, or would be urging a change to its framework. The strongest testimony about the money supply-inflation link is that almost every central bank has an explicit inflation target but none that I know of have a target for money supply growth any more.So, it seems that Bernanke would think that an expansion in the money supply is a good thing in a situation like this. Because it was a contraction in the money supply that led to the Great Depression.
Please reserve your non-specific criticism which serves no puspose except to personalise discussion. Thank you.Fair enough. Thanks. Sorry to have sounded critical, but many times you reply in such a way as to in practice evade the issue; I am sure you only mean it to debunk hysteria, but it comes over as denying any issue exists at all. Thusly my previous remarks.
Treasuries Prove Irresistible as Deflation Bet Trumps Paulson
By Daniel Kruger and Sandra Hernandez
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- As details of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to revive the U.S. financial system by pumping as much as $700 billion into the markets emerged Sept. 19, bond investor Michael Cheah was reminded of Japan.
When that country's real estate bubble burst, leaving a trail of bad real estate loans, officials flooded the economy with cash only to see banks hoard the money instead of lending it out. The result has been a series of recessions and persistent deflation for more than a decade.
``Although the government tried to debase the yen by printing a lot of government bonds, the economy went into a standstill,'' said Cheah, an official at the Monetary Authority of Singapore from 1991 to 1999 who manages $2 billion at AIG SunAmerica Asset Management in Jersey City, New Jersey. ``The banks used the money to buy safety. I see a repeat happening here. The banks will use it to buy Treasuries.''
I'm such a fool. I could have been living high on the hog on other people's money rather than paying off my debts and preserving my own... you know, for the future, so I could pay for other people living high on the hog on other people's money... with money devalued from the time I deposited it.
I feel like a f-ing chump.
Has anyone yet estimated how much inflation will result from this 700 billion dollar bailout? I assume that taxes will not be raised to pay for it, so it will be paid for by inflation. An extra 1%, 5%, more?
It will be funded by selling treasury securities, as is stated in the draft bill. The government sells treasury securities and buys mortgage-backed securities. Then, when the economy calms down, the government will try to get as much of their money back by selling the securities and then will pay off their treasuries. Money will be moving in circles, so inflation happens it won't be for monetary reasons.
Has anyone yet estimated how much inflation will result from this 700 billion dollar bailout? I assume that taxes will not be raised to pay for it, so it will be paid for by inflation. An extra 1%, 5%, more?
A debt-funded package doesn't increase money supply. Interest payments on the debt do not represent "new money" because they are nothing more than an exchange (on market terms)for the money taken out of circulation when the bonds are bought.You are saying that this won't increase the money supply? But what about the interest payments on the newly issued treasuries? The fact that they are issuing new bonds instead of just printing new cash spreads out the effect over a longer period of time, but I think it does increase the money supply in the long-term. Unless they raise taxes at some point to pay down the debt and reduce the deficiet.
You are saying that this won't increase the money supply? But what about the interest payments on the newly issued treasuries? The fact that they are issuing new bonds instead of just printing new cash spreads out the effect over a longer period of time, but I think it does increase the money supply in the long-term. Unless they raise taxes at some point to pay down the debt and reduce the deficiet.
Of course, the overall effect might just be to offset some of the loss of the value of real-estate, which is down about 20% since 2006. It would take a lot of inflation in other sectors of the economy to offset that.
A debt-funded package doesn't increase money supply. Interest payments on the debt do not represent "new money" because they are nothing more than an exchange (on market terms)for the money taken out of circulation when the bonds are bought.