fiscal policy and monetary policy are connected, and intimately so — Tzeentch
How did the United States finance decades of endless war and military projects such as the $800 billion you referred to?
Why, by printing money, of course. — Tzeentch
What "fiscal policy" are you referring to, exactly?
And who is "everyone"? Everyone predicted this for "decades"? Since when, the 80s? — Xtrix
Care to elaborate?
— Xtrix
I'm not going to play this game where you ask for details while ignoring the elephant in the room. — Tzeentch
It's monetary policy of printing billions of dollars causes inflation.
It adopts this monetary policy to accomodate a general fiscal policy of spending too much.
I don't know why you would be asking me for the specifics of that fiscal policy, since it's completely besides the point and you've yet to acknowledge the elephant I just described. — Tzeentch
State intervention in the service of plutocrats.
Your solution: abolish or minimize state intervention; keep the plutocrats.
My solution: abolish or minimize plutocracy. Keep and strengthen democracy.
Again, the Fed owns about 15% of debt. That fact should give you pause. — Xtrix
But I'm not willing to absolve governments just because an alternative theory exists, while they continue to break economy 101. — Tzeentch
Is it more complicated than that? Undoubtedly. — Tzeentch
the cause is obvious. — Tzeentch
So, if this principle is right, then supply chain issues would be the proximate cause of inflation, and it seems likely that if supply cannot meet demand, inflation (perhaps not as significant) would still have resulted even if extra money had not been injected, — Janus
Simply to put it, stopping the easing is already tightening. If you have increased the money supply and then decrease it or stop it altogether, isn't that tightening?I don't know what this means either. Quantitative tightening is the opposite of easing. That means the Fed is beginning to lower mortgage-backed securities and debt on their balance sheet. That was indeed increasing the money supply. The opposite (QT) will decrease the money supply. — Xtrix
How the markets react to the monetary policy of the Fed is a result of monetary policy. Markets going down is a consequence, not the other way around.I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already. — Xtrix
I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already.
— Xtrix
How the markets react to the monetary policy of the Fed is a result of monetary policy. Markets going down is a consequence, not the other way around. — ssu
Of course the real issue is political. And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. And blame everybody else: the war in Ukraine, the pandemic, climate change, foreigners, hoarders... you name it!!! — ssu
Uhhh....yeah. They have.Politicians aren’t choosing anything. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Fed — which has become more and more hawkish in terms of money. Interest rates have already been raised 1.5% this year alone and will likely continue. — Xtrix
:100:Inflation is largely due to supply chain disruptions. There’s nothing the Fed can do about that. What the Fed can do — and we see happening — is reverse what it caused: the inflation of three key markets: stocks, bonds, and housing. All are bubbles; some were superbubbles (stocks).
These bubbles bursting will have some effect on overall inflation— but, again, will do nothing whatsoever for semiconductor shortages, wheat supply stocks due to war, or oil/gas supply chains. — Xtrix
Uhhh....yeah. They have. — ssu
And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. — ssu
stimulus packages etc. […] got the inflation finally going. — ssu
does create higher demand, which then creates higher prices. — ssu
But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon. — Xtrix
Sorry, but your "solutions" sound like pipe dreams. — baker
But since you aren’t really interested in any solutions (all “pipe dreams”) and apparently just want an opportunity to display your very-superior-cynicism, I’ll leave it there. My mistake for engaging. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.