The Fed can’t control government spending. Massive government spending, funded by new money, caused inflation. The Fed can’t do much about that. If anything Powell consistently advocated for a more balanced federal budget precovid.
The Fed can’t control government spending. Massive government spending, funded by new money, caused inflation. The Fed can’t do much about that. If anything Powell consistently advocated for a more balanced federal budget precovid.
Keystone XL is a zombie project which abandoned by the development/infrastructure company. It had been stuck in regulatory review and litigation for a decade.
Environmental reviews by both the Obama Admin and Trump admin state that Keystone XL would not have lowered gasoline prices. You are pretending like all oil/gas products are fungible, when in reality most refineries in the US are not capable of refining all raw product. Hence “Energy Independence” is purely a marketing term and we still need to export lots of raw material and import other kinds of raw material to match what we are capable of refining.
How is US government spending causing 8% inflation in Germany?
It's almost like this is a global phenomenon caused by supply shocks and price gouging of essential commodities.
>Massive government spending, funded by new money, caused inflation.
Someday, people will understand that central banks issue less than 8 percent of the circulating money, and that government debt is just another way of financing retirement pension funds.
So only in the most narrow sense is it even possibly true that "the US did not have inflation when it did not have fiat money": if you ignore the times when convertibility was suspended, it becomes a slightly more accurate statement, but still not true as it ignores inflation soon after the founding, large deflationary periods in the early and late 1800s, and subsequent inflationary periods prior to WW I. So you have to ignore convertibility suspension and the inflation and deflation in order to argue that there was no inflation or deflation.
The one iron-clad law of "non-fiat" currencies: eventually they will become fiat currencies.
This amply proves my point.
The inflation was a net zero from 1800 to 1914.
Fundamentally, you can try to control expectations by feeding biased projections, but you have to maintain a certain signal-to-noise ratio in doing so, or else the market will learn to ignore you. You can feed the market inaccurate projections only by spending down your accumulated credibility, which has to be bought back later with accurate projections.
(This applies in real life, too. It takes trust to be believed, and it costs trust to mislead).
"If a new inflation target is too ambitious, and the central bank fails to attain it, the central bank may lose its credibility, which may render less effective any other policies it pursues." [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/rais...]
If the market has learned to ignore the Fed, then it becomes very costly for the Fed to achieve accurate projections and earn back its credibility, because it can't rely solely on influencing expectations to achieve its results. It is left only with backing up its bark with a real bite.
I think it’s reasonable to say that the majority of the planet shutting down during the pandemic has at least as much to do with inflation as the fed’s monetary policy, if not much more.
Resuming economic activity after shut downs (and the habits the shut downs changed) is taking time. There is no obvious natural experiment to tease out how much is caused by CB interest rates and how much is fiscal policy. Most of the countries that did one also did the other.
Also, data points on these issues are gathered monthly (if that often), so current analysis will miss a lot in the “fog of war” until there is more data to analyze.
True.
> Massive government spending, funded by new money, caused inflation. The Fed can’t do much about that.
False. The Fed controls the money supply - that is, the creation of new money. (Congress doesn't, thank God.) If the Fed didn't increase the money supply, the government would have to borrow more on the open market, or else tax more. The first might cause visible issues earlier; the second would be politically expensive.
I tend to agree with your sentiment, but wanted to point out there are obvious issues with our analysis.