You'll perhaps be surprised that I am in nearly 100 percent agreement with your last post. And I agree with your points on leverage and its role. Our entire banking system is dependent on leverage, after all. I also agree with the current deflationary forces you have detailed. Where we disagree significantly is essentially limited to two points. Apparently you believe, and correct me if i'm wrong, that there is currently deflation in the overall US economy, whereas I believe the Shadowstat figures to be more reliable than the Government numbers (which also show a little bit of inflation, don't they?). And it also seems we disagree on the Feds ability to create inflation almost no matter what. I say they can, and I guess you think they will not be able to pull it off. . On that I guess we will just have to disagree and wait until the jury is in. I think we could also agree that there are tremendous incentives to monetize and inflate in the US and that deflation would be a real disaster for a debtor nation like the US. I would think how much we can get by with is going to depend on what our creditors will allow before they demand higher interest, and how big a stick they can wield should depend on their economic strength or weakness compared to the US.
Quote from Ed Breen:
Pie, I didn't read your longer post before your last post when I reponded. I agree with much of the sentiment in your longer post with regard to how to reduce expenses and create a more stable unit of account (dollar) with price level targeting. Although, this conversation has run its course, I want to leave you with the idea that leverage ratios in the private sector are the key to the money multiplier effect that must operate for monetary inflation to take place....this is how it works in a fiat money structure with a fractional reserve banking system...it is the leverage as regulated by that system that translates the change in money supply to actual private activity that results in price index change. When the private sector is not borrowing, because they fear the future value of the collateral assets along with the bank and the coverage ratio's are increased, then the increase in the money supply in the banking system must be loaned to the government or left on deposit with the Fed as excess reserves. This is not what happened in the '70's as leverage remained liberal and the money supply expansion drove inflation that interacte with a steeply progressive tax structure that drove increased government revenues (so no solvency crises) as private individuals emptied their savings to borrow and buy tangible assets with debt that was getting cheaper. COLAS accentuated the process and production was constricted as it was starved of capital....less production, more demand...inflation, capital flows from financial assets to tangible assets assisted by liberal leverage ratios, unemployment rises with reduced production but in a manageable scale as money illusion of COLAs with inflation seduces consumer confidence...goes on until real tax increase destroys production.
Think about what is happening now...govt revenues collapsing, not contracting, production dramatically contracted, leverage ratios decreasing with risk aversion, expectation of collateral asset decline, dramatic unemployment and reduced consumer confidenc, no wage growth, no collas, promise of massive tax increases...