I am saying that low rates may, in fact, lead to expectations of deflation. It's well known that expectations can, in fact, lead to realization. This is how it works for inflation, so I see no reason for it to work any differently for deflation.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Immigrants Don't Take Jobs From Americans, Fed Study Says
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
The Paradox of the Zero Bound
-----Excerpt------
Promising low rates for long periods of time is particularly pernicious following periods of credit crises, points our Arun Motianey, now with Roubini Global Economics, in his book SuperCycles. In a discussion of Japan's low policy rates over the last 15 years, Motianey points out that deflation became worse the longer Japan's equivalent Fed Funds rate stayed at zero.
Motianey argues a slightly different transition mechanism that pushes the economy into deflation, mainly through lending markets. He argues that after a credit crisis, government-supported banks are borrowing at close to government rates and at the same time being coerced to lend at rates lower than they would otherwise demand for the risk of default. The result is that they demand higher credit standards (typically higher operating cash flow) of their borrowers. Borrowers, mostly companies, oblige by halting the growth in or cutting the nominal wages of workers. Generalized price deflation typically follows wage deflation.
Motianey sums up his argument up this way, âVery low nominal rates cannot be used to fight deflation, since they are, in these conditions â the condition of banking system distress â the cause of deflation.â He calls this the Paradox of the Zero Bound.
--------
Deflation expectations? No way. Given how the general public invests and votes, there is no way they can comprehend what deflation is let alone expect it.
The Paradox makes more sense.
-----Excerpt------
Promising low rates for long periods of time is particularly pernicious following periods of credit crises, points our Arun Motianey, now with Roubini Global Economics, in his book SuperCycles. In a discussion of Japan's low policy rates over the last 15 years, Motianey points out that deflation became worse the longer Japan's equivalent Fed Funds rate stayed at zero.
Motianey argues a slightly different transition mechanism that pushes the economy into deflation, mainly through lending markets. He argues that after a credit crisis, government-supported banks are borrowing at close to government rates and at the same time being coerced to lend at rates lower than they would otherwise demand for the risk of default. The result is that they demand higher credit standards (typically higher operating cash flow) of their borrowers. Borrowers, mostly companies, oblige by halting the growth in or cutting the nominal wages of workers. Generalized price deflation typically follows wage deflation.
Motianey sums up his argument up this way, âVery low nominal rates cannot be used to fight deflation, since they are, in these conditions â the condition of banking system distress â the cause of deflation.â He calls this the Paradox of the Zero Bound.
--------
Deflation expectations? No way. Given how the general public invests and votes, there is no way they can comprehend what deflation is let alone expect it.
The Paradox makes more sense.
Fine, we can discuss the relative merits of the two different theories later...Quote from Covertibility:
Deflation expectations? No way. Given how the general public invests and votes, there is no way they can comprehend what deflation is let alone expect it.
The Paradox makes more sense.
If this paradox makes more sense to you, does that mean that you're now, in essence, agreeing with Kocherlakota's conclusion that low nominal rates can actually increase the probability of a deflationary outcome?
Quote from Martinghoul:
Fine, we can discuss the relative merits of the two different theories later...
If this paradox makes more sense to you, does that mean that you're now, in essence, agreeing with Kocherlakota's conclusion that low nominal rates can actually increase the probability of a deflationary outcome?
Save your energy.
He is just plain stupid.
He's been quoting all kinds of shit a few years back just to prove that there was no RE bubble.
Quote from balda:
Save your energy.
He is just plain stupid.
He's been quoting all kinds of shit a few years back just to prove that there was no RE bubble.
06-01-07 09:44 AM
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1487260#post1487260Quote from Covertibility:
I notice the Shiller Index had Miami at a 1% increase yoy. Isn't this thread suppose to be how bad it is? lol.
Quote from Covertibility:
Wait til Thursday to see how the year ended. I'm amazed at all the banter about how supposedly bad things are yet nothing looks like how bad it was in the mid 90's when unemployment was the cause then. Today rates aren't going anywhere, everything that can be outsourced has been and with the healthy job market, no one wants to live in a cardboard box(apartment). It appears the softness to be in the overbuilt areas, but for the long run crowd, why worry, everyone wants to live in these areas as opposed to the midwest, the south and other shit areas.
He is the one, who started this thread back in 2005.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44410&perpage=6&pagenumber=1