Paul Krugman economics: Deny, deny, deny!

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Yep. I hope I'm mistaken, but someday I think you'll see a similar stupid move by our central bank of idiots.

The real question is, when does the music stop? There are reasonable arguments that suggest Japan could hang on another 10 or even 20 (!) years. When does the fear start? Once it starts and the powers that be fail to contain it, the end will come swiftly. But it is hard to gauge that moment in advance.
 
Quote from budcampbell:

Hard to say for certain. Figuring out the liars from the straight-shooters is the trick, although sometimes it is obvious. Anyway, the Fed has distorted both the bond and equity markets, and there will be hell to pay, we just don't know when, imo.
I believe the purchases would be easy to verify.

"There will be hell to pay, we just don't know when, imo." Certainty, yet uncertainty. Convenient.
 
Quote from Ricter:

The Laissez Fairey is back.

Bullshit. You're mixing regulation with manipulation. The former has a limited place in capital markets. The latter, absolutely no place at all.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Tsing Tao. I have to respectfully disagree. We do not know the amount of printing at this point. It is incorrect to assume ahead of the completion of the QE operation how much net "printing" there will be.

Perhaps, but we sure as hell can look at how much has been done thus far. I'm not pulling these numbers out of my ass, you know. They're widely available. Just look at the Federal Reserve's balance sheet.

Quote from piezoe:


The expansion of the money base that accompanies the intial phase of the QE operation does not necessarily all end up as inflation and monetizing, because in the second phase of the operation the Fed will shrink its balance sheet and the money base will contract some.

It may not end all up as inflation, but it is already monetization. If, at a later date, the Fed is able to pull back (and even some Fed members have expressed doubt that this can happen orderly), then we'll talk. Until then, money has entered the system out of thin air. Call it whatever pithy phrase turns you on.

Quote from piezoe:


The money base of any country is never stagnant anyway. What is ultimately of interest is how much debt will end up being effectively monetized through inflation. We are never going to do the kind of "printing" that a country like Zimbabwe might do, where new money is created and used directly to pay debt. That's illegal in the U.S.

Again, you're hiding behind semantics. As I have said several times now, just because we have a second step where the Fed requires primary dealers to buy debt it then buys from them, is just bullshit on paper. We're already buying debt with newly created money.

Quote from piezoe:


Secondly only a fool would guarantee the course the Fed has embarked on will work out well. I am only insisting that it is the right path to follow now, compared to the alternative path some of you want the Fed to follow. Those that want the Government to sharply curtail spending right now are wrong. I am convinced that the Keynesian approach that the Fed, Treasury, and administration have embarked on is the correct approach to bring the country out of recession, and I am optimistic that it will work if only those idiots who insist on following failed economic theory don't stand in the way. But will I guarantee that it will work? Of course not.

Great. So while you continue to offer opinions, I'll stick to hard data, if you don't mind. That's what a true debate is.

Quote from piezoe:


I've made it very clear that in my opinion the economic policies followed during the Reagan and Bush years were damaging to the country. (Thatcher Also did this with equally bad results.) These folks followed a misguided "supply side/ deregulation" approach to management of the economy. The success of deregulation requires equilibrium theory to hold true. Sadly for both the U.S. and Great Britain, equilibrium theory is wrong!!!

Aaaand here we go back into this again. You'll pardon me if I stop responding to this, and the rhetorical - yet highly opinionated - statement that followed it in your last post. What I know, is that you know very little about this subject. Words are wind.

Quote from piezoe:


The Keynesians have not been proven wrong, not yet anyway.

Ah, I was wrong. There was one thing left commenting on. That's the thing about history - it takes time to happen. But to say "Keynesians have not been wrong yet" is silly. We're going through what we're going through because Keynesians have had their way the last few decades. They seek to perpetuate it endlessly. The reason they don't change is because they don't know what else to do. The textbooks aren't working anymore. Again, math doesn't care what they do. It just is.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Bullshit. You're mixing regulation with manipulation. The former has a limited place in capital markets. The latter, absolutely no place at all.
In my view, neither of those. Mitigation, maybe.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I believe the purchases would be easy to verify.

"There will be hell to pay, we just don't know when, imo." Certainty, yet uncertainty. Convenient.

Okay, let me put it you then, how much longer can they away with ZIRP?
 
Quote from Ricter:

"I am only insisting that it is the right path to follow now, compared to the alternative path some of you want the Fed to follow." That sounds like relative safety to me.

Without looking up the strict definition of "equilibrium", couldn't I say that the equilibrium theorists are correct, but that no one is willing to endure the volatility of "letting Nature run its course"?

Speak for yourself. You're on a trading site, and I bet a whole bunch of people on here (definitely me) would be willing to let nature run its course. Furthermore, if the feds were sticking to the rules, they wouldn't have been meddling in this matter to begin with.
 
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Fed Watch: The Importance of Printing Your Own Currency

Tim Duy:

" The Importance of Printing Your Own Currency, by Tim Duy: Quick post - running to the final classes of the term....

" Jim Hamilton is defending his recent work calling into question the sustainability of the US debt load. Brad DeLong takes a first shot at Hamilton's post here. I take issue with this paragraph:

" Whether a country is able to borrow in its own currency is completely irrelevant for the above calculation. Yes, it means the country likely won't technically default on the debt, and could always create new money to pay off the creditors. But as Reis (2013) and Leeper (2013) have recently explained, printing money does not generate any magical resources with which to resolve a real fiscal shortfall. The central bank could create some more inflation, but anticipated inflation does nothing to alter the above determination of the limits on government debt. Anticipated inflation would just cause the nominal interest rate R and the nominal growth rate g to both increase by the same amount, and therefore would do nothing to change the net growth rate r = R - g which is the key parameter in our equation for sustainability (see for example equation (2) in Econbrowser March 6 or equation (8) in our paper).

" This ignores the possibility of financial repression - meaning that the government can force yields on its own debt lower, thereby ensuring that inflation, even anticipated inflation, decreases real interest rates. Back to another post by DeLong:

" ...and (e) even if we start to tip over into an unsustainable debt-path scenario, we can handle it, because that is why God made financial repression.

" Let me spell (e) out a little bit. If investors start to fear that the U.S. debt trajectory is truly unstable, the immediate consequence is a fall in the dollar and an export boom, with somewhat higher domestic inflation. Because the U.S. government regulates the financial system, it can set reserve requirements where it likes--it can thus use its reserve requirements to force banks to hold Treasuries, and if it doesn't like the interest rate at which banks are holding Treasuries, it can up reserve requirements some more.

" No, financial repression is not ideal. But it is not a disaster like a collapse of confidence in the debt and the currency....


" Arguably, we are currently witnessing a real-time example in Japan's Abenomics policy mix. The Yen has depreciated significantly, consistent with expectations of inflation. And there is even growing evidence that wages are responding as well. From FT Alphaville:

" One of the big determinants of whether ‘Abenomics’ manages to pull Japan from its deflationary spiral is through wage growth. Inflation can’t really kick off or arguably even begin without rising wages. One can argue about how important wage growth is, or where it fits in causality-wise — and we’ll come to that later. But it is — or will be — an important signal as to whether this three-pronged approach of the new-ish Japanese government is working.

" And actually, it might be catching on. The FT’s Ben McLannahan wrote in early February that the decision by convenience store chain Lawson Inc to raise wages of two-thirds of its staff by 3 per cent could be quite significant..


" According to Hamilton, if we have higher anticipated inflation, we should see higher nominal interest rates on government debt, thereby debt sustainability is deteriorating. But alas:

<img src="http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e2017ee94545e4970d-500wi">

"Time and time again, Japan sticks out like a sore thumb that those preaching the unsustainability of government debt want to sweep under the rug with the "Japan is a special case" story (a country fixed effect). But it seems more likely that Japan's economy is behaving exactly as you might expect given that it issues debt in its own currency. In other words, Japan is just a normal case pushed to the extreme. "
 
Yeah, that seems to be working out well for Japan.

<img src=http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/images/hathaway070103f.gif>
 
Quote from budcampbell:

Okay, let me put it you then, how much longer can they away with ZIRP?
Until enough chips are back in front of the (general public) players for the game to resume.
 
Back
Top