[quote=davelj]
I just read this article today and thought it fit in well with this thread and previous post of mine. I like Dean Baker’s analogy of a counterfeiter. (Also, he approaches the issue from a “demand” standpoint, which is better than my “net worth” approach above.) What Dean doesn’t know – and no one on the planet does – is how much “counterfeiting” the economy can take before real, sustained inflation kicks in which can’t be easily controlled. Nevertheless, I like his analogy here.
[And, by the way, Baker both identified the housing bubble early and was against all of the bailout activity, so he’s not a tool of the banksters or the Fed. Just to be clear.][/quote]
I also like the counterfeiter analogy. It is accurate in terms of its effects on the economy as well as (not pointed out by Baker) its effect in transferring real wealth from holders of existing cash to the counterfeiter.
Anyway I agree completely that the Fed could theoretically print a bunch of money to offset the recession-driven decline in demand, then “grabbed out of circulation” (his words) at precisely the right moment before it can cause inflation. In practice, it’s exceedingly unlikely to go down that way. As our mutual friend Jimbo Grant points out, the Fed has been typically been literally YEARS late in removing monetary accomodation — and that was BEFORE being scarred by the worst economic downturn in 3 generations (with attendant ubiquitous warning — including from the Fed itself — not to make the same mistakes as Japan and the Depression-era US in removing accomodation too early).
As you say, nobody can know at what level the money printing will cause a problem. But we do know that A) the Fed has had a historical tendency to overshoot and B) that they have outright stated that this time, they will be extra-careful to make sure and not undershoot.
