[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
It’s not a matter of whether or not I want deflation, or if I think deflation will be the outcome. Deflation IS the outcome, and has been since the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000/2001. Some would say that deflation has been the undercurrent for most of the past 30 years, or so.
[/quote]
Time will tell who is right.
But in the mean time, if we have deflation as you claim we do, don’t complaint about rising prices (because are not rising, they are deflating).
[quote=CA renter]
How many trillions will they burn up, in an effort to create a false bottom for our economy? For as long as they are directing it at the top of the economic pyramid, it will not only fail, but it will make the ensuing deflation even worse than it would have been if they had done nothing.
[/quote]
As I’ve said before, the Fed has nto burned-up trillions. They have made money on their investments. Remember that they have unlimited wherewithal and they can sit on assets long enough for the prices to come back.
That’s the funny part…they are “waiting for asset prices to come back.” That isn’t going to happen in a sustainable fashion with the way they’ve been intervening.
[quote=CA renter]
According to Brian, it didn’t cost us anything!
It’s all good… ;)[/quote]
Monetary policy didn’t cost anything in nominal terms. And if you still believe that we had and are having deflation, then it’s been beneficial in real terms.
CA renter, the Federal Reserve made money in 2009 and 2010 because prices of the assets they purchased increased.
As Ken Roggoff of Harvard said, QE1 and QE1 were half-baked and timid. The Federal Reserve should have been more decisive.
[quote=CA renter]
According to Brian, it didn’t cost us anything!
It’s all good… ;)[/quote]
Monetary policy didn’t cost anything in nominal terms. And if you still believe that we had and are having deflation, then it’s been beneficial in real terms.
CA renter, the Federal Reserve made money in 2009 and 2010 because prices of the assets they purchased increased.
As Ken Roggoff of Harvard said, QE1 and QE1 were half-baked and timid. The Federal Reserve should have been more decisive.
[quote=CA renter]
According to Brian, it didn’t cost us anything!
It’s all good… ;)[/quote]
Monetary policy didn’t cost anything in nominal terms. And if you still believe that we had and are having deflation, then it’s been beneficial in real terms.
CA renter, the Federal Reserve made money in 2009 and 2010 because prices of the assets they purchased increased.
As Ken Roggoff of Harvard said, QE1 and QE1 were half-baked and timid. The Federal Reserve should have been more decisive.
[quote=CA renter]
According to Brian, it didn’t cost us anything!
It’s all good… ;)[/quote]
Monetary policy didn’t cost anything in nominal terms. And if you still believe that we had and are having deflation, then it’s been beneficial in real terms.
CA renter, the Federal Reserve made money in 2009 and 2010 because prices of the assets they purchased increased.
As Ken Roggoff of Harvard said, QE1 and QE1 were half-baked and timid. The Federal Reserve should have been more decisive.
