pull down to refresh
Yea I think the lack of framework is because of everyone using a different yard stick, a strong dollar compared to other fiats is not at odds with a weak dollar to devalue the debt.
Devaluing the debt is also not necessarily inflationary. New dollar issuance can still increase, but increase less in rate compared as a percentage of growth.
If we double the national debt in 10 years, but wages are 3x higher, and deficits are a lower percentage of GDP, apples to apples that's a debt reduction.... which he also gets to saying.
I'm very intrigued by Bessent's talk about the SLR, the money printing and fiscal stimmies we've become accustom to are over, banks being able to treat treasuries as dollars effectively monetizes the debt but also allows it to be destroyed over time rather than with injections of velocity. I can only assume that's being slow-walked as they wring the system dry and adjust interest rates without a big shock.
I'm glad you watched it. I still have it open in another tab.
I don't know if it's even right to say that there's a single technical definition of "depression", but the one used here is aligned with the Real Business Cycle Theory people. It's reasonable enough.
Your point about weak vs strong dollar policy has me thinking that it's a lacking framework in this context. The weak side of it is wanting an expanded supply of dollars, while the strong side of it is wanting an expanded demand. I think your contention is that their goal is to shift both the supply and demand curves to the right, which is price indeterminant in and of itself, but that they want to land in a place with greater dollar purchasing power.