pull down to refresh

Concern about sluggish growth and poor productivity is now high on the political agenda across the developed world. Yet the debates around the UK Budget and the US presidential election have failed to touch on one of the most important factors behind this trend, namely a monetary policy over-focused on near-term inflation targets and too little concerned with developments in credit and debt markets.
The widespread adoption of 2 per cent inflation targets has been, at best, a mixed blessing. For a start, equating 2 per cent inflation with price stability — a nebulous concept — is highly questionable. Such a target prevents a natural downward adjustment of prices after increases in productivity or positive supply shocks. If price rises are not allowed to go below 2 per cent, there will be an inbuilt bias towards inflation and against long-run price stability
The escape route from boom and bust is to get away from central banks.
reply
Exactly, they're the cause of the business cycle.
If they could somehow have their ability to expand credit removed, then there could be central banks that don't do anything other than sit on a big pile of real assets. That wouldn't cause business cycles, but there's also no reason any regime would keep such an institution around.
reply
Actually, if the Fed quit it with the easing and tightening, the individual banks would expand on their own hook. It is the fractional reserve system, in toto, that needs to be removed. Then let the peoples time preference for money determine natural interest rates.
reply
Sort of, but without central bank credit expansion, bank runs are a real threat to independent banks engaged in fractional reserve lending.
In an environment like that, I'd expect business cycles to be very mild.
reply
A good way to promote banks acting responsibly is to stop bailing them out. If they go insolvent, the FDIC makes the customers whole, and the bank shuts its doors.
reply
If we stop bailing them out, wont they lose even more public credibility?
reply
The only way they had credibility was with FDIC. Get rid of the FDIC and the banks will have to behave themselves or go bankrupt. They won’t, theoretically, lend much more than they have taken in as deposits. They won’t be backed by the Fed, they won’t be naked short on commodities. That would cure many, many problems.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @drlh 2 Nov
Malinvestment drives the economy.
reply
Malinvestment drives the economy into the ground. Malinvestment arises due to economic miscalculation because of “unnatural” interest rates. The natural interest rate is the rate that demand for and supply of money balance. That would be savings and loans. With the Fed arbitrarily deciding the interest rates, nobody can do proper economic calculation for investments.
Yes, they are at risk of a bank run, but that is the controlling factor for banks; bankruptcy. Too many fractions, loss of business. THEY earn those consequences.
reply
Your choice: BTC or precious metals. Fiat is dooooooooomed!!!!!
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cotton 2 Nov
You make a great point! The fixation on short-term inflation targets can distort economic health and ignore bigger trends. A more balanced approach could really help stabilize things long-term.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 2 Nov
Inflation is never a blessing. Just because we are used to it doesnt make it right.
reply
never a blessing
No always a curse!!! Always theft!!!!! Always pauperizaton!!!!! Always economic destruction!!!! Always economic miscalculation!!!!!!
reply
Very good read, thanks for sharing.
This, in particular:
"persistent reliance on sovereign intervention to mitigate macroeconomic and social-economic volatility might exacerbate moral hazard and lead to the misallocation of resources towards low-productivity projects and “zombie” companies that produce profits short of debt servicing costs."
reply
Coming from you, that means something :)
reply
The beauty (and curse!) of SN is the many good reads people recommended. Can't keep up
reply
If I want a pony, I have to save for it. Is a government capable of saving? Can it have a low time preference? I think 2% is their version of I'll have just one per day.
reply
Let’s see, 2%, OK. 70 divided by 2 equals 35. So, at 2% your money’s worth shrinks in half in 35 years. Yeah, good deal!!!! If you are saving for a retirement, this halves your money every 35 years. Save now halve later!!! It also raises the interest you require to increase your savings by 2%. I don’t see that happening at the zero bound we were in and returning to. Look to Japan to see the results of the zero bounds interest rate. It is coming here sooner than later, unless we get rid of the Fed.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @jk_14 2 Nov
why 70
reply
Because it’s somewhat easier than 72. The logarithmic calculation applied to compound interest. You can use 70, 72 and 69.3. I use 70 for ease of calculation.
reply
The halvening that was always great!
reply
It woks as doubling if you are saving. Divide 70 by the rate of interest to find out how long it takes your money to double.
I don’t think the value of your money halving in value is good. The other half goes to THEM.
reply