If the Fed were in fact looking only at inflation (and taking account of the holding quirk,) AND they were willing to zig as well as zag, AND they valued real growth more and feared the risk of undershooting inflation more, they WOULD be readjusting their QT and EFFR instruments. All three errors are affecting their decision making.
I notice that all the 2009 inflation hawks assumed that the Fed would in the future shift to promoting inflation. Their political speculation turned out to be wrong in fact diametrically wrong. The Fed refused even to meet its inflation target, when adjustment to a massive demand shock like 2008 should have called for some temporary above target inflation, as it in fact produced after the COVID/Putin shock.
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
If you'd write a book I'd read it.
There is one from 2013:
https://www.amazon.com/Market-Monetarism-Roadmap-Economic-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B00B4I35JA/ref=sr_1_3?crid=AAQ3BJ02SH3P&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.SZGfs0HPdhfWO_f5nuETVpwHSKq01x6qqiN9qXKnlksLgTO121abpYmnDdxS9VHsKj1bGUgFUytipJAZvaeVMIVS2TGpJtXAU5EfsgBMzz-Su1wwKImwyKrLuu8ZdS65RCyshDI6s-9ecf-JNVqCsfp8d_qgIFyxJLZhywbbaetENYab-LqG4QiJwFxUsBG1jUoWF-k9iFBM-YiSJglrfux-exW0a4_nVVbSu_HREceS1rj2jpxcS-J7QQ6pjjbogial3i2PU9ONruznMixyuIgz1UPZzp9SS-1mow1NdXc.6KG1Ejm7BMP0a6VbubQUUbkotWd698Ppz6aQSdMwd5c&dib_tag=se&keywords=market+monetarism&qid=1719854105&s=books&sprefix=market+monetarism+%2Cstripbooks%2C197&sr=1-3
If the Fed were in fact looking only at inflation (and taking account of the holding quirk,) AND they were willing to zig as well as zag, AND they valued real growth more and feared the risk of undershooting inflation more, they WOULD be readjusting their QT and EFFR instruments. All three errors are affecting their decision making.
I notice that all the 2009 inflation hawks assumed that the Fed would in the future shift to promoting inflation. Their political speculation turned out to be wrong in fact diametrically wrong. The Fed refused even to meet its inflation target, when adjustment to a massive demand shock like 2008 should have called for some temporary above target inflation, as it in fact produced after the COVID/Putin shock.
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/ https://www.facebook.com/cosheep
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q