I'm probably on the dovish end of the debate, so I want to agree with Tankus and Sahm, but it drives me nuts when doves trot out this argument that the 70s are just an N of 1 and we can't draw any lessons from it on combating inflation. If only there were perhaps other countries, who might have also had periods of high inflation that we could also use to guide us. The total inability to consider things that happened beyond America's shores is mind-boggling.
I think to a certain extent that's true. The hawks do love to talk about the 70s too, but I do think they are more willing to look outside the US when making their argument for a more hawkish Fed stance. The other day Larry Summers tweeted up the Deutsche Bank report looking at high inflation episodes across a variety of countries. The real cranks are always talking up Weimar/Zimbabwe/Turkey etc., but I don't think those kind of hawks are worth listening so that definitely cuts both ways.
Two words to explain how insane this article as well as FED policy, you're wrongheaded.
Relying solely of left "experts" is totally stupid. Keynesian economics should have been flushed out of the education establishment well before it became mainstream. Keynes' theories were Marxist and have produced market turmoil from the start. Like the "new" math, they sound smart only because they make sense to no one but those educated beyond their intellects. They rely on convoluted logic dissociated from reality. Consumers do not have any powers to influence inflation any more than their ability to influence unemployment.
What drives inflation are the double influence of unbacked, therefore creatable on demand, currencies and government unfunded spending policies. Both of which are under the control of politicians. If they taxed at the same level that they spend, they could not continue to get re-elected. If they had to deposit precious metals to back the dollars, they print they couldn't print freely. That is rightly called maintaining the value of our currency that the constitution demands.
We need to go back to backed currency and balanced budgets. There are no other methods by which politicians can be judged on the economy. All of the Keynesian debate about the economy is playing with words without meaning. And that is the only language spoken at the FED, D.C. and in the press.
I'm probably on the dovish end of the debate, so I want to agree with Tankus and Sahm, but it drives me nuts when doves trot out this argument that the 70s are just an N of 1 and we can't draw any lessons from it on combating inflation. If only there were perhaps other countries, who might have also had periods of high inflation that we could also use to guide us. The total inability to consider things that happened beyond America's shores is mind-boggling.
This is a good point but a fairly symmetrical one right? Hawks also talk a ton about the 1970s.
I think to a certain extent that's true. The hawks do love to talk about the 70s too, but I do think they are more willing to look outside the US when making their argument for a more hawkish Fed stance. The other day Larry Summers tweeted up the Deutsche Bank report looking at high inflation episodes across a variety of countries. The real cranks are always talking up Weimar/Zimbabwe/Turkey etc., but I don't think those kind of hawks are worth listening so that definitely cuts both ways.
Two words to explain how insane this article as well as FED policy, you're wrongheaded.
Relying solely of left "experts" is totally stupid. Keynesian economics should have been flushed out of the education establishment well before it became mainstream. Keynes' theories were Marxist and have produced market turmoil from the start. Like the "new" math, they sound smart only because they make sense to no one but those educated beyond their intellects. They rely on convoluted logic dissociated from reality. Consumers do not have any powers to influence inflation any more than their ability to influence unemployment.
What drives inflation are the double influence of unbacked, therefore creatable on demand, currencies and government unfunded spending policies. Both of which are under the control of politicians. If they taxed at the same level that they spend, they could not continue to get re-elected. If they had to deposit precious metals to back the dollars, they print they couldn't print freely. That is rightly called maintaining the value of our currency that the constitution demands.
We need to go back to backed currency and balanced budgets. There are no other methods by which politicians can be judged on the economy. All of the Keynesian debate about the economy is playing with words without meaning. And that is the only language spoken at the FED, D.C. and in the press.