3 ms·

>> this is the kind of spending that is virtually guaranteed to increase consumer price inflation Why would this kind of spending increase CPI more than other

>> this is the kind of spending that is virtually guaranteed to increase consumer price inflation Why would this kind of spending increase CPI more than other kinds of bailout spending, and what kind of spending might it be? I guess TARP, QE, corporate bonds, etc., are buying things that consumers don't directly buy very much, so those programs didn't apparently cause lots of inflation of CPI indexed things. So what would this be buying instead? Could the fed buy things like municiple bonds, or maybe other debts assumed at the state level to provide liquidity and keep interest rates/ratings under control? I don't see consumers caring as much about the price of municiple bonds, for example, as food or houses or cars. I am a rank initiate in this area, so if I'm missing something I'd like to know more.

generalpass 6y ago
The distortions in the markets caused by new money creates a lot of very serious systemic issues, it just doesn't do much to price inflation (or, at least, hasn't) because the money has been remaining in financial instruments. Most of the state budget is going to be things like welfare (e.g., health care), unemployment payments, and salaries of state employees. Some infrastructure, but then much of that goes to salaries, too. Purchase of bonds is the same thing. The money is still created and spent. It's kind of a good deal for the city because by the time they have to pay it back it may cost more to cut a check than what is left on the principal, but of course that also means that every bit of wealth has been reduced to zero. Many municipalities have passed laws (usually through initiatives) that forbid the cities from borrowing without a vote, and even in California voters do not just automatically pass every bond measure. However, the state might be able to pass bonds, but it looks like there are some hurdles even for that. I found what I thought was an amendment is a referendum and was pass in 2004: https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm

generalpass 6y ago

The distortions in the markets caused by new money creates a lot of very serious systemic issues, it just doesn't do much to price inflation (or, at least, hasn't) because the money has been remaining in financial instruments. Most of the state budget is going to be things like welfare (e.g., health care), unemployment payments, and salaries of state employees. Some infrastructure, but then much of that goes to salaries, too. Purchase of bonds is the same thing. The money is still created and spent. It's kind of a good deal for the city because by the time they have to pay it back it may cost more to cut a check than what is left on the principal, but of course that also means that every bit of wealth has been reduced to zero. Many municipalities have passed laws (usually through initiatives) that forbid the cities from borrowing without a vote, and even in California voters do not just automatically pass every bond measure. However, the state might be able to pass bonds, but it looks like there are some hurdles even for that. I found what I thought was an amendment is a referendum and was pass in 2004: https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm