4 ms·

It does mention it. It doesn't harp on it. >>trillions of dollars in government economic stimulus

bko 5y ago
I'm sorry, you're correct. This is the phrase > While Federal Reserve officials and economists acknowledge the temporary boost, it’s unclear whether a more durable pickup in inflationary pressures is underway against a backdrop of soaring commodities costs, trillions of dollars in government economic stimulus and incipient signs of higher labor costs. I still have issue with the characterization. It's "against the backdrop of ... trillions of dollars" as though increased price levels and increasing the money supply by 25% are unrelated. Many times these articles write about stimulus and people think its the $1600 checks some people received. But what doesn't get reported is what the lion share of the money actually went to, buying up financial assets from banks.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > what doesn't get reported is what the lion share of the money actually went to, buying up financial assets from banks Fiscal stimulus is more powerful than the monetary kind. When the Fed buys a bond, at the end of the day, it’s buying up bonds. Someone must give up 80 to 99.99999¢ of wealth for $1 of liquidity. When Congress spends $1, it’s creating money. It may have to tax or borrow down the road, but that’s then, not now. Also, not sure how one can say monetary policy isn’t reported. It receives nearly weekly attention on even non-financial forums like Hacker News, and features far more prominently in financial, economic and crackpot rags.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I still have issue with the characterization. It's "against the backdrop of ... trillions of dollars" as though increased price levels and increasing the money supply by 25% are unrelated. No, its explicitly providing relevant context, which is the polar opposite in every respect to implying that they are umrelated.

bko 5y ago

I'm sorry, you're correct. This is the phrase > While Federal Reserve officials and economists acknowledge the temporary boost, it’s unclear whether a more durable pickup in inflationary pressures is underway against a backdrop of soaring commodities costs, trillions of dollars in government economic stimulus and incipient signs of higher labor costs. I still have issue with the characterization. It's "against the backdrop of ... trillions of dollars" as though increased price levels and increasing the money supply by 25% are unrelated. Many times these articles write about stimulus and people think its the $1600 checks some people received. But what doesn't get reported is what the lion share of the money actually went to, buying up financial assets from banks.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> what doesn't get reported is what the lion share of the money actually went to, buying up financial assets from banks Fiscal stimulus is more powerful than the monetary kind. When the Fed buys a bond, at the end of the day, it’s buying up bonds. Someone must give up 80 to 99.99999¢ of wealth for $1 of liquidity. When Congress spends $1, it’s creating money. It may have to tax or borrow down the road, but that’s then, not now. Also, not sure how one can say monetary policy isn’t reported. It receives nearly weekly attention on even non-financial forums like Hacker News, and features far more prominently in financial, economic and crackpot rags.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I still have issue with the characterization. It's "against the backdrop of ... trillions of dollars" as though increased price levels and increasing the money supply by 25% are unrelated. No, its explicitly providing relevant context, which is the polar opposite in every respect to implying that they are umrelated.