3 ms·

I know this is the mainstream, but all of this reads like total nonsense to me. 1. Price changes carry important information too. What if demand stays the same

I know this is the mainstream, but all of this reads like total nonsense to me. 1. Price changes carry important information too. What if demand stays the same but price still goes up? It could there is too much money, or supply is constrained or a new tax was imposed in the chain, or something was banned or the market is simply inefficient. 2. Low rates are sign that money has been tight? Maybe in a world where rates are determined by a market, but right now the rates are whatever the Fed commands. If the Fed wasn't suppressing rates, all rates would be much higher. Further the demand for money is always infinite. Ask anybody on the street if they demand more money and 100% will say yes. Why doesn't the Fed increase the money supply for the random Joe on the street, but does so to cover unsustainable liquidity commitments made by banks? 3. Interest rates certainly drive relative prices as they widen and shrink the gaps between those on fixed income and everybody else. As such the different cohorts evolve different utility functions and preferences. For example certain asset prices can go higher than the price of food from interest alone. 4. Both inflation and NGDP are broad aggregates that clump together the top 1% with the rest with no regard of inequality, climate change, social unrest. It's easy to slip into a mode where the top 1% does extremely well while 99% are left behind and rioting, all satisfying the inflation or NGDP target. A mockery of a feudal economy in a way. And this is where we are heading. 5. We can prove this one as being false. Money neutrality has never been demonstrated in the long term. In fact most forms of money ended up guided by politics, hyper-inflated the supply, was banned, price-controlled or otherwise collapsed due to some inevitable populist political decision. It's pretty funny how the Fed keeps telling us they look long term, inflation is transitory and markets will work it out in a few years without intervening. But when the repo market crashed they didn't wait "for the market to work itself out", they rewrote their whole rulebook and launched support facilities the same day. By now it's clear they are making it up as they go and they are just dominating the system with increasingly excessive interventions into a self-exciting oscillation. The Fed increasingly need to resort to breaking the law to achieve their goals. The Fed is only allowed to buy government-guaranteed assets with the full faith that they will be repaid with taxes. They are not supposed to buy mortgages, ETFs, junk bonds, muni bonds. They've had these discussions in the past and determined it's against the federal reserve act. There is no doubt that the authors of the act never intended for this to be possible and the states wouldn't have even signed on the act if it was presented to them in such form.

nevereasonfroma 5y ago
Fair enough hahaha. I do think there's some room for common ground here. 1. Yes, absolutely. It would be due to a change in supply. Price controls, taxes, regulation, etc affect the price only insomuch as they affect supply and demand. It's a matter of definition: it's just as true in a market economy as it is in a non-market economy, or under market failure. Whether it's a useful framework is a different matter! 2a. So, interest rates are indeed determined by the market, with respect to open market operations right? The Fed buys and sells with a target in mind, but they certainly can, as you point out, fail to hit their target. 2b. This was a bit of unfortunate jargon: demand for "money" specifically means cash/cash equivalents relative to other assets like stocks/gold/real estate. It's not referring to wealth, although I do think the desire there isn't infinite: biological limits/post scarcity. 2c. And "demand" for money refers to the whole of the demand curve (and shifts in the whole of the curve). That is, how much of your portfolio do you want to hold in cash/equivalents at a given interest rate? 2d. Fed open market operations do target the whole of the economy: it's a ham fisted approach. Inflation affects groceries and gas, just as much as bank liquidity and such. 3. So, relative price change isn't inflation by definition, and market expectations of the interest rate path are priced in. Of course, there are plenty of relative price changes alongside inflation, but there's a lot more to the economy beyond open market operations. The Fed isn't able to specifically target say apples over oranges, hence ham fisted. 4. Sure, broad aggregates like NGDP don't include inequality or climate change, but that's a good thing because the Fed's job is limited to keeping aggregate demand (NGDP) on track. Of course there's a lot more to the economy, but that's beyond the realm of Fed open market operations. That is, I don't think the Fed is the right place to look for solutions. 5a. So money neutrality only says: a permanent 1 time increase to the money supply doesn't affect real GDP. 5b. Again, more jargon: "long run" is however long it takes for thing(s) to adjust (whatever it is: wages, rates, output, etc), and "short run" is just short of that. So as a unit of time, it depends on the good as well as real world conditions. The short run can go forever, market failure maybe. The short run can be zero, when things go according to market expectations and everything's already been priced in. Sorry, a lot of that's non sequitur. But that's my point: I think the mainstream is a coherent and useful story, but it's not relevant in this context, hence total nonsense. To the extent that there's an upward trend in inefficient businesses or 'rich get richer, poor get poorer', I don't see how open market operations can be the culprit. But yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall impression of the Fed hahaha.

nevereasonfroma 5y ago

Fair enough hahaha. I do think there's some room for common ground here. 1. Yes, absolutely. It would be due to a change in supply. Price controls, taxes, regulation, etc affect the price only insomuch as they affect supply and demand. It's a matter of definition: it's just as true in a market economy as it is in a non-market economy, or under market failure. Whether it's a useful framework is a different matter! 2a. So, interest rates are indeed determined by the market, with respect to open market operations right? The Fed buys and sells with a target in mind, but they certainly can, as you point out, fail to hit their target. 2b. This was a bit of unfortunate jargon: demand for "money" specifically means cash/cash equivalents relative to other assets like stocks/gold/real estate. It's not referring to wealth, although I do think the desire there isn't infinite: biological limits/post scarcity. 2c. And "demand" for money refers to the whole of the demand curve (and shifts in the whole of the curve). That is, how much of your portfolio do you want to hold in cash/equivalents at a given interest rate? 2d. Fed open market operations do target the whole of the economy: it's a ham fisted approach. Inflation affects groceries and gas, just as much as bank liquidity and such. 3. So, relative price change isn't inflation by definition, and market expectations of the interest rate path are priced in. Of course, there are plenty of relative price changes alongside inflation, but there's a lot more to the economy beyond open market operations. The Fed isn't able to specifically target say apples over oranges, hence ham fisted. 4. Sure, broad aggregates like NGDP don't include inequality or climate change, but that's a good thing because the Fed's job is limited to keeping aggregate demand (NGDP) on track. Of course there's a lot more to the economy, but that's beyond the realm of Fed open market operations. That is, I don't think the Fed is the right place to look for solutions. 5a. So money neutrality only says: a permanent 1 time increase to the money supply doesn't affect real GDP. 5b. Again, more jargon: "long run" is however long it takes for thing(s) to adjust (whatever it is: wages, rates, output, etc), and "short run" is just short of that. So as a unit of time, it depends on the good as well as real world conditions. The short run can go forever, market failure maybe. The short run can be zero, when things go according to market expectations and everything's already been priced in. Sorry, a lot of that's non sequitur. But that's my point: I think the mainstream is a coherent and useful story, but it's not relevant in this context, hence total nonsense. To the extent that there's an upward trend in inefficient businesses or 'rich get richer, poor get poorer', I don't see how open market operations can be the culprit. But yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall impression of the Fed hahaha.