3 ms·
I was pleased to read Nathan Tankus' take[1] on all this, although I wish I understood it better, which was that a lot of policy ideas that have been somewhat f
by ajkjk 4y ago
I was pleased to read Nathan Tankus' take[1] on all this, although I wish I understood it better, which was that a lot of policy ideas that have been somewhat fringe are becoming mainstream in the last week:
> The prospect of unlimited deposit insurance, whether de facto or de jure, is leading to a large-scale reconsideration of views among even “moderate” banking scholars.
I imagine that's usually how real policy progress happens: interesting ideas are always getting thought up and proliferated, but it takes a big upheaval to move them over to being really possible.
[1]: https://www.crisesnotes.com/every-complex-banking-issue-all-at-once-the-failure-of-silicon-valley-bank-in-one-brief-summary-and-five-quick-implications/?ref=notes-on-the-crises-newsletter https://www.crisesnotes.com/every-complex-banking-issue-all-...
- rcme 4y agoIt depends on your view of "progress." Early in the pandemic, people thought you really could print money indefinitely and MMT was right. Now people see that classical notions of inflation are still valid.
- ajkjk 4y agoWhich people thought those things? I feel like at the time I was only hearing criticism.
- christophilus 4y agoThere were plenty of financial podcasts that were saying, “why don’t we just keep doing this?” Animal Spirits, for example.
- christophilus 4y agoYeah. There were still plenty of people who predicted how foolish the early pandemic money printer was. I’d bet those same people view this new regulation with equal displeasure. I’m certainly in that camp.