Yeah. I’m disappointed that the fed has such assymmetric ability to deal with the money supply. The velocity of money went way down at the start of lockdowns. T

Yeah. I’m disappointed that the fed has such assymmetric ability to deal with the money supply. The velocity of money went way down at the start of lockdowns. The correct move is to inject huge amounts of M1 to conpensate. The fed did this mostly with direct lending, I’m not even sure if they still buy government bonds the way I was taught in school. But the fed also greatly encouraged all the stimulus spending as well. Unfortunately, what we know quite well from video game economies, is that for every money source you need an “equivalent” money sink to avoid inflation (it can get quite difficult determining equivalency, since inflation is not uniform, and there may be hidden multipliers). Basically there needed to be massive taxes once the velocity of money rebounded, and that is a much harder bill to pass. What we really needed as part of the stimulus package was new taxation built in, something that directly taxed profits and per unit price increases might be something I’d try to include next time we have such a need. The fed was truly surprised at how well direct stimulus to consumers worked, they’d always been of the mind that you want to make money available to business. But it somehow makes sense to me that you’d want to put the money in at one end and pull it out the other. I very much recognize the dysfunction that price controls can have, and their contribution to the great depression, but there needs to be some way to claw back money, and some kind of targeted taxation I suspect would be better than just general tax increases.