Everything on the monetary side points to more
inflation in the future. Nevertheless, over the last half a
year—especially since the “Credit Crunch†has gained strong
momentum—deflationists have been emboldened to proclaim yet again
that the economy will spin into a dreadful deflation, dragging
everything in sight with it. I can understand the deflationist
warnings, as I was once a deflationist, schooled by Robert
Prechter, the Dean of the Deflationist School. His book
Conquer the Crashis the ultimate reference book on
deflations, The Deflationist Bible. Whether one believes in a
coming deflationary depression or not, one must nevertheless read
the book and understand its arguments.
The quintessence of Prechter’s book is that
inflationary booms cannot last forever; here Austrians will eagerly
agree. However, Prechter argues that inflation cannot last forever
and that deflationary forces will overwhelm the financial system,
so that the economy will tailspin into deflation; here Austrians
will disagree, as they admit to the possibility of an inflationary
bust, i.e., a stagflation.
Prechter provides (in Chapter 13, p. 130) three
limits to credit expansion that we can actually observe. With
these, we can determine whether monetary inflation can continue or
not. His first limit on credit expansion is the rising price of
gold; the second is the falling dollar, and the third is rising
interest rates (due to rising inflationary expectations) and
corresponding falling bond prices, which in itself is strongly
deflationary. In Prechter’s terms, the three countervailing forces
to inflation come from the gold market, the bond market, and the
currency market.
Over the last six years, I have found these
criteria to be extremely helpful, especially in determining whether
the environment would turn deflationary any time soon. It is easy
to analyze each and see if any currently represents a genuine limit
to credit expansion.
Price of Gold:The price of gold has been steadily
rising for the last seven years and it has not yet deterred the Fed
from inflating. Clearly, whether gold rises to $1,000 or $2,000 or
more, the Fed will remain unmoved by its rise. Also, just because
the price of gold has been correcting for the last 3-4 months does
not mean that deflation is here. An intermediate correction does
not make a secular trend!
Dollar.Moving to the second limitation, apparently
the Fed pays only lip service to the government’s Strong Dollar
Policy. In reality, the Fed seems to like the idea of a falling
dollar, as long as the fall is orderly. The Fed would most likely
be pleased to see the dollar a lot weaker in the future, provided
again that the devaluation is “orderlyâ€.
Interest Rates.This third limitation is no
limitation at all to an Inflationist Fed hell-bent on preventing
deflation. The Fed has devised a number of ingenious approaches to
support the long bond and has even stated in public that, if
necessary, it will monetize the long end of the curve to support
high bond prices and respectively low bond yields.
The deflationist arguments resting on gold, the
dollar, and the long-bond yield apparently present no problems for
the Fed at all. In reality, the Fed can inflate at will, and this
is exactly what it’s doing!
At this point, there appears one, and only one, limitation
that will force the Fed to slow down its monetary inflation and
compel it to raise interest rates – a Dollar Crisis associated with
a flight out of dollars and a panic in the currency markets,
triggering a colossal currency derivative crisis.
Nothing short of this will constrain monetary
inflation. At this point, it is my opinion that so long as the
dollar devalues in an orderly manner, or the dollar actually rises
against other fiat currencies, the environment will remain strongly
inflationary.
Other deflationists have raised a very powerful
argument in their favor. Typically during an asset deflation, where
the prices of stocks and real estate fall, there are no willing
lenders and no willing borrowers, no matter how low the Fed lowers
interest rates. This is dreaded condition is known as “pushing on a
stringâ€. The classic example is Japan since 1990.
The counterargument is straightforward: in modern
fiat monetary systems: the Central Bank is always a willing lender
of last resort and the Government is always a willing borrower of
last resort. In order to prevent contraction of credit, the
government can always borrow and the Fed can always monetize –
credit contraction and deflation do not have to occur when the Fed
and the government do not allow it to happen.
So far, it is more than obvious that the Credit Crisis has not
prevented the Fed from its inflationary course, despite the
rhetoric to the contrary. In reality, the Credit Crunch combined
with a contrived deflation scare and a rising dollar has provided a
cover for the U.S. government to increase its budget deficits and
an excuse for the Fed to inflate further. All monetary indicators
confirm that the Fed has been successful in this regard
For those not schooled in how to win arguments, the beginning
point is in figuring out how to
Framethe argument, so that the conclusions seem
inescapably correct.
This author (it was unsigned; no disrespect intended) begins
with the premise that all deflationists agree with Prechter. This
is incorrect. He then goes on to say the Fed can inflate at will
(true) and that this is always the antidote to deflation
(untrue). He also says all money data proves him correct - really?
Then why has the M1 Multiplier been dropping steadily since the
late 1980's, and plunging lately? He doesn't mention the "pushing
on a string" phenomenon, because that is where his argument falls
down. In fact all reflation efforts since 2000 have failed, as
shown by looking at the S&P or other indexes priced in terms of
other currencies, i.e. the Euro or gold.
They want you to think deflation is no problem because they
can't do anything about it.Look at Japan, it's been caught in
deflation since 1990!
is valid, I myself have in the past highlighted that.
The whole article is actually aimed at stagflation and neither
inflation or deflation, I just highlighted bits for my arguement
with Dodger...which has been going on behind the scenes. So USA
beats Spain 2-0
"The third important point is that economic slowdowns usually
trigger massive reflationary responses from the Fed that reignite
inflation. Such was the response in 1958, then again in 1970 (not
described here), in 1974, 1980, 2001, and currently in 2007-2008.
Anytime the Fed has responded by massively reflating the economy,
the typical result has been stagflation."
There are big differences between then and now. One major
difference is that there was very little in the way of household
debt, and no real bond market back then. Completely different from
now, where the total size of derivatives in equal to 10 years worth
of GLOBAL GDP. And that doesn't include credit cards, Commercial
real estate, defaulting mortgages, etc.
IMO we'll get inflation after we finish off the deflation and
deleveraging.
Title: The Deflation Scare Everything on
Posted by ravun on 24th of Jun 2009 at 03:44 pm
Everything on the monetary side points to more inflation in the future. Nevertheless, over the last half a year—especially since the “Credit Crunch†has gained strong momentum—deflationists have been emboldened to proclaim yet again that the economy will spin into a dreadful deflation, dragging everything in sight with it. I can understand the deflationist warnings, as I was once a deflationist, schooled by Robert Prechter, the Dean of the Deflationist School. His book Conquer the Crashis the ultimate reference book on deflations, The Deflationist Bible. Whether one believes in a coming deflationary depression or not, one must nevertheless read the book and understand its arguments.
The quintessence of Prechter’s book is that inflationary booms cannot last forever; here Austrians will eagerly agree. However, Prechter argues that inflation cannot last forever and that deflationary forces will overwhelm the financial system, so that the economy will tailspin into deflation; here Austrians will disagree, as they admit to the possibility of an inflationary bust, i.e., a stagflation.
Prechter provides (in Chapter 13, p. 130) three limits to credit expansion that we can actually observe. With these, we can determine whether monetary inflation can continue or not. His first limit on credit expansion is the rising price of gold; the second is the falling dollar, and the third is rising interest rates (due to rising inflationary expectations) and corresponding falling bond prices, which in itself is strongly deflationary. In Prechter’s terms, the three countervailing forces to inflation come from the gold market, the bond market, and the currency market.
Over the last six years, I have found these criteria to be extremely helpful, especially in determining whether the environment would turn deflationary any time soon. It is easy to analyze each and see if any currently represents a genuine limit to credit expansion.
The deflationist arguments resting on gold, the dollar, and the long-bond yield apparently present no problems for the Fed at all. In reality, the Fed can inflate at will, and this is exactly what it’s doing!
At this point, there appears one, and only one, limitation that will force the Fed to slow down its monetary inflation and compel it to raise interest rates – a Dollar Crisis associated with a flight out of dollars and a panic in the currency markets, triggering a colossal currency derivative crisis.
Nothing short of this will constrain monetary inflation. At this point, it is my opinion that so long as the dollar devalues in an orderly manner, or the dollar actually rises against other fiat currencies, the environment will remain strongly inflationary.
Other deflationists have raised a very powerful argument in their favor. Typically during an asset deflation, where the prices of stocks and real estate fall, there are no willing lenders and no willing borrowers, no matter how low the Fed lowers interest rates. This is dreaded condition is known as “pushing on a stringâ€. The classic example is Japan since 1990.
The counterargument is straightforward: in modern fiat monetary systems: the Central Bank is always a willing lender of last resort and the Government is always a willing borrower of last resort. In order to prevent contraction of credit, the government can always borrow and the Fed can always monetize – credit contraction and deflation do not have to occur when the Fed and the government do not allow it to happen.
So far, it is more than obvious that the Credit Crisis has not prevented the Fed from its inflationary course, despite the rhetoric to the contrary. In reality, the Credit Crunch combined with a contrived deflation scare and a rising dollar has provided a cover for the U.S. government to increase its budget deficits and an excuse for the Fed to inflate further. All monetary indicators confirm that the Fed has been successful in this regard
For those not schooled in
Posted by PA on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:16 pm
For those not schooled in how to win arguments, the beginning point is in figuring out how to Framethe argument, so that the conclusions seem inescapably correct.
This author (it was unsigned; no disrespect intended) begins with the premise that all deflationists agree with Prechter. This is incorrect. He then goes on to say the Fed can inflate at will (true) and that this is always the antidote to deflation (untrue). He also says all money data proves him correct - really? Then why has the M1 Multiplier been dropping steadily since the late 1980's, and plunging lately? He doesn't mention the "pushing on a string" phenomenon, because that is where his argument falls down. In fact all reflation efforts since 2000 have failed, as shown by looking at the S&P or other indexes priced in terms of other currencies, i.e. the Euro or gold. They want you to think deflation is no problem because they can't do anything about it.Look at Japan, it's been caught in deflation since 1990!
Your point on Japan
Posted by ravun on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:32 pm
is valid, I myself have in the past highlighted that.
The whole article is actually aimed at stagflation and neither inflation or deflation, I just highlighted bits for my arguement with Dodger...which has been going on behind the scenes. So USA beats Spain 2-0
fwiw
Posted by ravun on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:36 pm
"The third important point is that economic slowdowns usually trigger massive reflationary responses from the Fed that reignite inflation. Such was the response in 1958, then again in 1970 (not described here), in 1974, 1980, 2001, and currently in 2007-2008. Anytime the Fed has responded by massively reflating the economy, the typical result has been stagflation."
Lets go there again
Posted by ravun on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:26 pm
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/hyperinflation-e.html
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no1/jones.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/1169/Weimar.htm
http://www.mwsc.edu/eflj/german/gc/inflation.html
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/phys_econ/worldeconomiccrisis.html#Typical Collapse Function
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hyperinf.htm
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/germany/turm2023.html
http://www.wibemedia.com/german_inflation.html
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-12-23.html
http://www.usagold.com/GermanNightmare.html
http://www.marxist.com/germany/chapter5.html
http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/as/as_unit2/hyp_effect.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html
http://www.inaxis.org.uk/history/weimar.html
http://economics.about.com/library/termpapers/bltermpaper-germany-a.htm
There are big differences between
Posted by PA on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:34 pm
There are big differences between then and now. One major difference is that there was very little in the way of household debt, and no real bond market back then. Completely different from now, where the total size of derivatives in equal to 10 years worth of GLOBAL GDP. And that doesn't include credit cards, Commercial real estate, defaulting mortgages, etc.
IMO we'll get inflation after we finish off the deflation and deleveraging.
Yup,If Matt and Steve's scenario
Posted by shamutooth on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:42 pm
Yup,If Matt and Steve's scenario plays out with a crushing move down this fall I don't think anyone will be able to say it's inflationary.
Just be warned
Posted by ravun on 24th of Jun 2009 at 04:49 pm
down the line....now I am off the subject, work to be done
Ravun,I agree. At some point
Posted by shamutooth on 24th of Jun 2009 at 05:05 pm
Ravun,I agree. At some point there will be inflation,but maybe not just yet.