Even if the Fed stops raising rates before it breaks something, it can do a lot of damage especially to those (individuals, nations) who have the least resources to recover. Volcker, from what I’ve read, is Powell’s hero. Does not bode well.
Wasn't inflation in double digits when Volcker took over? He had to do something big and stay with it until stagflation went away; granted, you can ride a good horse to death, but you can also ride it back to the ranch where three hots and a cot await.
In short, timing is everything, it seems to this non-macroeconomist. Plus, Volcker was laboring under the lame and now discredited theories of neoclassical economics and monetarism; he didn't know what else to do. At that time, no one did.
Nonetheless, neither Greenspan nor Volcker are among my heroes. They did what they thought was correct; it just turns out, though, that they were wrong, taught by ignoramuses, shamans, and soothsayers in the best grad schools. It was the blind leading the blind.
It's finance kayfabe. This is why it's difficult to take anything anyone involved in these circles says as genuine. Words are just tactical instruments.
Rates have been artificially low for such a long time, maybe we think that is the norm? And by low, I mean the zero to 1% neighborhood. Don't the rates need to come back to something that makes some sense? Nobody really saves in a savings account or a CD anymore. All monies are chased into equities, and that market is completely overvalued now. I have no idea what these low rates have done to bond markets. I'd like to hear Stephanie's take on permanently low interest rates.
This brings up an interesting question: are rates truly a policy variable? If Insana is correct that markets, via a “break”, will force the Fed to alter course, and the UK’s recent kerfuffle supports that view, then isn’t that indicative of financial dominance?
All but the most progressive economists are so afflicted by worn out orthodoxies that they are quasi-psychotic, and even the progressive ones can't think integratively-wisely/paradigmatically either.
All of the latter are focused on the area of the real problem (money, debts and banking) but they're so immersed in complexity and abstraction within the present paradigm that they miss both the exact new paradigm concept (Monetary Gifting) and where and how to best implement its policies so as to have such policies macro-economically resolve the major problems of the current paradigm.
It's tiresome, real tiresome. When every theory is an inadequate cluster f#%k where nothing good or lasting occurs you have to think about a paradigmatic/complete pattern change. No???
So think about it, about the SINGLE concept that applied changes everything, that is. Thats what a paradigm is after all. And then think about how you can best apply it. Then realize that a study of past new paradigms reveals that they have definite signatures like: 1) they are always conceptually absurd as in complete conceptual opposition to the present paradigm (Debt {as in burden to repay}...Only vs Monetary Gifting, 2) they always invert the present paradigm's temporal universe realities (chronic erosive and harmful inflation to beneficial price and asset deflation) 3) they always SOLVE problems PERMANENTLY instead of wallowing in them or merely palliating them.
So, you want MMT's insights and intentions to come to fruition (end inflation and enable LARGE fiscal deficits)? Then start thinking about the new monetary and financial paradigm. PLEEEEEEASE.
Even if the Fed stops raising rates before it breaks something, it can do a lot of damage especially to those (individuals, nations) who have the least resources to recover. Volcker, from what I’ve read, is Powell’s hero. Does not bode well.
Wasn't inflation in double digits when Volcker took over? He had to do something big and stay with it until stagflation went away; granted, you can ride a good horse to death, but you can also ride it back to the ranch where three hots and a cot await.
In short, timing is everything, it seems to this non-macroeconomist. Plus, Volcker was laboring under the lame and now discredited theories of neoclassical economics and monetarism; he didn't know what else to do. At that time, no one did.
Nonetheless, neither Greenspan nor Volcker are among my heroes. They did what they thought was correct; it just turns out, though, that they were wrong, taught by ignoramuses, shamans, and soothsayers in the best grad schools. It was the blind leading the blind.
It's finance kayfabe. This is why it's difficult to take anything anyone involved in these circles says as genuine. Words are just tactical instruments.
You mention the IMF, et al’s concern … one wonders about Biden’s silence since mid-September. Thoughts?
Rates have been artificially low for such a long time, maybe we think that is the norm? And by low, I mean the zero to 1% neighborhood. Don't the rates need to come back to something that makes some sense? Nobody really saves in a savings account or a CD anymore. All monies are chased into equities, and that market is completely overvalued now. I have no idea what these low rates have done to bond markets. I'd like to hear Stephanie's take on permanently low interest rates.
This brings up an interesting question: are rates truly a policy variable? If Insana is correct that markets, via a “break”, will force the Fed to alter course, and the UK’s recent kerfuffle supports that view, then isn’t that indicative of financial dominance?
All but the most progressive economists are so afflicted by worn out orthodoxies that they are quasi-psychotic, and even the progressive ones can't think integratively-wisely/paradigmatically either.
All of the latter are focused on the area of the real problem (money, debts and banking) but they're so immersed in complexity and abstraction within the present paradigm that they miss both the exact new paradigm concept (Monetary Gifting) and where and how to best implement its policies so as to have such policies macro-economically resolve the major problems of the current paradigm.
It's tiresome, real tiresome. When every theory is an inadequate cluster f#%k where nothing good or lasting occurs you have to think about a paradigmatic/complete pattern change. No???
So think about it, about the SINGLE concept that applied changes everything, that is. Thats what a paradigm is after all. And then think about how you can best apply it. Then realize that a study of past new paradigms reveals that they have definite signatures like: 1) they are always conceptually absurd as in complete conceptual opposition to the present paradigm (Debt {as in burden to repay}...Only vs Monetary Gifting, 2) they always invert the present paradigm's temporal universe realities (chronic erosive and harmful inflation to beneficial price and asset deflation) 3) they always SOLVE problems PERMANENTLY instead of wallowing in them or merely palliating them.
So, you want MMT's insights and intentions to come to fruition (end inflation and enable LARGE fiscal deficits)? Then start thinking about the new monetary and financial paradigm. PLEEEEEEASE.