(04-27-2020, 06:56 AM)stupac2 Wrote: (04-26-2020, 09:43 PM)Goose Wrote: (04-26-2020, 08:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Basically, with inflation and interest rates very very low it seems like the real worry is doing too little vs too much.
The problem is that if you do things that don't actually stimulate the economy, you create debt with little or no benefit. While inflation won't happen immediately, it will if you keep applying the money flow and nothing happens. Argentina basically is a good example of this. People were so afraid of inflation that hadn't yet happened, they fled the currency. The only thing that may save us is that there is no place to flee towards. That said, there are other options besides V and Nike. The "down and stays there" option exists. That is basically what happened in the Great Depression.
The issue of debt is one of the reasons I like the idea of doing it via the fed so much, increasing the monetary supply doesn't make any debt, the only potential downside is inflation, which will show up rapidly and the fed can respond rapidly. If we start seeing inflation creep much above 2% then the economy has probably recovered and we don't need the special measures anyway.
As stated elsewhere, I think deflation is far more likely than inflation. BTW, Financial Times agrees, Barron's does not.
Velocity (cycle rate of currency through the economy) has been dropping like a rock since the mid-90s. I haven't been able to find 2020 stats, but I suspect that they have cratered. 1/6th of our employees have been let go, the other 5/6ths are petrified and saving everything they can, and companies have extended payables. No cash is moving through the economy. We'll get, I suspect, a "dead cat bounce" of an economic "recovery" in which I suspect that we'll have a Nike swoosh-style recovery...long, painful, slow; rather than a "V" shaped bounce to the recovery.
All of those dynamics points to deflation rather than inflation. I think we only see inflation if we have prolonged, severe food shortages.