Will Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Cause Hyperinflation?

Hey inflation, I’m going to pump you up, maybe (Scott Audette/REUTERS)

Sarah Palin is concerned that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke may cause inflation to shoot up and stay there. But could the greatest potential culprit of wealth-destroying, Germany-1930s-type hyper-inflation be, not the central bank, but Palin and the Tea Party? That in part is the conclusion of some recent research by Indiana University professor Eric Leeper and Wall Street economist Troy Davig of Barclays Capital. In a recent paper, called Temporarily Unstable Government Debt and Inflation, which can be downloaded from this website, Leeper has a chart that he unofficially calls the Tea Party shock graph, on page 25. Before the Tea Party, inflation is rising slowly. But in the first year the Tea Party or a group with similar views wins the Presidency or takes over Congress, whamm-o. Inflation doubles, and keeps going up. He wrote the paper in October, so he puts the potential date of Tea Party takeover as 2019, but after this election Leeper concedes Tea Party induced hyper-inflation could come much sooner than that. So is Palin riding the Hyper-Inflation Express? Maybe. Here’s why:

Ever since the financial crisis, some, Tea Partiers in particular, have been predicting that the country may have an upcoming massive bout of inflation. And why not. Many of the things we have been through seem like the type of stuff that should make our currency dive and prices go up. First of all, there was the failure of our banking system. That’s got to take some wind out of the value of your currency. Then you have the government’s response to it. Bailouts and massive stimulus. Again, government spending is generally thought to produce inflation. Add in near zero interest rates, and prices should be shooting through the roof. Gold, believed to be an inflation hedge, is soaring. Indeed, some people seem so certain that inflation is on the rise that they are buying inflation-protected Treasuries with a negative yield. That means if inflation doesn’t rise, the people buying those bonds will have to pay interest to be a lender to the government. Normally it’s the other way around. Screwy.

Nonetheless, inflation, so far. Not so much. Palin herself seems to have missed the fact that prices in the past year or so have barely budged. So for the past few months, Leeper and Davig and another of Leeper’s colleagues Todd Walker have been looking into why. Turns outs that it is very unlikely the Fed would cause hyper-inflation. That’s why near zero interest rates and the Fed’s early efforts to drive down long-term interest rates have done little to boost inflation. The real threat of inflation comes from tax policy, namely lower taxes. Lower taxes and the government will have a harder time paying back its debt. Investors run from our bonds and currency. Inflation ensues.

But here’s the trick. Leeper doesn’t just model actual tax policy. He is looking at tax expectations. You don’t actually have to lower taxes for inflation to rise. Nor do you have to raise taxes to get inflation to fall, for that matter. Leeper says as we get closer to the point that is looks like the government is unwilling to raise taxes people will get increasingly nervous about our debt. And that’s the problem with the Tea Party.

Now before you go claiming that Leeper’s research is a Liberal hit piece consider this: Leeper agrees that when governments have high levels of debt higher taxes do slow growth and cause massive inflation. But we’re not there yet. Currently, our US Federal Debt is equal to about 62% of annual GDP. That’s a lot, but not enough to make higher taxes a threat. According to Leeper’s calculations, at our current level of US Federal Debt higher taxes, even modestly higher taxes, tends to reduce inflation by three quarters of a percentage point. And the inflation fighting affect of higher taxes tends to grow as the level of debt rises closer to one. Inflation drops by about 1.3 percentage points when the US Federal deficit equals GDP. After that the equation shifts. When debt hits 120% of our annual debt, that’s when the trouble hits. At that point, higher taxes tends to make inflation rise, not fall. But even if Bush’s tax cuts are kept in place we are ten years or more from hitting that point.

But the real problem may be the Tea Party itself, according to Leeper. “The Fed is well aware that its policies could have profound inflation consequences,” says Leeper. “Where as the Tea Party is not thinking that at all.” In fact, just the opposite.

Related Topics: taxes, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    “Lower taxes and the government will have a harder time paying back its debt.”

    100% wrong. We are a Monetarily Sovereign nation. In a monetarily sovereign nation, taxes do not pay for federal spending.

    Taxes could fall to zero, and the federal government would have no difficulty paying its debt. In fact, taxes and borrowing both could fall to zero and still the government could spend any amount any time.

    I am astounded that Gandel does not realize this. It is people like Gandel, who at this moment are trying to destroy Medicare and Social Security, because of the false belief we “can’t afford” them. Utter nonsense.

    Oh, and by the way, since 1971, the end of the gold standard, there has been no relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation , which actually has been caused by oil prices.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • http://rbmatudan.wordpress.com rbmatudan

    Yes, they’ll just do some bickering and no doing. QE 2 just upsetted the whole worlds’ economy. It’s not good for the dollar in the long run since the dollar will just keep on depreciating.

    Interest & profit based economic system is likely to die soon. Resource based economy hopefully will take over & everybody on the planet will be better off. The rich won’t be there. Close to equality would be there. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

    http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/

  • wmhumphrey

    “Currently, our US Federal Debt is equal to about 62% of annual GDP.”

    Actually, the Federal debt is $13.727 trillion and GDP is $14.730 trillion; therefore, the debt is 93% of GDP.

    http://www.bea.gov/national/
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

  • wmhumphrey

    The gold standard ended in 1933 replaced by the silver standard, which ended under the Nixon administration.

  • reinmd21811

    Leave it to a ultra-liberal to get it all wrong. The hypthesis assumes the current government economic model of big gov’t and big spending plus no balanced budget. Reality of the Tea Party platform is a balanced budget, much smaller gov’t, thereby allowing for paydown of debt, increasing private sector growth. What comes through in this report is a growing truth – the closet Socialists/Marxists are coming out of the closet. What our country needs is a reality based dose of gov’t control and intrusion in our lives, just enough to protect us from the evil doers. But it past time for us to take responsibility for our own lives, educate ourselves, and stop relying on gov’t beaurocracies to control our every thought and move. Orwell’s 1984 can remain a novel or become reality – the choice is ours.

  • Stephen Gandel

    You are looking at total public debt not federal debt. Common mistake. My number comes from the non-partisan CBO. Check out the link in the story. But even if you count total public debt, at this point raising taxes should still lower inflation according to the study.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Stephen, I notice you chose not to defend your statement, “Lower taxes and the government will have a harder time paying back its debt,” which is utterly wrong for a monetarily sovereign nation.

    What do you mean by “harder time”? Do you mean that suddenly the federal government will lose its unlimited ability to create money?

    Or, are you really talking about inflation? (If so, why not say so?) Anyway, since we went off the gold standard in 1971, there has been no relationship between federal deficits and inflation. (See: INFLATION)

    So really Stephen, what are you talking about?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • Stephen Gandel

    Roger,
    Yes. What I mean is that if you lower taxes, the government will have to come up with another way to pay down the debt other than from the revenue it gets from taxation. As you state, the other method could be to “print money,” which would cause inflation. Or cut entitlements, which the government has never been really able to do. That’s why higher taxes could lead to lower inflation.

  • diecash1

    Reality of the Tea Party platform is a balanced budget, much smaller gov’t, thereby allowing for paydown of debt, increasing private sector growth.

    You are utterly deluding yourself if you think that the handful of tea partiers that were elected are going to change anything. They’ve already started backpedaling and they haven’t even been sworn in yet. Witness Rand Paul’s two-step on earmarks. You’ll have a serious case of whiplash when you finally figure out that the tea party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Repubs. They are already being assimilated into the Borg…..er…Republican party.

  • sandyinohio

    Wow, you leftist-leaning media are bound and determined to put the blame for all the missteps of the Democrat Party power politics on the TEA Party, huh? I don’t think people are buying it. There are more polls showing people approving of the TEA Party stand on taxes & less govt interference. Remember folks, it is govt’s continued intervention into housing (HUD, Fannie, Freddie, CR ACT, FED, etc. that caused the bubble and then the collapse. Who cares which party did what, GOVT doesn’t belong in the housing market, stock market, auto market, etc. It causes problems in order to “save the day”. Let’s not keep perpetuating or promoting the “Superman”Theory of Government!

  • sg1guy

    Rodger, Are you kidding? Or drinking?
    Just print money?
    Maybe you need to go back and see just what caused the worst of the German depression, and the Massive currency devaluation during the 30′s. Which eventually lead to the rise to power of, you know who…
    Germany printed money as fast as the presses would run to pay for their WW1 war reparations to the point where the Mark was essentially worthless.
    We could do that, I guess, but start saving now because in a short while a loaf of bread would be about a billion USD.

  • ranckandfile

    Stephen-

    You say that the current level of government debt is 62% of GDP. Are you assuming that the government will default on the bonds held in the Social Security trust? If not, the correct figure is over 90%. The government does still owe this money, even though they owe it to themselves, as the money will be required to make SS payments to future beneficiaries. Whether or not the number came from the “non-partisan CBO” makes no difference in that regard.

    Also, your reponse to Roger seems to indicate that the problem is really with the printing of money to avoid financing debt through traditional means, not the rate of taxation. Deficits are a function of both spending and taxation, so the Tea Party’s desire to reduce government spending to close the deficit instead of raising taxes doesn’t seem to indicate that they are calling for deficits to remain high in the future. Whether our political class will make the tough decisions necessary to bring this about is another matter, of course, but I don’t see how that’s the Tea Party’s fault.

  • stewartiii

    Hot Air: TIME says Tea Party will cause hyperinflation
    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/11/time-says-tea-party-will-cause-hyperinflation/

  • http://4termlimits.wordpress.com 4termlimits

    Hey Einstein… if capitalism dies and is replaced with a new world order you become the rich you idiot. The average income in China $3,000, India $550, Russia $7,100, Brazil$ 5,600

    So how much do you make a year? Well when we move to your new world order and you become the rich get ready to have you’re money taken away. You can afford it you’re rich after all!

  • http://4termlimits.wordpress.com 4termlimits

    Great Post Sandy! I agree with you 100%. This is just another progressive piece trying to stop the TEA Party. Guess what, it won’t work. We’re done sitting back and ignoring our government. To me, this piece just proves we’re on the right track. Yes inflation will rise and you can try to blame the TEA Party because yes, we will control the government when it happens. But we won’t have been the cause, The Bush & Obama adminstration will have been the cause and will will be the FIX! No more Nanny State, No more out of control spending and yes, when the time is right, we will cut taxes!

  • http://sargeantteran.wordpress.com sargeantteran

    Mr. Gandel,

    Look at New York where they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. I imagine ten democrat voters exploit government largesse to every single republican voter. And that is being generous. When will it become acceptable to lay even part of the blame for America’s financial woes on America’s urban poor single mothers with their, on average, three to five children? Or said fathers? Or government salaries increasingly into the high six figures? Do we dare ask which members of which political party actually use/abuse more in government money? Sure, it’s the jag to point out that southern states borrow more than northern states. Dare we investigate WHO within each state – and by “who” I mean as to how they are politically affiliated – borrows/keeps REAL government dollars? Sure, it’s good to blame old people with families, mortgages, jobs and a sense of personal responsibility for America’s woes. But, what are tea-partiers demanding, exactly? More breaks for themselves? Or fairness for themselves as opposed to what they see others getting?

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Stephen, you said, “. . . if you lower taxes, the government will have to come up with another way to pay down the debt other than from the revenue it gets from taxation.”

    That would be true of monetarily non-sovereign governments, such as Italy, Greece, Spain, Illinois, California and Chicago. It is not true of Monetarily Sovereign governments, like the U.S., Canada, Japan and Australia, which have the unlimited ability to create money. A monetarily sovereign nation does not use taxes to pay its bills.

    You are mixing and confusing two separate issues:

    Issue 1. Can the federal government run out of money to pay its bills? Answer: No, therefore it never will have a “harder time paying back its debt,” as you initially said. Even if taxes fell to $0, the government could support Social Security, universal health care, the military and every other initiative you could think of. No federal debt is unsustainable. Even federal borrowing could be eliminated, and still the government would pay all its bills, on time.

    <b?A monetarily sovereign nation is different from you and me. Its spending is not constrained by taxes, borrowing or any other form of income. It pays all bills by printing money. Taxes are not part of that process, and in fact are irrelevant to federal bill paying.

    2. Issue 2. Does printing money cause inflation? Answer: There is a point at which money creation could cause inflation. We are nowhere near that point, as witness the current fears about deflation, despite massive money creation.

    In 1971, Federal Debt Held by Private Investors was $225 billion. Today it is $7.9 trillion — and astounding 3,500% increase in only 40 years! What would you have said in 1971, if I told you the debt would increase 3,500% by 2011? You would have predicted rampant inflation. Right? So now, if I predict the debt will grow another 3,500% by 2051, what do you predict?

    In fact, since we went off the gold standard in 1971, there has been no relationship between federal deficits and Inflation.

    Do not be fooled by what happened in pre-war Germany, Zimbabwe, Italy, China and all the other nations that suffered from hyperinflation. Each had unique circumstances, not related to the U.S. condition.

    I know this all is counter intuitive, and different from what you have been taught. The situation changed dramatically when we became monetarily sovereign in 1971. I hope you (and sg1guy) will read that short summary, to learn today’s facts, and not merely rely on intuition and what the columnists tell you.

    The main thing you should look into is how much damage debt hysteria causes every one of us.

    Let me know when you understand monetary sovereignty and the facts about inflation.

    (You too, sg1guy)

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • ranckandfile

    Rodger-

    Printing money is by definition inflationary, as it reduces the value of the dollar as a unit of account relative to the size of the economy. While the deflationary force of debt destruction currently underway in the private sector masks the effect of current money printing, that doesn’t mean that the government can just print as much money as they want without reducing people’s standard of living.

    So while I agree with you that the government COULD just print it’s way out of the national debt, I don’t think that doing so would really accomplish anything other than shuffling the deck chairs on the way down….

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Printing money is by definition inflationary . . .

    I don’t know what dictionary you use, but that simply is not true. There is no relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation.

    If you prefer facts to intuition, go to: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • sg1guy

    There appears to be no other definition of your Monetary Sovereignty other than your own. Clever to define your own term, and then use it as a reference point.

    Economic Sovereignty on the other hand;

    Economic Sovereignty
    The power of national governments to make decisions independently of those made by other governments.

    You’re out of your mind if you believe that any government can just keep printing money to pay off their debts without any economic ramifications. By definition, the more there is of something the less value it will have. One Rembrandt is unique. A million of the same one makes it common, and worthless.

    Not remembering the past, or not believing the same can happen again, and again, and again…. That’s the root of a million disasters.

    Take a voluntary pay cut (cut taxes), increase your spending (start a war or 2 maybe), put the bill on your American Express Card (borrow it from the communists). How long before you go bankrupt?
    Same thing, writ small.

    Printed money is not REAL value. Just a promise that it will be honored by the issuing government. Until they don’t anymore. Like stocks, there’s no intrinsic “value” there, just the belief that it will still have value later, to someone.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    I didn’t use the term economic sovereignty. I used the term Monetary Sovereignty,which I neither invented nor defined. I can see you never looked up the references I gave you.

    You refer to the past, but didn’t bother to look at the graph that shows no relationship between deficit spending and inflation for at least 40 years! Here it is, again: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/

    Also, I see by your references to credit cards, you do not understand the differences between federal government financing and your own personal financing. I wrote a paper on that, too. It’s called “Anthropomorphic Economics Disease.” You should read it.

    Anyway, according to your hypothesis, either the government has not spent much money, or we are suffering from massive inflation. Which is it?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • 94134gamesmith

    Filed at 12:15 a.m. ET
    Here are comparisons from MasterCard Advisors’ SpendingPulse of revenue from Oct. 3 through Saturday with the same four weeks a year earlier:
    CLOTHING: Up 8.2 percent.
    Women’s clothing: Up 5.3 percent.
    Men’s clothing: Down 0.3 percent.
    Children’s clothing: Up 8.7 percent.
    SpendingPulse focuses on mall-based chain clothing stores.
    —LUXURY, excluding jewelry: Up 4.2 percent.
    —JEWELRY: down 1.1 percent.
    —ELECTRONICS: Down 1.9 percent.
    —MAJOR APPLIANCES: Down 8.2 percent.
    —ONLINE: Up 7.9 percent.
    Read http://www.rodgermitchell.com
    World Factbook 2010 shows Japan’s Debt/GDP at 189%….that Debt/GDP ratio should force a terrible inflation on Japan, Debt/GDP ratio for the U.S. as 53% (More recent data from the Treasury shows this to be 66%)…..and its debt should be “unsustainable.” But Japan is battling deflation, and seems to have so little difficulty “sustaining” its debt it will spend an additional $63 billion. See the disconnect?
    Just so we understand, tax increases will “deepen the recession” (by removing money from the economy), but deficit cuts, which also will remove money from the economy, are O.K.???
    In his recent column entitled “An Inflationary Cocktail In The Making”, Richard Benson listed many of the other commodities that have seen extraordinary price increases over the past year….
    *Agricultural Raw Materials: 24%,*Industrial Inputs Index: 25%,*Metals Price Index: 26%,*Coffee: 45%,*Barley: 32%,*Oranges: 35%,*Beef: 23%,*Pork: 68%,*Salmon: 30%,*Sugar: 24%,*Wool: 20%,*Cotton: 40%,*Palm Oil: 26%,*Hides: 25%,*Rubber: 62%,Iron Ore: 103%
    Now, as those price increases enter the chain of production do you think that there is any chance that they will not cause inflation.
    The performance of emerging markets (EM) so far this year seems to validate the longer term optimism. Thus far in 2010, EM government bonds are leading the investment returns sweepstakes, up 14.8% through September, while the number two spot goes to emerging market corporate bonds, up 13.7%. Both these categories beat US high-yield bonds as well as investment-grade bonds, which both returned about 11% to 12%. And they trounced the 3% gain in U.S. stocks over the first nine months of 2010.

    Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/10/06/emerging-markets-are-the-craze/#ixzz11eFsdnsR
    Regardless who is in charge of the following administration, or even Sarah Palin, the price have already went up. Our American economy is a mess; and hyperinflation is inevitable.
    This is why there is no presidential running-up from Republican, and we did not see inflation; since many still attempted to push the last year’s inventory out—buy one get one free or half price. Since the commodity price went up at such rate, many manufacturers are only taking short orders to complete in 6-8 months; the cost on the next delivery is double of the last inventory. Will Macy or Costco sell you its goods at discount like to-day after the inventory is gone? Mr. Rodger Mitchell is right; and you do not have to be really patient to wait till 2012.

    May the Buddha Bless you?

  • sg1guy

    Oh looked it up, it goes to YOUR web site only. There is no other reference to your term than yours.
    Again, making your own Graphs, and then referring to them as a reference.
    Write an article, and use it as a reference.
    Do you have any references that you didn’t write yourself?

    “I’m brilliant, and Right…. Here’s the article I wrote that proves it…”

    You’re right, borrowing against future hoped-for income makes a Big difference who does it…. Not…
    What planet were you living on the past few years?

    And then let’s see, let me make a comparison of 2 options that have no connection…. You either wore blue socks today or you have purple hair. Which is it?

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    I didn’t make the graphs. It’s data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis that shows since 1971, the end of the gold standard, there has been no relationship between deficit spending and inflation.

    I just use public data. I don’t invent it or rely on intuition.

    For instance, as I said earlier, “In 1971, Federal Debt Held by Private Investors was $225 billion. Today it is $7.9 trillion — and astounding 3,500% increase in only 40 years! What would you have said in 1971, if I told you the debt would increase 3,500% by 2011? You would have predicted rampant inflation. Right? So now, if I predict the debt will grow another 3,500% by 2051, what do you predict?”

    What data do you use?

    Yes, here is a reference I didn’t write: Go to: http://moslereconomics.com/2009/12/10/7-deadly-innocent-frauds/ and click: “Updated: 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds” It’s a good read.

    You think the options I gave you have no connection to what you said??? You said printing money causes inflation. I said, “According to your hypothesis, either the government has not spent much money, or we are suffering from massive inflation. Which is it?

    You don’t see the connection?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • http://sargeantteran.wordpress.com sargeantteran

    Let us simplify everything. Identify who suckles more on the government teat – and knock them off of it. Take a family with four children for an example. Two children have jobs, buy their own car outright, and pay their own bills. The third child buys a car, but asks mom for help and has dad pay half the note and half the insurance. The fourth child has four kids of her own from three different men, gets hundreds from mom and dad each week, and demands it remains that way or she’ll call them racist in the local newspaper. Should the first two responsible children be forever expected to ignore or excuse the short-comings of the others? If we are indeed all brothers and sisters, does it not follow that at some point the successful brothers and sisters can demand more of their underachieving siblings? Or must they forever pick up their slack and have it called “fairness”? The first two are tea-partiers, the third is a blue collar democrat, the last is the liberal base. After many years of paying their own way the first two children are enough with the lame excuses from their borrowing brethren. They take personal responsibility as a matter of pride and finally are demanding others do too. The third joins a union. The fourth and last never leaves the house, never misses a government paycheck and has never seen a condom or job opportunity she thinks good enough to satisfy her.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Ah, I see you suffer from Anthropomorphic Economics Disease, for which the only known cure is an open-minded review of actual facts, not intuition.
    .
    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • sg1guy

    I don’t really care that much, dude…
    You’re not going to change anything, I’m not going to change anything…

    The “Tea Party” is just an astroturf “movement” of ultra-right-wingers, pretending to be a real movement. They will keep pushing the envelope to turn over the country to business and the banks unfettered by pesky regulations, so they can rape the economy into ruin yet again. And Far-Left will pull back to regulate everything down to the corporate placemats. And we will swing and sway back and forth until we tear ourselves apart from within.

    Substuture politics for religion, and take a look at Iraq or Afghanistan, and that’s where we are headed. Self destruction from within. By then China and India and probably still some of Japan will hold all of our major debt, and just roll-in and foreclose.

    The only reason this whole worldwide Ponzi scheme hasn’t already collapsed into another depression is all the vested interests of those in power. Nobody can do 100% of what they know they need to do to protect their own local economies (yes, like a little protectionism) because the external ramifications could be too severe as well.

    Maybe business will learn on its own you can’t keep squeezing the lemon forever. But I doubt it without some external force (like regulations, I am afraid). Until we all learn a little enlightened self-interest I fear we are ultimately doomed. Pay your people better, so they can buy “stuff” from someone else, so they can pay their people better, and their people can afford to come buy your stuff. And yeah, maybe you make a little less profit per transaction, but you will probably do a crap-load more transactions.

    I’m not worried enough about this to even bother coming back to chat. The article caught my eye, your post tripped my funny bone, it flowed from there.
    But it’s sure been fun trying to make you pop a vessel.

    Send postcards from your rose-colored world, will you?
    See ya… (but probably not…)

  • ranckandfile

    I’m not sure what dictionary you use either….printing money and deficit spending are not the same thing. One creates additional units of account within the economy (thus, en ceteris paribus, devaluing the existing units of account), the other borrows those units of account from those who have them in order to finance spending.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Wow, a “dude” who doesn’t care what the government does to his life. I didn’t know grass could do that.

  • kdenninger

    Total NONSENSE. Here’s some facts.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=171976

    You folks should be ashamed to publish that bilge.

  • economicsfordemocrats

    Rodger is totally right but these discussions on fiscal policy hides the fact that this crisis is a monetary one! A vast majority of the monetary creation and infusion are accomplished by the commerical banking system not the Federal Reserve or the Government.

    Therefore, reform is imperative of this narrow system of creation and none of you are debating this fact.

    The most recent publishing for your reserach is “Web of Debt” by Helen Brown. It is a reasonably length book.

    You should also go to http://www.monetary.org for a shorter read.

    We need to change our debate on fiscal policy to a debate on complete reform of the monetary system or it will never get started. It is the answer!

    Mark S Pash, CFP
    Center for Progressive Economics

  • rjurkowski

    Can you tell me what exactly you are going to cut (and how much each cut equals in dlollars) to significantly reduce the size of the government? No Tea Partier has been willing or able to do so yet. It’s time for you to walk the talk, dude.

  • rjurkowski

    As I ask another Tea Partier above:

    Can you tell me what exactly you are going to cut (and how much each cut equals in dlollars) to significantly reduce the size of the government? No Tea Partier has been willing or able to do so yet.

    Anyone can bluster about how we’re going to “cut the size of the government” and “reduce government interference,”but what EXACTLY are you going to do? Which entitlement program are you going to cut/reduce and by how much? Eliminating the National Endowment for Arts will save you a whopping $175 million. Where are you going to get the other $400 billion that will need to be cut to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the size of the government. Please be specific with what is going to be cut and how much that will save.

    It’s time for you to walk the talk.

  • http://thelastcanary.wordpress.com thelastcanary

    I understand that all the corporate monoliths such as GE (advertised above) love the fact that the Fed prints up money for them at near zero interest rates.

    However, when attempting to actually make a point, one should never get the facts wrong and assume they know what they are talking about.

    And here they are:

    Inflation looks like it is about 8% right now and has been above 10% in this past decade. see chart: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts This is how it was honestly reported and calculated prior to the early 80s.

    High bond yields do not cause inflation. Rather, high inflation causes high bond yields because you must adequately award someone who is willing to lend you money that might be paid back in money that is worth less. The reason yields have not risen is because the Fed is buying bonds (prices up, yields down) breaking this very necessary feedback mechanism. read: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2260154

    Commodity prices have been skyrocketing because of the Fed’s easy money policies and they WILL local price cause inflation, whether it is honestly reported or not. watch video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK4dxacv7jY&feature=player_embedded

  • stewartiii

    NewsBusters: Fallacious TIME Magazine Post Alleges Tea Party Will Cause Hyperinflation
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/11/11/fallacious-time-magazine-post-alleges-tea-party-will-cause-hyperinfl

  • oldladycitizen

    So, now we are blaming a victim who is screaming for help because the robber didn’t get enough money and has begun beating them up.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Interesting how one can pick and choose the data one wishes to use. Is inflation high? How about: INFLATION? MEASURE
    .
    The key point, however, is not whether inflation is high or low according to your favorite measure, but rather that it does not seem to correlate with federal deficit spending. It correlates with oil prices. See: Inflation
    .
    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • http://thelastcanary.wordpress.com thelastcanary

    Rodger, how much has Federal Deficit spending gone up since the early 80s? How much since 2000?

    Borrowing to spend now is by definition inflationary as it increases the money supply in the economy. Paying down the debt in the future is deflationary. However, we are paying it down with dollars that are worth less and less which is even partially inflationary if the money creation outpaces the paying down the debt rate.

    The US military consumes more oil than most nations and it does so with borrowed dollars, which does in fact, drive up the oil cost which then makes your inflation index go up as you so wisely observed. Get you a Nobel Prize. Other clowns like you have already won it.

  • http://czuber360.wordpress.com czuber360

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell’s posts are terrifying (I almost stopped reading anymore comments when he said inflation was caused by oil prices). The fact that there’s a site that he keeps linking to that actually “validates” this madness makes it even worse.

    The term “monetary sovereignty” is madness, irregardless of who made it up. Everything has value relative to something else. I don’t care if it’s the dollar or a seashell. If this absurd premise was correct, then Weimar Germany’s currency wouldn’t have COLLAPSED after they started just printing the papiermark to pay off WW1 reparations.

    WHEN YOU PRINT MORE CURRENCY YOU DEVALUE THAT CURRENCY BECAUSE IT TAKES MORE OF THAT CURRENCY (IN THIS CASE DOLLARS) TO BUY THE SAME “THING”.

    Look at the prices of oil futures, oat futures, corn futures, etc. since Bernanke implemented QE1, check again when he monotized the debt with QE2. Hell, go to a gas station or grocery store and compare your receipt to one from the same grocery store from three weeks ago. Tell me there’s “monetary sovereignty” when there’s obvious cause and effect to just printing more money.

    If what you suggested in fact happened, and the U.S. just printed enough to pay all of her obligations, countries (i.e. China, Japan, England, etc.) would stop buying U.S. treasury bonds OVERNIGHT, as the dollar would be effectively worthless. (BTW if the premise of “monetary sovereignty” had any validity the treasury wouldn’t have to sell bonds). The country would be insolvent IN DAYS.

    Also, I’d love to join you in going on a nationwide strike, thus eliminating almost all taxes collected by the gov’t, to test your hypothesis that the government can operate without collecting any revenue. That should be fun. (if the premise of “monetary sovereignty” had ANY validity, the gov’t wouldn’t need to collect taxes)

    The way things are going with Bernanke in place, maybe we’ll get a chance to see your vision of things soon enough.

  • http://czuber360.wordpress.com czuber360

    BTW two great articles combating this idiocy

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/11/time-says-tea-party-will-cause-hyperinflation/

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=171976

    BTW all this coming from a non-tea partier, I just hate stupidity.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    czuber360,

    There are two separate issues, that too often become entwined.

    Issue 1. Does the federal government have the unlimited power to create money? Answer: Yes, it has had that power since 1971, the end of the gold standard. It can turn on the presses and print many trillions of dollars, tomorrow.
    .
    Do you disagree?
    .
    Issue 2. Does money printing (aka deficit spending) cause inflation? Answer: Yes and no. There undoubtedly is a point at which money printing would cause inflation. However, we not only are nowhere near that point, despite massive spending, the Fed actually is worried about deflation.
    .
    In the past 40 years (since the end of the gold standard), there has been no relationship between federal deficits and Inflation .
    .
    So it boils down to this. The government has the unlimited power to print money, and despite massive money printing, it has not been the cause of inflation. Over the years we have had inflation, but it seems to correlate with oil prices, not with federal spending.
    .
    And you are correct. Since 1971, there has been zero relationship between federal taxes and federal spending. A monetarily sovereign nation neither spends tax money nor borrowed money. Both taxing and borrowing could end tomorrow, and this would not affect the government’s ability to spend by even one penny.
    .
    However, that much deficit could cause inflation. Sorry if all this is counter-intuitive, but new ideas usually are.
    .
    Soon, people will begin to understand the implications of monetary sovereignty, and soon after that they will say, “I knew it all the time.”

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • http://bob2004.wordpress.com bob2004

    What I’ve learned from this article:

    a) I’m poor because my parents/boss/case officer won’t give me more money (it has nothing to do with how much I spend);

    b) If my name is Roger Malcolm Mitchell, it is my duty to use public discussion to promote my fallacious ideology and website.

  • economicsfordemocrats

    “We want to have moderate inflation not excess inflation, I put this at anything approaching 5%. We need to have various formulas for calculating inflation. We are human beings and if we miss on the down side of monetary creation we go into recession/depression.

    Next fact, we live in a world of overproduction not scarcity. Just look at the all the capacity and production not used or bought! We do not have enough well paid customers-clients-consumers to purchase the production. Therefore, we have room for more monetary creation at this time.

    One major solution:

    STOP creating and infusing new money by creating debt-(Public & Private)
    Stop the commercial banking system from creating new money.
    Place the creation of money back to Congress (Article 1-Section 8) with infusion using many different types of banking or disbursing systems both private and public, mostly private. Place Executive and Legislative Branch oversight in place to monitor creation to avoid excess inflation. (Don’t give me the argument that the gov’t can’t do anything right. It applies to all of us. We would not use Enron, Tyco, World Com etc). Plus if they screw up we have a chance to vote them out of office.
    Pay off the the national debt as it matures with newly created money. No it will not create excess inflation!

    Remember most of the past recessions/depressions/hyperinflations have been caused by this Central Bank-Commercial Banking Systems. It has failed us to many times over the centuries!

    Join the monetary reform movement!

    Mark S. Pash, CFP
    Center for Progressive Economics

  • dochosvet

    Wow what a discussion. Maybe some what like Malcolm we cold just switch our perception of things. “money” any form is just a symbol of work or what we have earned while “working”. If I hang out a McDonalds for 4 hours flipping’ burgers 6 days a week I make enough whatever to buy pair of shoes. Do I make dollars, yuan? Doesn’t matter what you call it I have earned some sort of value that the person in China recognizes and sends me a pair of shoes. I really think that is how we should look at our work and value earned. But of course if you are a banker or Goldman Sach fella you would have to work 2 weeks to get some one in China to send you a pair of shoes. Sounds fair to me.

  • http://dlp121212.wordpress.com dlp121212

    The Federal Reserve has the primary tool(s) for controlling deflation/inflation with its ability to control monetary policy and interest rates. Washington also has the ability, although with less success, to control deflation/inflation by lowering/raising taxes and increasing/cutting spending. Another, hopefully never implemented, tool is the Whitehouse’s ability to implement price controls which would only lead to shortages.

    Some will argue for a Keynesian answer to deflationary/inflationary pressures stating the Central Bank/Federal Reserve has little control in affecting deflation/inflation, since the money supply “adapts to the demand for bank credit issued by commercial banks”. This notion that the Central Bank/Federal Reserve doesn’t control the money supply is a false argument. However, I will say some Neo-Keynesians agree that the Feds monetary policy (adding/subtracting to/from the supply of money) is a major cause of deflation/inflation.

    A more accepted theory on influencing deflation/inflation, than the Keynesian theory, is the Monetary theory. This theory acknowledges that the most significant factor influencing deflation/inflation is the rate that the money supply injection increases or decreases except in rare and specific short-term circumstances. This of course is controlled by the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy.

    Inflationary pressures may be handled in all or some of the following ways, some of which are not good for the middle class or the working poor. The Federal Reserve may raise interest rates and slow the money supply injection. Congress may raise taxes and cut spending. The Whitehouse may push for Wage and/or Price Controls, which may lead to shortages.

    Let me finish by saying that some will prosper if we head into an inflationary period whereas most will not. Unintended consequences of monetizing the debt may lead to disastrous effects for the majority of people in this country. Furthermore, let us hope/pray that QE2 doesn’t lead to uncontrollable inflation.

    No matter what happens some will benefit while others will not.

  • Gary P

    Stephen Gandel you are a moron of the highest order, just like most democrats.

    Of course, if democrats actually HAD brains, they’d be Republicans anyway.

    You claim lower taxes means the government can’t pay it’s bills. That’s an out an out lie.

    It’s a proven fact that LOWER tax rates mean HIGHER receipts to the treasury.

    It was true when John F Kennedy lowered Taxes. It was true when Ronald Reagan lowered taxes, and it was true when George W Bush lowered taxes.

    When you lower taxes, you stimulate the economy. When you stimulate the economy, you create jobs. With those jobs you create TAXPAYERS.

    Look, you idiot democrats screw up the economy every time you are in charge.

    The GDP was growing at 3 percent or better, and unemployment was at 4.5 percent when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took Control of Congress in January of 2007.

    After 4 years of idiot democrats running Congress (and the economy) we are staring into the abyss of bankruptcy.

    This is worse when that loser Carter was President. It took most of Reagan’s two terms to get over THAT disaster. Lord knows what this will take.

    I know one thing, people need to learn to never elect idiot democrats and maybe, just maybe, America can survive.

    For a dishonest, corrupt bastard like you to blame anyone but your fellow idiot democrats for this mess is a travesty.

    You dishonest moron!

  • http://dlp121212.wordpress.com dlp121212

    While I would agree that there are segments of our economy that are and have been/are facing deflation (Real Estate), the staple products have been/are facing inflationary pressures. Sorry to dispel your premise but we are in a mixed deflationary/inflationary economy.

  • http://dlp121212.wordpress.com dlp121212

    “In the 16 months since Bernanke assured us that QE1 would not jeopardize price stability, oats prices are up 40%, concentrated orange juice up 45%, gold and rice up 50%, corn up 55%, coffee up 60%, copper up 70%, sugar up 90%, and cotton and silver up 100%!

    Read more: http://www.beaconequity.com/qe2-hyperinflation-starts-with-the-world-turning-on-the-us-2010-11-10/#ixzz152oeqZDZ

  • http://hostdude99.wordpress.com hostdude99

    I am sorry I have to write this but was this article assigned out to a third grade english class? Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that the focus of the Tea Party is getting the yawning deficit under control. Sure tax cuts are part of that equation but so are budget cuts. If all the Tea Party does is cut taxes, then yea, this makes sense. But that is hardly what the people who call themselves tea partiers (or Sarah Palin) is espousing. Its just that liberals seem to have a cognitive dissonance about cutting the size and breadth of the federal government.

    “The real threat of inflation comes from tax policy, namely lower taxes.” – if this type of analysis (in bold, really) is what goes with the editors at Time, I fully expect the company to join Newsweek in the $1 bin. Are you guys serious? Really? Really? Please crack open a history book and you might be surprised.

  • diecash1

    It’s a proven fact that LOWER tax rates mean HIGHER receipts to the treasury.

    When you lower taxes, you stimulate the economy. When you stimulate the economy, you create jobs. With those jobs you create TAXPAYERS.

    You might want to refrain from calling other people morons, especially when you argument is completely false.
    ..
    The Bush tax cuts did not lead to higher receipts for the treasury; revenues decreased.
    ..
    As to your second point, you can’t be serious. W’s administration had the worst record of job growth since the Great Depression. If the tax cuts were so miraculous, why the decrease in revenue and the pathetic job growth numbers?
    ..
    One thing many so-called repubs like you have in common: No respect for the facts. Try reading up a bit to increase your understanding.
    ..
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html
    ..
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

  • steve14530

    Since inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, it will occure when the banks start lending the vast quanties of money that the fed has printed. Only one cause, the fed and the government’s policy, not the tea party.

    Or have you repealed the quantity theory of money, one of the strongest theories in economics? P = MV/Q

  • steve14530

    Also, the price of a comodity can not cause inflation without an increase in the supply of money, because other wise an increase in the price of one good would cause a fall in the price of others, especially complementary goods.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    czuber360,

    The value of any commodity is based both on supply and demand. You claim that when supply goes up, value goes down. You are correct, all other things being equal.

    One thing that is not equal is population, which has risen, so the supply must rise enough to equal the increase in population.

    In addition you have forgotten two things:
    1. Demand
    2. Actual historical fact

    Demand is based on relative risk and relative reward. The demand for dollars is sufficient to prevent inflation, despite the increase in supply. That is why we don’t have inflation, despite massive increases in federal spending.

    The actual historical fact, which trumps all hypothesis, is that federal deficit spending simply has not correlated with inflation for 40 years. See: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/

    By the way, you are correct. The Treasury does not need to sell bonds. T-securities are a relic of gold standard days. Borrowing the money one can create in unlimited amounts makes no sense.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • wmhumphrey

    Actually, as quoted from the Financial Management Service — A Bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury (fms.treas.gov), “Treasury securities (i.e., public debt securities) comprise most of the Federal debt, with securities issued by other Federal agencies accounting for the rest. Tables in… the ‘Treasury Bulletin’ reflect the total.” Here in table FD-1, the total FEDERAL debt was $13,225,646,000 as of June 2010; however, if you go to the US Treasury’s webpage TreasuryDirect, you can view the current value.

  • ss794

    This is the biggest piece of propaganda garbage!! The Tea Party saw the signs of the coming inflation due to the government’s policies. Inflation doubled due to TARP, Stimulus, Health care, cash for clunkers, etc. and the $5,000,000,000,000 Congress spent under Pelosi’s control.

  • ss794

    Anyone knows if the FED PRINTS $600,000,000,000.00 that inflation would occur.

    see Weimar Republic

  • diecash1

    Inflation over the past 12 months climbed 1.1 percent, matching the rate in August. Core inflation on an annual basis, however, rose just 0.8 percent — the lowest 12-month increase since March 1961. The reading during each of the five prior months had been 0.9 percent, which was the lowest since January 1966. And, notably, even then below the Federal Reserve’s preferred range of 1-2 percent.

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation-rates/core-us-inflation-slowest-in-decades-september-2010-consumer-prices-rise-0-1/1000777/
    ..
    When will you people get your facts straight? Likely never as most of the tea party crowd is delusional and frothing with impotent rage. SS,DD.

  • ss794

    “QE2 will be followed by QE3 and QE4 as QE2 will fail to revive the real economy and prevent deflationary pressures.” – Nouriel Roubini, Global Economist

    In September Milk was up 10% and sugar up 9%. Food is on the rise.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506404575592313664715360.html?KEYWORDS=general+mills

    We are also being warned by other nations what can occur if the government continues to PRINT MONEY.
    China – http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE6A301Q20101104
    ‎”As long as the world exercises no restraint in issuing global currencies such as the dollar — and this is not easy — then the occurrence of another crisis is inevitable, as quite a few wise Westerners lament,” he said.

    Germany – http://www.cnbc.com/id/39968918

    Brazil – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/326a6d62-e83d-11df-8995-00144feab49a.html

    Asia and Europe – http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101105/D9J9UVMG0.html

    $600 billion – http://www.cnbc.com/id/39990450

    Inflation – http://www.cnbc.com/id/40007252

  • ss794
  • 94134gamesmith

    94134gamesmith: Math, Models, and Mystification(10/2010)

    A bag of Concrete mix consists ½ rock, 3/8 sand and 1/8 clay. If I have eight pound slap, I must have four pounds of rock. What if I have four pounds of clay? It is in ratio if the size of the slap is not questionable since material or credit is provided. Many housewives know if she makes four dollars out of her hundred in the next ten years only because Mr. Bernanke said so. She will put twenty-five in euro and yen respectively to see what if Mr. Bernanke do realize the ratio change do require more (less) on the supply on dollars. These housewives do not going to buy houses that is going to be devalued, nor do they live in US.
    How big is the slap if I have more of clay and sand, and Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Krugman should be either the white Knight or black knight to carry the water to make the bigger slap. If the dollar should be the proportional on the rock, how much can I make the change if the slap of concrete is proportional right?
    8 billion in yen and 14 billion more on euro. How much dollars you are suppose to rise or fall? Are we short on order now? it is devalued by proportion.
    Study more white knight and Black knight, and don’t count on the budget or productivity.
    May the Buddha bless you?

    Gamesmith94134: Will Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Cause Hyperinflation? Part II
    However, the Fed may use the common denominator to cut the proportional adjustment to the dollar; that in using 6 billion yen, 18billion euro and 24 billion dollars to calculate the prices on the currencies. As 2 billion yen with credit to yen, it rises to 85 from 80, 18 billion euro depresses from 1.32 to 1.2 and dollar is short on 24 billion dollar plus 2 billion yen if it is credited to at the account, so, it is 10% lower than before such transaction.
    The complaint from the renminbi is the rate is set by the China Bank of China; that 6.68 to a dollar is officially done and exchange of currencies from China is not the proportional to the exchange, United States Congressional budget committee thought of the trade in balance that all transactions must yield to zero; then, renminbi is twenty percent undervalued and the currency exchange through the current exchange rate is irreverent.
    Now, the QEII pushed forward 600 billion within a year, Fed would expected all nations would respect the international currency, dollar as the sole monetary reserve to the world. Each must pay a price to assist the elimination of deficit and resign itself from the consumer (debtor) of the world production. Or, each must assume each worker of the world must make $34 dollars an hour after inflation and worker compensation rises to match to Americans; perhaps, America is arguing with China the allowance of 3% inflation is not sufficient to promote the Chinese household average earning would reach $27,000 annually.
    G-20 spliced with opinions on their options that like all nations cannot apply the equal status. God bless America. I may not have the right model on the exchange rates on the currencies; but why not each American tries to live on $3,300 dollar to survive in United States.

    Eventually, I hope many will convince nations are not all comparable element, that microeconomics must be in charge prior the G-20 meets again. In my 30 years with OPEC, I see no one buy oil with money without the consensus of nations; why not use value on oil in sorting the rates to currencies by setting the sovereignties and currencies by zoning that all trades must be releverent to the producer and owner?Why am I forced to wear your shoe and you wear yours?

    I am sorry if I would mislead you on explaining of the problems since I am not an economist; but as a citizen of the world, we must have an opened mind.
    Perhaps, the Fed and Congress with all its’ excellent economist, they are all good with numbers and model; but they should observe more on the physical. Nature of thing is the forever truth even under the manipulation; one goes up, it must come down. Dollar vs yen, or dollar vs yuan, manipulation only provide a substitute within either value or price. It is very physical and they do not disappear; they just bounce up and down. So, many should stop calculate and look into the interchange on the price and the value on the currencies. It is observation and not calculus. It is the social and global behavior that does not show on screen from the computer.
    May the Buddha bless you?

  • economicsfordemocrats

    If lower you the tax rates to zero, the gov’t will have limited or no receipts, NOT more!

    The income tax rate in 1929 was 24% on only 1% of the earners. We had the greatest downturn of all time!

    Minor adjustments to tax rates is the not answer!

    The current monetary system can not delivery a quality economy it needs to be scrapped.

    Monetary reform is the answer!

    Mark S. Pash, CFP
    Center for Progressive Economics

  • rjurkowski

    As I ask two other Tea Partiers above:

    Can you tell me what exactly what you are going to cut (and how much each cut equals in dollars) to significantly reduce the size of the government? No Tea Partier has been willing or able to do so yet.

    Anyone can bluster about how they’re going to “cut the size of the government” and “reduce government interference,”but what EXACTLY are you going to do? Which entitlement program are you going to cut/reduce and by how much? Eliminating the National Endowment for Arts will save you a whopping $175 million. Where are you going to get the other $400 billion that will need to be cut to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the size of the government. Please be specific with what is going to be cut and how much that will save.

    It’s time for you to walk the talk.

  • http://gciam.wordpress.com gciam

    If this isn’t a typical case of a liberal professor needing a publication to hopefully fool the administration into promoting him, I’ve never seen one. Keep giving out the “A” grades and shut up, cause you have no idea of what the world is outside your campus.

  • Zack F

    This article is a complete farce. Tea Party cause inflation? Correlation does not equal causality.

    Inflation is defined as the expansion of the monetary supply, and it’s being caused by a reckless Federal Reserve and a spendthrift government. Both need to be reined in.

    Jobs in Asia – http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/

  • wmhumphrey

    If there’s no relationship between spending and inflation, why has the CPI skyrocked since the end of the silver standard? Is it because spending without limits (i.e., financial backing) is inflationary?

    As I’ve mentioned above, in ’33 the gold standard was replaced by the silver with marginal affect on the CPI (from ’13 to ’33, the CPI went from 9 to 13 (up 144%). During the silver standard (’33 to ’68), it went from 13 to 34 (up 261%). In total, the CPI’s gone from 9 to 34 over those 55 years.

    However, since ’68 (only 42 years), the CPI’s gone from 34 to 218 (641%). Now, what’s the definition of inflation?

    You need to find another dictionary.

  • Stephen Gandel

    Here’s a back and forth I had with a reader. Wanted it to join the discussion. Unfortunately you have to read from the bottom. Thanks for all the comments.

    Sorry. I guess we agree on more than both of us thought. Totally agree with you that a massive government stimulus plan won’t cause inflation and is probably exactly what we need to get this economy back on track. But I would check your facts about the Reagan tax cuts. I am pretty sure they caused massive deficits at least by the standards of the time. Anyway, thanks for reading my articles. Always enjoy the feedback. I am going to put this on the blog in the comments section. That’s where I like to keep discussions of the posts. In the future, that’s the best place to comment. Thanks again.

    On 11/15/10 8:11 PM, “emil kaneti” wrote:

    In and of itself massive stimulus doesnt cause the dollar to plunge. Monetizing the debt does. You need to read some Austrian Economics.

    Historically, expansive fiscal policy causes the dollar to appreciate, not collapse. Your contention that tax cuts will cause such large deficits, investors will flee bonds and cause the dollar to collapse is absurd and similar to arguments made in 1981 regarding Reagan’s tax rate cuts. Expansive fiscal policy, with no Fed accommodation, causes real interest rates to rise and the currency to appreciate. Go look at your old IS/LM models since youre no doubt a Keynesian. Tax cuts cause rising incomes and capital inflows that exceed the increase in current account deficit. Reagan’s 1981 tax cut and Clinton 1997 tax cut were followed by rapid USD appreciation. The 2001 tax cuts were followed by dollar depreciation because the Fed accommodated expansive fiscal policy.

    You sound like you might be one of those who thinks a weak USD increases exports and reduces imports. Kind of like Bush and Obama do.

    Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Fiscal policy doesnt increase money, but govt tax and spend policy can impact the number of goods in society. Bad tax policy could cause temporary inflation if tax policy deincentivized production. Sustained inflation is only caused by the Fed however.

    The Fed wont cause a civil war, but Ill read it anyways.

    EK


    Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:49:35 -0500
    Subject: Re: Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and Inflation
    To: emilkaneti@hotmail.com

    Message body First of all have you read all my posts, or just the most recent one. Probably want to do a little more reading before calling me an idiot. I think you will like my post on Why the Fed Might Cause a Civil War. Just google it. Also, here’s Rush holding up a copy of one of my articles: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071409/content/01125109.guest.html.

    Second, answer a question for me. Will the Democrats massive stimulus spending cause the dollar to plunge?

    On 11/15/10 7:41 PM, “emil kaneti” <emilkaneti@hotmail.com > wrote:

    You sir are a blithering moron. Inflation is not caused by fiscal policy. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. I would request you stop embarrassing the field of economics and return your BA in Econ to Wash U immediately.

    The Fed will either cause runway inflation that makes 1979-80, look tame by comparison, or the Fed will panic and withdraw excess liquidity from the banking system too quickly and cause a deflationary depression. For the Fed’s reckless monetary policy to work, the exact amount of liquidity must be removed at the right moment. Anything else will result in economic disaster.

    No inflation??? Try looking at commodity prices today versus two years ago. There is already a huge amount of inflation and the CPI is an outright lie and has been for ten years.

    BTW youre the next Newsweek.

    EK

  • Stephen Gandel

    More from EK. Good to get some nice feed back on the article. Thanks again for your comments. Again you have to read from the bottom. Will try to post again on this soon. Lots of people seem interested. Here’s the back and forth:

    Please don’t take this sarcastically. I really mean this to be genuine. Your last sentence really makes my day. One of the nicest things anyone has ever said about my work. Thanks very much. I try to be reporter first and a commentator second. I think a lot of “journalists” get that mixed up. Trying to make this blog much more about the interesting ideas out there and not just my ideas. I’m glad that comes out. Will put this up on the blog. Thanks again. And thanks for reading Curious Capitalist. You can respond to this post on the blog is you like.

    n 11/15/10 8:58 PM, “emil kaneti” wrote:

    The stimulus isnt at all what we need at all. Clearly it has failed and nations like Germany and Canada that either didnt have a stimulus or had a much smaller one have recovered more quickly than has the USA. Both the stimulus and TARP have resulted in a massive misallocation of capital in the economy. TARP is deemed successful in the short term. But what it has done is prop up zombie corporations. Long term TARP will reduce economic growth. The stimulus hasnt worked because the spending multiplier is likely less than one. Also if anyone on Obama’s team had read Robert Barro’s 1974 article “Are Govt Bonds Net Wealth”, they would have known that govt spending wouldnt improve the economy. The economy got out of a technical recession In June 2009 due to inventory restocking.

    For a more radical piece read Robert Solow’s theory that neither fiscal nor monetary policy can create economic growth. All economic growth is the result of technological change. AS far as tax policy impacts savings, growth will be higher.

    I didnt say the Reagan tax cuts (He also increased defense spending) didnt cause deficits, what I said is they didnt cause inflation.

    I find it hard to believe you went to Wash U and have a BA in Econ. You arent writing like an economist, even a Keynesian one. You write like a journalist.

    EK

  • lokhupbafa

    I don’t feel like most the commentators read the article.
    It doesn’t state that Tea Party proposed policies will cause inflation — it notes that even if nothing happens, the market will probably still lead to inflation now, because the Tea Party polices make the market insecure.

    The market is not made up of liberals of any kind – it is not necessarily rational either, we’ve seen Wall Street hold tantrums when it doesn’t get the policies it wants…

    And Wall Street doesn’t like the Tea Party talking points. This is not a liberal vs Tea Party thing – but a Conservative fiscal policy folks vs the Religious populous movement called the tea party made up of a scared mass.

    And frankly I don’t like Wall Street, or the Tea Party — but other than the economy , the mysterious supper powerful – them known as liberals – even through you don’t know any “liberals” are not a part of this conversation.

    And the Democrats are not Liberal — hell Nixon and Reagen’s policies were more “liberal” then the Democrats in power now.

  • waltwriston

    The world is starting to hyperinflate!

blog comments powered by Disqus