Pages:
Author

Topic: Could take 5-8 years to shrink Fed portfolio: Yellen - page 5. (Read 10145 times)

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
Just so no question of graph bias for ending where it did, 2009-2014 adj. CPI-U still avg 2.08% annually. Over ten years, would be ~23% inflation, which is pretty reasonable looking at the past. I'm sure I'm not understanding how inflation works after seeing lack of effect on CPI from QE. I always figured CPI was tied to M2 and that CPI growth lagged a bit behind M2, but doesn't seem to be the case or we're on the verge of hyperinflation, but I'm not sure how long I can buy "we're on the verge of hyperinflation" without seeing it.

At the grocery store, beef & pork's prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't really translate elsewhere from my unscientific observations. Looks in line with BLS CPI-U numbers. Milk, grain, and soy products are all still reasonably priced. Chicken a bit high, but reasonable. Rice and potatoes still about as cheap as topsoil. Fruits haven't exploded in price, but are somewhat expensive-seeming. Packaged foods and restaurants have become terribly expensive, but "real food" hasn't exploded in price even though rented acreage out for farming here at near-record prices. High prices for pre-made food maybe a result of skyrocketing minimum wages throughout the states, where farms don't necessarily need to pay it.
(Bold) That's not the case. According to monetary equation M*V=P*Q, the price level P is one of four variables, so it doesn't make any sense to imply it correlates only with money quantity M.
On the left side of the equation there's a very volatile variable called money velocity (V), that also greatly influences price level.
I'm not calling this equation as the only true, but even this one doesn't let you equate monetary inflation with price inflation.
Thanks. Does increasing M create a kind of "potential energy effect" when V is low? M2V was much higher before '08 recession and is at lowest point in recorded history (well, by FRED, going to 1960).

Otherwise phrased, if M increases dramatically while V is low, isn't "realized inflation" (or P*Q) severely understated and demanding a harsh, "multiplied" correction when V picks up to pre-'08 levels?
Is my question really stupid? I've asked it a couple places, now, without satisfying response (which usually means my question's stupid). It's really bothering me. Money supply is soaring at historical rates, but we shouldn't expect hyperinflation because money velocity is at a historical low - but isn't it reasonable to assume velocity will pick up when/if the US economy picks back up and consumer confidence increases?

Was also wondering what the implications of another HELOC/mortgage crisis within the next two years would bring. US banks are beefing up their reserves across the board in preparation. When a large portion of those reserves are wiped by forgiving debt, what is the inflationary impact of that, if any? Does it effectively become a deflationary force since money which the end-user doesn't have is basically erased, but which only existed from QE/TARP/etc and was ultra-low-velocity "money"? It's almost like a correction for systemic bad lending practices, isn't it? Nobody really wins or loses since banks were only artificially being allowed to limp on with ultra-low interest rates and intentionally bad Fed purchases, anyway. Those presumptions and assumptions off-base?
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250


During the 70's and the oil crisis the Fed did a very poor job handling inflation.

Not after Volcker took over
Once inflation was lowered to ~4% annually, I would argue that it was under control and remained under control up until the financial crisis when it became too low.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500


During the 70's and the oil crisis the Fed did a very poor job handling inflation.

Not after Volcker took over
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
Just so no question of graph bias for ending where it did, 2009-2014 adj. CPI-U still avg 2.08% annually. Over ten years, would be ~23% inflation, which is pretty reasonable looking at the past. I'm sure I'm not understanding how inflation works after seeing lack of effect on CPI from QE. I always figured CPI was tied to M2 and that CPI growth lagged a bit behind M2, but doesn't seem to be the case or we're on the verge of hyperinflation, but I'm not sure how long I can buy "we're on the verge of hyperinflation" without seeing it.

At the grocery store, beef & pork's prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't really translate elsewhere from my unscientific observations. Looks in line with BLS CPI-U numbers. Milk, grain, and soy products are all still reasonably priced. Chicken a bit high, but reasonable. Rice and potatoes still about as cheap as topsoil. Fruits haven't exploded in price, but are somewhat expensive-seeming. Packaged foods and restaurants have become terribly expensive, but "real food" hasn't exploded in price even though rented acreage out for farming here at near-record prices. High prices for pre-made food maybe a result of skyrocketing minimum wages throughout the states, where farms don't necessarily need to pay it.
(Bold) That's not the case. According to monetary equation M*V=P*Q, the price level P is one of four variables, so it doesn't make any sense to imply it correlates only with money quantity M.
On the left side of the equation there's a very volatile variable called money velocity (V), that also greatly influences price level.
I'm not calling this equation as the only true, but even this one doesn't let you equate monetary inflation with price inflation.
Thanks. Does increasing M create a kind of "potential energy effect" when V is low? M2V was much higher before '08 recession and is at lowest point in recorded history (well, by FRED, going to 1960).

Otherwise phrased, if M increases dramatically while V is low, isn't "realized inflation" (or P*Q) severely understated and demanding a harsh, "multiplied" correction when V picks up to pre-'08 levels?
sr. member
Activity: 644
Merit: 260
the fed has done a pretty good job of minimizing inflation with interest rates over the past several decades. 

Do you really believe the graph and what you just said?
I would argue that 4% inflation (the ~rate after the 70's) is a good target to try for in reference to inflation.

During the 70's and the oil crisis the Fed did a very poor job handling inflation.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
Just so no question of graph bias for ending where it did, 2009-2014 adj. CPI-U still avg 2.08% annually. Over ten years, would be ~23% inflation, which is pretty reasonable looking at the past. I'm sure I'm not understanding how inflation works after seeing lack of effect on CPI from QE. I always figured CPI was tied to M2 and that CPI growth lagged a bit behind M2, but doesn't seem to be the case or we're on the verge of hyperinflation, but I'm not sure how long I can buy "we're on the verge of hyperinflation" without seeing it.

At the grocery store, beef & pork's prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't really translate elsewhere from my unscientific observations. Looks in line with BLS CPI-U numbers. Milk, grain, and soy products are all still reasonably priced. Chicken a bit high, but reasonable. Rice and potatoes still about as cheap as topsoil. Fruits haven't exploded in price, but are somewhat expensive-seeming. Packaged foods and restaurants have become terribly expensive, but "real food" hasn't exploded in price even though rented acreage out for farming here at near-record prices. High prices for pre-made food maybe a result of skyrocketing minimum wages throughout the states, where farms don't necessarily need to pay it.
(Bold) That's not the case. According to monetary equation M*V=P*Q, the price level P is one of four variables, so it doesn't make any sense to imply it correlates only with money quantity M.
On the left side of the equation there's a very volatile variable called money velocity (V), that also greatly influences price level.
I'm not calling this equation as the only true, but even this one doesn't let you equate monetary inflation with price inflation.
full member
Activity: 153
Merit: 100
the fed has done a pretty good job of minimizing inflation with interest rates over the past several decades. 

Do you really believe the graph and what you just said?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low

In theory, but not in practice. For the last 25 years, interest rates have been kept low to benefit the wealthy, and the result has been inflation that has destroyed the wealth of the poor and middle class.

What inflation??


the fed has done a pretty good job of minimizing inflation with interest rates over the past several decades. 
sr. member
Activity: 644
Merit: 260
I read a few years ago now that on average all the trillions of USA debt rolling over in bonds has a weighted average span of about 4 years.   One of the lowest terms in the world, UK for example comes to 13 years to refinance the debt.  That is a result of the UK being bailed out by the IMF in the 1970's and policy since

Further more, this is a deliberate policy in play since Clinton.  Obviously we know base rates are low, so by keeping the debt terms low it actually causes the debt cost to be as small as possible.  Clever but also more dangerous as it can become a bad juggle

I cant find a wiki for debt term reduction policy, its out there somewhere but this is an impressive chart.  Think of all the debt added in recent years and yet theres no more interest payable -


This policy is to make it so that other social programs can appear to be cheaper then they really are. There have been several budget agreements that used "interest savings" or "lower interest costs" as a way to cut spending.
STT
legendary
Activity: 4004
Merit: 1428
Catalog Websites
I read a few years ago now that on average all the trillions of USA debt rolling over in bonds has a weighted average span of about 4 years.   One of the lowest terms in the world, UK for example comes to 13 years to refinance the debt.  That is a result of the UK being bailed out by the IMF in the 1970's and policy since

Further more, this is a deliberate policy in play since Clinton.  Obviously we know base rates are low, so by keeping the debt terms low it actually causes the debt cost to be as small as possible.  Clever but also more dangerous as it can become a bad juggle

I cant find a wiki for debt term reduction policy, its out there somewhere but this is an impressive chart.  Think of all the debt added in recent years and yet theres no more interest payable -

sr. member
Activity: 644
Merit: 260
They do need reserves or need to lie about it like Lehmans did.
They do need reserves at the Fed but that's not important as they can always obtain them.
What they need more is capital, and the capital requirement is far more important to lending.
The Fed does not need capital or reserves because they can simply "print" additional money to satisfy any capital needs  or when member banks withdraw money from the fed
I was talking about commercial banks reserves which they are obliged to have at Fed.

Commercial banks reserve can be "raised" by having the Fed buying up all the useless securities from them.
Yep, the Fed doesn't even have to buy anything from them. There's a mechanism that has been used for ages - repo operations. It's a part of normal central bank functioning.
Repo operations have a much shorter term effect then outright buying bonds/assets. Repos usually last a day (or other short periods of time) while bonds that the Fed is buying mature on average in 5 years
STT
legendary
Activity: 4004
Merit: 1428
Catalog Websites
I think you will find standard of living rose mostly from widely available technology and mass production.  Its arguable with so many imports this is reliance on efficiency outside USA but some will say loose monetary policy and endless gov spending is what enabled growth 'you didnt build that' et al
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn't_build_that

Quote
What inflation??
Ties into the same thing via hedonics.     Of course prices have risen over decades, we know thats obvious but the cpi is mitigated by saying well the product has improved therefore a 5% rise this year is in line with a better product.   Are cars now better then they were in the 1970's?  Sure, though I prefer old cars but Im not sure even nicer products nullify the price rises.
  Personally as Ive studied stats, I would prefer the raw figure and then let an audience and press interpret the ongoing effect themselves but we dont have that, most gov stats are adjusted for better digestion in some way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_regression
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low

In theory, but not in practice. For the last 25 years, interest rates have been kept low to benefit the wealthy, and the result has been inflation that has destroyed the wealth of the poor and middle class.
that is debatable

the standard of living of the middle class has risen significantly over the last 25 years. Even the pool can buy things today that could not even be purchased by the most wealthy 25 years ago.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low

In theory, but not in practice. For the last 25 years, interest rates have been kept low to benefit the wealthy, and the result has been inflation that has destroyed the wealth of the poor and middle class.

What inflation??


Just so no question of graph bias for ending where it did, 2009-2014 adj. CPI-U still avg 2.08% annually. Over ten years, would be ~23% inflation, which is pretty reasonable looking at the past. I'm sure I'm not understanding how inflation works after seeing lack of effect on CPI from QE. I always figured CPI was tied to M2 and that CPI growth lagged a bit behind M2, but doesn't seem to be the case or we're on the verge of hyperinflation, but I'm not sure how long I can buy "we're on the verge of hyperinflation" without seeing it.

At the grocery store, beef & pork's prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't really translate elsewhere from my unscientific observations. Looks in line with BLS CPI-U numbers. Milk, grain, and soy products are all still reasonably priced. Chicken a bit high, but reasonable. Rice and potatoes still about as cheap as topsoil. Fruits haven't exploded in price, but are somewhat expensive-seeming. Packaged foods and restaurants have become terribly expensive, but "real food" hasn't exploded in price even though rented acreage out for farming here at near-record prices. High prices for pre-made food maybe a result of skyrocketing minimum wages throughout the states, where farms don't necessarily need to pay it.
ffe
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low

In theory, but not in practice. For the last 25 years, interest rates have been kept low to benefit the wealthy, and the result has been inflation that has destroyed the wealth of the poor and middle class.

What inflation??

full member
Activity: 152
Merit: 100
interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low

In theory, but not in practice. For the last 25 years, interest rates have been kept low to benefit the wealthy, and the result has been inflation that has destroyed the wealth of the poor and middle class.

To manipulate interest rate to keep inflation low, you will need to raise the rate to market rate.


In practice, inflation is exported to export countries. While the inflation is reasonable low in the US, the inflation rate is extremely high in export countries in Asia/middle east.


In export countries, cost of a "small/average" home has doubled in 2-3 years. Food price also double compare to 2-3 years ago. And hence you aww a lot of internal/external conflict going on and a lot of political instability going on in Asia/middle eastern countries.



legendary
Activity: 4438
Merit: 3387
interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low

In theory, but not in practice. For the last 25 years, interest rates have been kept low to benefit the wealthy, and the result has been inflation that has destroyed the wealth of the poor and middle class.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
They do need reserves or need to lie about it like Lehmans did.
They do need reserves at the Fed but that's not important as they can always obtain them.
What they need more is capital, and the capital requirement is far more important to lending.
The Fed does not need capital or reserves because they can simply "print" additional money to satisfy any capital needs  or when member banks withdraw money from the fed
I was talking about commercial banks reserves which they are obliged to have at Fed.

Commercial banks reserve can be "raised" by having the Fed buying up all the useless securities from them.
Yep, the Fed doesn't even have to buy anything from them. There's a mechanism that has been used for ages - repo operations. It's a part of normal central bank functioning.

An average person do not know what tool bank have that allow them manipulate price and control interest rate. If they do, most banks won't exist today.

interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low
full member
Activity: 306
Merit: 102
They do need reserves or need to lie about it like Lehmans did.
They do need reserves at the Fed but that's not important as they can always obtain them.
What they need more is capital, and the capital requirement is far more important to lending.
The Fed does not need capital or reserves because they can simply "print" additional money to satisfy any capital needs  or when member banks withdraw money from the fed
I was talking about commercial banks reserves which they are obliged to have at Fed.

Commercial banks reserve can be "raised" by having the Fed buying up all the useless securities from them.
Yep, the Fed doesn't even have to buy anything from them. There's a mechanism that has been used for ages - repo operations. It's a part of normal central bank functioning.

An average person do not know what tool bank have that allow them manipulate price and control interest rate. If they do, most banks won't exist today.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
They do need reserves or need to lie about it like Lehmans did.
They do need reserves at the Fed but that's not important as they can always obtain them.
What they need more is capital, and the capital requirement is far more important to lending.
The Fed does not need capital or reserves because they can simply "print" additional money to satisfy any capital needs  or when member banks withdraw money from the fed
I was talking about commercial banks reserves which they are obliged to have at Fed.

Commercial banks reserve can be "raised" by having the Fed buying up all the useless securities from them.
Yep, the Fed doesn't even have to buy anything from them. There's a mechanism that has been used for ages - repo operations. It's a part of normal central bank functioning.
Pages:
Jump to: