Is there any world where you can print that much money and not devalue a currency?
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/kdpc24/35_o...
Yes, currency in circulation increased, which is exactly what you expect when deposit rates are basically zero.
Now please explain why withdrawing some money from your bank account, which converts a deposit account into currency and causes "printing" of money (this is the only thing that can cause printing of money) is going to cause inflation? Seriously, I'd like to know. By this argument, if the US imposed a national teller fee that discouraged cash withdrawals, inflation should plummet, no? Why do central banks bother with interest rates when they have such a powerful inflation fighting mechanism at their disposal?
At some point people need to understand that different assets are fungible. There is no difference between cash in your pocket, a money market mutual fund, a deposit account, or a sweeps account. Shifts in these from one to another may cause swings in M1, and they are the only possible cause of "printing" USD, but they don't cause any inflation.
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is the Fed’s operational arm, guiding monetary policy. It engages in expansive monetary policy when the Fed expands credit. It increases the money supply available to borrow, spend, or invest. Expanding credit helps to end recession
Edit: Sorry please ignore me. I didn't know enough to understand the comment I was replying to.
You can look at the M1 supply in isolation because most money doesn’t exist in M1 because it doesn’t earn any interest. If you look at the M2 money supply, which is a superset including M1 cash, then you see there has been very little change.
The reasonable conclusion then is the people have been withdrawing money from banks into cash, and liquidating other assets. So the total amount of money hasn’t increased, it’s just the amount of physical dollar bills that has increased, as digital money becomes physical.
So GP has a good reason to be annoyed. OP has cast as interest, but otherwise inconsequential (from the perspective of inflation) fact as being the sole explanation of changes in inflation.
Isn't this just splitting hairs?
The amount of money actually circulating has increased then. Money that was previously just sitting in the bank, not circulating in the economy now is. Doesn't that have an impact on inflation? It might not be the sole explanation, but given the jump from 6.75 trillion to 18.4 trillion from Jan 2021 to Feb 2021 in the M1 money supply, it would seem odd if there wasn't any.
And the salient point of GP was that this isn't even being discussed.
M2 is a much better gauge of inflation than the CPI (unless you're poor).
At 7% inflation, holding USD means your value will decrease by nearly half every 10 years.
The Fed does not just add credits. It buys Treasuries on the open market in exchange for reserves. It is a balance sheet portfolio shift that leaves the assets of the private sector unchanged.
Now the question is, why would this operation "help extend credit". Banks would rather have the treasuries.
Indeed the only thing that affects private credit expansion is interest rates. Lower interest rates is what encourages private credit expansion and higher rates inhibit it. That is all that matters -- not monetary aggregates, but interest rates.
So why does the Fed do open market operations in which reserves are exchanged for treasuries? Three reasons, but they boil down to basic plumbing to keep the financial sector going. It's like adding oil to your car:
1. To satisfy financial sector demand for reserves, as we have an antiquated system in which banks need to lend reserves to each other as opposed to a more modern zero-reserve system (corridor). Many factors determine the financial sector demand for reserves, but whatever that demand happens to be, the Fed must meet it or there will be a liquidity crisis and banks will go bust. Thus there isn't much choice, if banks need a hundred million more of reserves, then that's what the Fed gives them. OTOH, if the Fed gives them too many reserves, then as banks will want to lend excess reserves in the overnight market, the overnight interest rate will fall to zero, as banks in aggregate are as unable to rid themselves of excess reserves. It's like a game of hot potato, if in aggregate the financial system needs 1 billion in reserves, but the Fed adds 1.1 billion, there will always be a bank with an extra hundred million. Wanting to earn interest on that hundred million, it will loan it to another bank, which will loan it to another bank, etc until the overnight rate is 0%. So even a little excess of reserves and the rate falls to zero. Even a little insufficiency of reserves and some bank can't make its payments. Clearly this is a fragile system. This unnecessary complexity is why our system is antiquated and other central banks moved to a corridor system that requires no reserves at all. Reserves are just the oil that greases the engine and prevents it from seizing, they are not the gasoline that causes it to run faster. The gasoline is the interest rate.
2. To satisfy private sector demand for paper money. When individuals withdraw paper money, the banks need to purchase that paper money with reserves, which means that reserves need to be added. When individuals deposit money in a bank, those bills are shredded and converted into reserves. Thus banks swap reserves for currency in response to private sector currency demand. As that process of adding/subtracting reserves requires buying/selling treasures, it is also a swap of treasuries for cash. Once again, we see why the reserves are unnecessary intermediate steps and why other nations moved to corridor systems to get rid of these inter-bank overnight lending markets.
3. In the last round of QE, the Fed purchased a lot of reserves in an attempt to drive down long dated yields as overnight yields were already at zero. Thus banks now find themselves with excess reserves. We have seen in 1 that this means the overnight rate was zero, but now the Fed wants to raise the rate without unwinding all these positions. Thus to support a positive interest rate, we now pay interest on reserves, converting reserves into an effective treasury bill. As the reserves pay a positive interest, banks will not try to get rid of them for zero interest and so the overnight rate will be positive even if there are excess reserves. That truly makes the operation of swapping bills for reserves a NULL OP because now you are swapping two interest bearing assets for each other.
None of this promotes or inhibits bank lending, it is just technical stuff to keep the plumbing working correctly in the inter-bank market. That's all reserves do. They are not a harbinger of hyperinflation. They are motor oil for our antiquated financial system. Economists did think that driving down long term yields via 3 would encourage lending, even though the amount that yields changed was miniscule and subject to a lot of debate, as longer term interest rates are the expected time path of short term rates, which are determined from the overnight rate, so you never know whether a long term rate falling is due to technical factors or to changes in the expected future overnight rates. Thus the ability of QE to drive down long term rates remains subject to interpretive ambiguities.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CURRCIR
USD is only printed when banks purchase cash from the Bureau of Engraving in order to meet expected outflows. That cash is purchased with reserves, which are obtained by selling some other asset or going short reserves. The point being, it is demand determined. If people want to hold more cash, they sell one form of cash-equivalent for another which forces the financial sector to adjust the asset side of their balance sheet as well. This cannot affect inflation.
In terms of the growth of M1, there are two sources for this growth:
1. reclassification occuring in May 2020, when some MMF were added to the definition of M1.
2. increase in preference for cash holding.
Neither can be inflationary.
Increases in money velocity by definition increases inflation risk, this with increased preference to cash and localized liquidity as opposed to financial flows shows a potential increase in consumption and therefore money velocity
This alongside Phillips curve suggests an increase in inflationary forces
OK, but that is just a tautology. What makes you think that caring less about cash versus deposit accounts in a zero rate world is the same thing as, or leads to, increases in money velocity? The last I checked, it is just as easy for me to spend money (and in fact, a bit easier) with one form of cash-equivalent as another, so why would transferring my balance out of a money market fund and into cash affect inflation at all?
> This alongside Phillips curve suggests an increase in inflationary forces
The phillips curve is notoriously unreliable. If you want to argue that deficit spending which pays people to not work will create a supply shortfall and thus increasing prices, I can get that. But that has nothing to do with these types of portfolio shifts.
yes, it is false. The funding for these packages are done via lending - the US gov't borrows using treasury bonds, which is sold to whoever that wants to buy it (via banks as intermediaries).
Why do you go directly from OP's comment to this question?
The market perception of downstream inflation arising from USD 'printing' is arguably the origin of price inflation.
We've seen asset inflation (from real estate to crypto to commodities), now we're seeing price inflation follow.
>Shifts in these from one to another may cause swings in M1, and they are the only possible cause of "printing" USD, but they don't cause any inflation.
The US wasn't pulling from equity to print these funds, it was diluting the existing. This isn't a transfer from one asset to another.
The effect of automobile availability due to the chip supply disruption has been well-covered on HN and elsewhere and is a pretty obvious guide post here.
But you are right, 35% devaluations are large enough that it would be quite difficult to pull off without causing inflation. Especially when simultaneously the economy partially shuts down.
I mean, if you want to argue that the quantity of money goes up by 35% and the value is down just a little bit then it is unlikely you're going to convince me. It strains credulity. A lot of new dollars are being created.
* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GOLDAMGBD228NLBM
It was on a downward trend from 2012-2014, and was mostly flat 2014-2018.
US Dollar Index chart: https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/.DXY
* https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...
US admins announced massive investment plans. There will be new goods available so you’ll need more monetary symbols in the market to stabilise prices. In theory.