inflation returns under Bernanke
From the editorialists at the WSJ...
On Wednesday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the Fed will do whatever it takes to stop the credit squeeze from becoming a recession. That's about as close as a central banker will get to saying that he's thrown price stability to the wind. If inflation rises -- as it now surely will -- then the Fed will worry about that later, after the economy is safely past the credit crunch....
Not good...
Call it the Bernanke reflation, though it's more precise to call it the Fed's second inflation gamble of the decade. The first was Alan Greenspan's roll of the dice from 2003-2005, keeping interest rates too low for far too long in the aftermath of the dot-com bust. That spurred the first boom in commodity prices, as well as the subsidy for debt that led to the housing bubble and the credit mania whose collapse we are now dealing with. Mr. Bernanke was a Fed Governor during much of that time, and he seems to have learned his lessons all too well. He's now going all-in for round two.
An interesting analysis of his thinking...
Naturally, the Fed and its most vocal constituencies -- Wall Street and politicians -- see nothing much to worry about. Wall Street sees a reflation as a way to ease its credit problems, as price increases ease debt burdens and perhaps reflate housing values. Congress and the White House see a way to perhaps avoid a near-term recession, which might get them past the election.
An age-old problem: borrowers want easier money all the time and politicians want easier money before elections.
As for the Fed, its Governors are dusting off their favorite intellectual justifications. We are told that inflation isn't as bad as it seems because "core inflation" -- which excludes food and energy prices -- isn't rising as fast as the consumer price index. However, food and energy are what most Americans are having to spend ever more of their paycheck to buy...
Yes and no. They contribute to inflation but if their impact on prices is temporary rather than structural, then making such a distinction is valid.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home