Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Studzinski in this month's commentary sounds unusually out of touch about these matters, imo
He does not read Krugman and all his economic peers about an economy simply growing out of its gov debt, without need ever to 'pay it back'.
And the caps here appear to mean 'you must take this on faith and my sayso':
Given that the amounts of goods and services in the economy did not change much in 2020, and if you had cash sitting in a CD or money market fund, that cash also did not change much, YOU HAVE ROUGHLY 20% LESS PURCHASING POWER TODAY THAN YOU DID A YEAR AGO.
I really wonder what is up with so smart an investment adviser.
The truth is, I'd rather fiscal stimulus than monetary stimulus any day of the week, and targeted fiscal stimulus to the areas of the economy and society that need it is superior to just cutting checks for everyone. Monetary stimulus is the bluntest of instruments and seems to help the rich most of all by driving up financial asset prices. Trickle-y down economics is nonsense, the result of a drunken Laffer's cocktail napkin theories discredited now for decades. In other words, a Green New Deal, food stamps, pandemic response and a transportation/communications infrastructure bill seem far more valuable than the Fed buying junk bond ETFs. But Davidrmoran and Krugman are right that the sudden concerns about the deficit, after billions of tax cuts and Fed stimulus by a previously approving GOP are pure political hokum. The GOP doesn't mind spending government money. They just want it spent on their wealthy constituency. Whether monetary plus fiscal results in inflation or not is debatable, and should be debated, but the concerns from newfound GOP austerity mongers have little to do with inflation, and everything to do with ginning up political support.
(Krug NYT on WWII debt) '... [we] just issued new debt as the old debt came due. But because of inflation and growth, debt as a share of GDP declined steadily, so that by the '60s the war debt was negligible in economic terms ...."
Comments
He does not read Krugman and all his economic peers about an economy simply growing out of its gov debt, without need ever to 'pay it back'.
And the caps here appear to mean 'you must take this on faith and my sayso':
Given that the amounts of goods and services in the economy did not change much in 2020, and if you had cash sitting in a CD or money market fund, that cash also did not change much, YOU HAVE ROUGHLY 20% LESS PURCHASING POWER TODAY THAN YOU DID A YEAR AGO.
I really wonder what is up with so smart an investment adviser.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/opinion/biden-republicans-debt.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/biden-economy.html
maybe we should not spend and should cut services instead, seriously so
why does someone as gifted as you claim to be present as unserious so often?
disaster relief --- stimulus is so misleading --- in a disaster is one such
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-paul-krugman.html?showTranscript=1
https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/140615321_10159082209972790_8672449891716880736_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=p9XADj1f6-gAX9SLXnP&_nc_ht=scontent-bos3-1.xx&oh=cde4faab96726c4cd3124e043970dcf4&oe=604420C8
(Krug NYT on WWII debt)
'... [we] just issued new debt as the old debt came due. But because of inflation and growth, debt as a share of GDP declined steadily, so that by the '60s the war debt was negligible in economic terms ...."
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/stagflation-revisited