I hope the Fed follows suit.The globe could use some boom years. BTW, Milton Friedman, Alan Meltzer, John Taylor and Ben Bernanke have all told the BoJ to print more money, and lots of it. Monetary bullishness is needed by the times.
Went long CAD vs JPY just before this move. Doesn't this beget the question, interventions of all kinds are simply folly. The Fed targeting inflation and providing forecasts will also prove folly.It is the intervention that is the problem, not simply the wrong kinds of intervention.We need to move back to a metals standard with private global instituions capable of coining money. The Federal Reserve is anti-constitutional.It is too easy to predict the demise of the global money printing regimes. Question is really about when and how to protect yourself.http://mises.org/daily/5890/Bailing-Out-Banks-Is-Inflationary
And it looks like with all the global money printing, we will get to test the theory about oil prices and economic tipping points in the not so distant future.
Public--Except the USA might be shrinking its money supply.See research by an outfit named Divisia. And the ECB has been obsessed with inflation until very recently. Only China and India are growing robustly and they are in fact expanding their money supplies.
I have just finished reading James Rickards excellent book, "Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis". These actions by Japan and the description of them by Scott seem to echo some of the predicted possibilities by Mr. Rickards for the beginnings of the "Next Global Crisis".If that is true and my understanding of Mr. Rickards predictions are accurate, it's hard for me to understand Scott's somewhat rosy tone regarding this news. Just the fact that such dramatic action by the BoJ seemed necessary to them argues to me that it is anything but good news.Which makes me wonder if I'm interpreting wrongly.I'd be interested to know what Scott thinks of Mr. Rickards work and how it relates to this news.
OT, but fun to think about.Usually, we hear that inflation, or rather an increase in the rate of inflation, represents a shift in income and wealth from creditors to borrowers. Some people regard this as bad, although businesses and real estate developers are borrowers, as are (usually) homeowners.The evil word "redistribution" is often used to describe the effects of inflation. However, we use federal income taxes to pay off the national debt (payroll taxes finance the entitlement programs).As has been endlessly repeated in right-wing blogs, rich people pay income taxes.Ergo, an increase in the rate of inflation (and subsequent deleveraging) means the national debt is smaller, and less of a burden on the wealthy. Indeed, monetizing the national debt through QE lifts the debt right off the shoulders of the wealthy, allowing them to spend on productive investments (or even larger mansions).
Inflating away the burden of debt is an extremely regressive form of taxation. It transfers wealth directly from the less affluent to the government. I regard that as sinful.
Read Full Article »