10 Jan 2013

Scary Scott Sumner Statements

Inflation, Market Monetarism, Scott Sumner 8 Comments

At this point I think my analysis is superfluous. I just need to quote this guy. If you folks don’t see what I see, I don’t know what my commentary will add. These quotes all come from the same post:

==> “So it’s print money now or print money later. If you really, really don’t want to see a lot of money printing, negative [interest on excess reserves] might help, but higher trend inflation is the only real alternative.”

==> “Notice how my favorite economies all end up with governments owning lots of foreign equities? It goes against Switzerland’s conservative ideology. But as I’ve argued many times, a bit of socialism might be the price you pay for a conservative monetary policy.”

==> “[I]in the long run a strategy of borrowing money from Europeans at zero interest rates and investing in Asian equity markets would be expected to yield a positive rate of return, if only due to the Balassa-Samuelson effect.”

8 Responses to “Scary Scott Sumner Statements”

  1. Jason Quintana says:

    Wow, I had Market Monetarism on my list as the next thing I need to understand given the explosion of popularity and support. Maybe I shouldn’t bother, since from this highlight Mr. Sumner sounds like a real life version of Ellsworth Toohey.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Jason, well, on the one hand I would feel bad if you didn’t even give Scott a chance just because of my airstrike, but on the other hand, I would say, “Mission Accomplished.”

  2. Mike Sax says:

    Bob, I notice that the more you quote Scott and disapprove of him the more I like him. I wasn’t really a fan until now…

  3. Kay says:

    “So it’s print money now or print money later. If you really, really don’t want to see a lot of money printing, negative [interest on excess reserves] might help, but higher trend inflation is the only real alternative.”

    WOW.  ”only”?  I am not an economist, but the topic of the T-coin sounds offensive to my ears.  Why?  Congress has the sole right to tax and/or borrow, the 2 legal ways to obtain gov’t funding.  If Obama were to cause one (or two?) coins to be struck, wouldn’t it amount to a gimmick resulting in Treasuries magically on deposit at the Federal Reserve?  That is, indirect currency debasement “arranged” by the Executive as opposed to properly (let alone courageously, honestly) done by Congress in a normal day’s work?

    Further, and this is the offensive part as opposed to merely the phoney part, this endrun around the Constitution shall further set a precedent and further prevent Congress members from ever having to face the music on their own.

  4. Gamble says:

    Rather than find Bob’s past article in which Bob admits defeat, I will post this link here. Peter Schiff explains double digit price inflation is real and to make matters worse, most new money has landed in foreign bank vaults not at American shopping centers. You can’t create unlimited new money without massive inflation and the ensuing price increases, period. Don’t fall for the socialist lies.

    Basically Bob did not lose the double digit inflation bet.

    http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff195.html

  5. Mike Sax says:

    Bob if you haven’t seen it, you will love this post by Krugman. California dreaming…

    California confounds the deficit scolds http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/01/california-like-reagan-proves-deficits.html

    • Barry Soetoro says:

      California has balanced budgets based off what they project to collect. They haven’t actually collected it. Their pensions are still wildly insolvent.

      • Tom Brown says:

        I guess we’ll see then. If they do collect it, then it’s true. The CA deficit has been solved…. and quick too! After a decade or more of budget fights, furloughs, state issued IOUs, shutdowns, and endless wrangling.

Leave a Reply