Friday, May 08, 2009
Blame this crisis on the myth of inflation
The Times: Blame this crisis on the myth of inflation
"Debt and house prices were shooting up. But keep one thing under control, we were told, and everything would be fine"
Posted by becky @ 12:28 PM (738 views) Add Comment
8 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Dave said...
All obvious, in retrospect. However, the mistake of leaving the major inflationary asset class out of the indices was also. See my debate on this very issue with John Redwood 1 year ago:
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/05/17/why-has-the-government-and-the-bank-of-england-failed-us-on-inflation/#comment-20645
Unfortunately, the Times have disabled further commenting so I can't post this there
2. refusetobuy said...
A good article. I mostly agree. A two points
"For some reason, never adequately explained by any bank auditor, a bank's “loans” became “investment”.
The SIV was like selling on the loan. The idea was that it was completely separate from the bank, so there was no reason to account for them on the balance sheet. The downfall was the clause that the originating bank had to lend the SIV money if it couldn't find it elsewhere. This meant that the bank didn't manage to absolve itself of financial responsibility,
"These debts now deserve triple A ratings. Why? Because they are insured.”
The insurance promised triple A. Unfortunately the people who promised it were not triple A (because they promised the insurance).
3. 51ck-6-51x said...
refusetobuy, good observation on both points.
4. mark wadsworth said...
By The Times' standards, that is a cracking article.
5. drewster said...
lol @ markw, you are quite right! The Times' office must be a strange place, with such contrasting viewpoints.
6. Cashrichassetpoor said...
Would targeting inflation work if it targeted RPI rather than CPI?
7. uncle tom said...
I have been saying for a very long time, both here and elsewhere; that inflation targetting was a policy that would ultimnatley have to be abandoned.
Now The Times has given space to someone who is not a frequent contributor, to argue against the logic of the idea, and to highlight that the 'wrong sort of inflation' was being targetted.
House price inflation IS inflation, and very significant to everyday lives. Debt inflation (over and above price inflation) shows that the economy is ultimately on an unsustainable course.
But if you want to steer an economy on a steady course, the measure to watch is trade balances. Export too much and you get deflationary pressures, export too little and inflation comes knocking.
Every government should seek to achieve trade equilibrium as their primary objective. Once that is achieved, one can aspire toward other goals.
8. 51ck-6-51x said...
uncle tom. Yes, inflationary effects affect different individuals differently; my inflation is different from yours. A sovereign should think of itself as a unit in which case the trade balance and net flows of the currency are what must be monitored and coerced, if anything.