Ok, please elaborate on the last part of your statement. How are conservatives misreading financial data?
I'm not 100% sure we are. But basically, I think markets have significant risk right now, which is a pretty common belief. Relatively uncontroversial. However, I think those risks are much more balanced than those who expect runaway inflation. This may get a little wordy, but you have to look at a number of current drivers.
First, is the obvious monetary inflation that we have seen. Worst case scenario is pretty well played out and understood in this thread and others. Realistically, we are seeing a less strong connection between fiscal policy and inflation, medium long term, than people had expected. This is both in purposeful fiscal inflation, which is what stimulus is, and non purposeful fiscal damage, which is basically just irresponsible/excess spending. But certainly there are worries on the inflation front.
Second, look at policy with regard to employment. I think it is fair to say that current Biden policy is negative for employment. I'm not going to comment on whether it is stupidity or whether it is intentional, but it is clear that there are significant disincentives to work. Today I am reading about a push for more checks to go out, so clearly they are doubling down on this. Now, low employment is obviously somewhat deflationary, as benefit checks never reach the level of actual wages. It is probably not highly deflationary, but it is hard on the economy. Some might argue that there will be fewer goods available without workers, but this is greatly mitigated with re-offshoring, which is quite viable, again from a new policy perspective. And again, offshoring is deflationary.
Third, look at policy tools available to the federal reserve. There are literally all the tools in the world available to fight inflation. What I mean by that is the looser the fed is in relation to standard practices, the easier it is for them to move in the other direction. They have literally no tools left to become more expansionary than they are now. Those are just facts. Some will argue that these people want inflation, or they want to ruin the world as we know it. I neither believe that nor am putting that in my analysis. If that is their goal, no other analysis really matters.
Fourth is whether there is true pricing power in the market for inflation to take place. I think the jury is still very much out on this one. Pricing power tends to exist in pockets, not economy wide.
So, looking at all of the factors, and frankly these are not all of the factors, you really have many forces working in opposition, which is why I think the risks are high, but balanced. I'd say "hyper inflation" probably has a risk of 2%. I'd say moderate inflation with low growth, not quite stagflation, but a generally shitty economy, has about a 30% chance. Real stagflation is probably 15-20%. Serious asset damage with a contraction enough to be deflationary is probably another 15%, and we make it through this relatively unscathed with random dislocations is probably 30%. Not sure if that adds to a hundred.
I guess, in conclusion, I think there are a good number of risks, but the most likely outcome is definitely a meh to ok economy. Of course, in normal times the chances of an ok economy are very high, so this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. But even if, by some measures, high inflation looks like the scariest prospect, it is also the scenario for which we retain the greatest number of policy tools. The nightmare scenario, I believe, is large asset contraction for which we have no remaining policy tools, and which would leave every other part of the economy in significant peril, while also living in a world where we now basically realize that fiscal policy is impotent to stabilize in these situations.
I hope that makes some sense. I am not saying I am right, that is just my analysis. It is definitely not my way, as people might be able to tell, to decide that there is one obvious thing ahead and latch onto that. I don't have that level of certainty in anything.
www.dailymail.co.uk
