[ArkyBeagle]

"Reckless monetarism"? Meaning what, precisely?

We're in essence in stagnation because of low interest rates - assuming that's the cause and not the effect.

So now we're gonna go back to a demonstrably deflationary regime ( the gold standard ) and raise reserve requirements to 20%?

How is that not even more deflationary?

[adam419]

Lol, it is objectively the "effect".

The feds fund rate has been set to near zero for almost 8 years. This is acts as the baseline cost of credit in our country and given our global financial stature, the world.

[ArkyBeagle]

Bear with me - how does that tie back to monetarism ( which, according to my dim lights , we simply don't do ).

I presume you mean QE{I,II,II...} ? Those have been zero velocity efforts; buried in the back yards of big banks without a trace. Increased reserves with interest being paid on them.

[adam419]

See my above reply to dragonwriter.

You're right, of MV = PT they have only manipulated the M (Money supply) so far.

But unless this destructive dogma and school of thought is put to an end they will begin to institute velocity efforts during the next crash since rates are essentially zero and it's all they'd have left: wealth tax or applied negative interest rate on deposits, helicopter money, etc.

[ArkyBeagle]

Agreed. For lack of a better choice, I tend to line up with Sumner and the Market Monetarists, which is a different flavor of monetarism yet ( and I'd think more in line with trying to get V up ). So the pallitative for monetarism may well be monetarism :)

[yuhong]

The most important I think is how credit has increased since Bretton Woods was abandoned, allowing the country to continue to run trade deficits. Previously, this was limited by a gold standard.