Posts
August 23, 2011
Myerson Says U.S. Needs 8% or 9% Inflation
Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Roger Myerson, a Nobel laureate and a professor at the University of Chicago, discusses the outlook for the US economy...
"We've had a couple of years of 0 percent inflation rate, so a couple of years of 8 or 9 percent inflation rate is good for the economy."
Yes! Two wrongs always make a right!
Nothing would spur our economy more than destroying all remaining Fed credibility, enabling global oil speculators to go cuckoo crazy, and enabling fringe conspiracy theorists to convince the vast majority of the planet that the end times are indeed here!
Can't you just picture the job creation in such an environment?
Compensation in the 1970s
Partly reflecting an oil embargo in 1973 and disruptions to the oil supply in 1979, the economy in the 1970s experienced periods of inflation, recession, and high unemployment. The economic conditions led to price controls and new and enhanced programs to combat poverty and unemployment.
Money (1973)
I, Stagflationary Mark, would ask Roger Myerson one simple question.
Got bunker?
Real Estate Newsletter Articles this Week: Existing-Home Sales Increased to
4.15 million SAAR in November
-
At the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter this week:
[image: Existing Home Sales]*Click on graph for larger image.*
• NAR: Existing-Home Sales Increase...
12 hours ago
6 comments:
It really ticks me off that people don't understand demographics.
1960-01-01 54274
1970-01-01 71176 (+31%)
1980-01-01 90800 (+30%)
1990-01-01 109151 (+20%)
2000-01-01 130781 (+20%)
2010-01-01 129281 (+0%)
If the 1970s how such a disaster why did employment rise 30%?
And how did they do this while keeping total debt to GDP constant?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1RJ
And why were the 2000s so absolutely horrible on both the debt and jobs fronts???
People still seem to think that 2008-2010 is just a cyclical thing somehow, though recent events may be beginning to disabuse this idea.
We don't need 9% inflation, we need 9% wage inflation. These mofos don't understand the difference.
Numbers above are employment in millions, from PAYEMS.
And of course whenever the Fed monkeyed with the interest rates the economy tanked:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1RL
red is fed funds rate, blue is YOY employment change, inverted (up is negative change).
In 1970 the baby boom was aged 6 to 24.
I think one of the reasons employment rose in the 70s was due to women moving into the work force in a big way. We are out of new genders to enter the work force in the 2010s unless science creates a new one.
Hey, I sense a market opportunity somewhere in there.
Oh, our current problems are definitely a cyclical thing, but more in the every-few-centuries Grand Super Cycle Elliot Wave thing.
Ready for a multi-century market retracement?
Troy,
We don't need 9% inflation, we need 9% wage inflation. These mofos don't understand the difference.
I know! It drives me nuts.
Mr Slippery,
We are out of new genders to enter the work force in the 2010s unless science creates a new one.
Science is creating a new one. Robots! Not sure how they will help drive up wages though. Hmmm.
tj and the bear,
Ready for a multi-century market retracement?
I was born ready! (demographics)
Post a Comment