I think the key thing here is to look at is increase of bank deposits (I.e. money for you and me). That is M2 MINUS central bank reserves and notes and coins in circulation. If you look at this you'll see that bank deposits have only increased modestly despite the large increase in M1. From this you can infer that the FED's "money printing" isn't really affecting Main Street very much. I.e. currently not causing much inflation.
What's happening? The FED is creating new reserves and using those to buy bonds. The reserves remain in financial institutions and should incentivise banks to lend - or at least that is the theory. Lending is how bank deposits (money for you and me) are created. The reserves which the FED creates to buy bonds (which are assets of commercial banks) doesn't end up in people's Bank accounts (which are liabilities of commercial banks). Instead, the reserves remain sloshing around in the banks.
My view is that money supply is endogenous. That is, new bank deposits are created when new loans are made. Currently, there is not a demand for loans so there won't be a huge increase in the M2 money supply as a result of these FED bond purchases. Perhaps demand might increase in the future, in which case the US will see inflation. I suspect once the economy recovers and inflation (as measured by the FED) increases then they'll start performing open market operations to sell the bonds they bought and thus remove the excess reserves from the financial system.
Edit: Indeed. M1's definition: "M1 includes funds that are readily accessible for spending. M1 consists of: (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. Seasonally adjusted M1 is calculated by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately.
I agree with this line of argument for the 2008 era quantitative easing! But my read is that M1 explicitly excludes bank reserves, so the M1 created can't be locked-up reserves, right?
It seems the FED did increase base money supply - it's balance sheet size went up by around 3 trillion dollars at the start of 2020 - and bank deposits have subsequently increased quite a lot (M1 and M2 gone up) and this is probably due to the stimulus measures because either way the money ends up in someone's bank account. I think also some of it is probably due to risk averse businesses maxing out their credit lines to get them through the lockdowns... so we'll see an increase in M1/M2 there as well.
So whilst the first part of my original comment was wrong because of the incorrect definitions and reasoning, I think the second part accidentally remains true, in that we should, in theory, start to see inflation increase and from that point you would expect the FED to start removing excess reserves from the system and tightening things up a bit.
I'm posting this because I was shocked when I saw this graph. I hadn't previously appreciated just how much of an unprecedented explosion in the money supply there'd been this year.
In particular, it seems to quantify a lot of potential for long run inflation and a very expansionary monetary policy move required to prop up the economy during the pandemic. But I'm not an expert here; I'm hoping we can put our heads together. I'd be very curious to hear general discussion and insights into the dynamics. Let's go, community of systems thinkers :)
While the M1 measure of money shows the change most dramatically, other ways of looking at the same data (dollars printed, M2, MZM, etc.) seem to tell the same story. There have also been some news articles written, but I thought that for HN, we'd go directly to the numbers.
Thanks for taking a look!
Once the economy starts back up again, the fed could reduce the money supply in line with the increasing velocity.
The question is, politically, can they be so responsible in contracting the money supply thereafter? Hopefully!
What is your proposed mechanism for this?
On the other hand, inflation is great for shafting the labor class, so at least we're going to put most of the pain on the people who are least capable of retaliating against the government; and they'll blame the rich anyways.
What do changes in the Fed’s longer-run goals and monetary strategy statement mean? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/09/02/what-do-c...
> Previously, the Fed said its definition of price stability was to aim for 2 percent inflation, as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index. It described that goal as “symmetric,” suggesting that it was equally concerned about inflation falling below or above that target.
>In the new version of the statement, the Fed says it “will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time” after periods of persistently low inflation. Fed Chair Jerome Powell called this strategy “a flexible form of average inflation targeting”—which Fed officials are calling FAIT—in an August 2020 speech at the Fed’s Jackson Hole conference.
>Average inflation targeting implies that when inflation undershoots the target for a time, then the FOMC will direct monetary policy to push inflation above the target for some time to compensate. With this new approach, the Fed hopes to anchor the expectations of financial markets and others that it can and will do what’s needed to get and maintain inflation at 2 percent on average over time.
Basically I paid $76 at KFC the other day to feed 6 people. Inflation is here already but it doesn’t show up in the fed numbers.
There is no such thing; the Fed doesn't define or measure inflation.
> doesn’t count food, energy and asset prices.
The primary inflation measures from the BLS (the various forms of the CPI) do include the first two things; they don't include asset prices.
> Who can live a day without eating food, using energy for driving or powering appliances and finally paying for a place to live.
The cost of having a place to live (rent, including imputed rent) is, like food and energy, included in CPI.
Yes, inflation does count all those things. At least if you regard housing as an asset (inflation of implied rent).
I mean the definition is public. Not like anyone is hiding anything.
Definitely a good factor to know about, but there's also been a huge surge in things like Monetary Base (currency in circulation+reserves) [0]. Looks to me like there's a lot of (effectively) money printing behind this, not just an artifact of M1's definition?
The Fed creates dollars, hands it out to bankers and then the US gov't collects taxes from the entire population in the same dollars.
Same strategy, different masters.
Same strategy, different execution.
King wanted the value of money stay stable or increase.
Fed wants to reach 2% average inflation target but it keeps failing.
Big monetary swings like this do bolster the case for it as an inflation-resistant value store...like gold (or stocks), both of which have risen quite a bit this year.
Maybe in a generation or two things will be different, but at that point do we need both? Right now I'd say gold is much safer, but long term BTC is much more convenient. The comparison reinforces y opinion that BTC, despite it's relative ease of transaction, is more like an asset than it is like money.
If you want to see, can click the gear in the upper right on the site. Then format. Then check the log box. No URL scheme, unfortunately, or I'd link it for ya.
