That sounds like a very convincing quote until one reads the linked article and notices that you conveniently left out the context of that quote:
"It’s not hard to see where inflation fears were coming from. In its efforts to prop up the economy, the Fed has bought more than $2 trillion of stuff — private debts, housing agency debts, government bonds. It has paid for these purchases by crediting funds to the reserves of private banks, which isn’t exactly printing money, but is close enough for government work. Here comes hyperinflation!
Or, actually, not. From the beginning, it was or at least should have been obvious that the financial crisis had plunged us into a “liquidity trap,” a situation in which many people figure that they might just as well sit on cash. America spent most of the 1930s in a liquidity trap; Japan has been in one since the mid-1990s. And we’re in one now."
What he was saying was that during a "liquidity trap" that printing money isn't an inflationary action since people are hoarding the money. Which is pretty much a duh statement. The Fed can print tons of money but if it's not being spent it doesn't have an inflationary effect. Krugman was not saying that QE has no inflationary effect. He was stating that due to the secondary effect of a liquidity trap that the current QE has not currently had the amount of desired inflationary effect. And if he believed that QE had no inflationary effect why would he then talk about how a low inflation rate was bad? Did you seriously even bother to read the entire article or were you just looking for a convenient quote you could use as a one-up?
Next time, maybe try a little harder to understand Krugman rather than quote mining him to try to win an argument.
Quote: Originally Posted by trumptman
You sir, owe me a very well thought out apology.
I owe you nothing of the sort. You were wrong then and you still are wrong. You were beating a strawman and then used a failed quote mine attempt to try to win your argument.
Comments
"It’s not hard to see where inflation fears were coming from. In its efforts to prop up the economy, the Fed has bought more than $2 trillion of stuff — private debts, housing agency debts, government bonds. It has paid for these purchases by crediting funds to the reserves of private banks, which isn’t exactly printing money, but is close enough for government work. Here comes hyperinflation!
Or, actually, not. From the beginning, it was or at least should have been obvious that the financial crisis had plunged us into a “liquidity trap,” a situation in which many people figure that they might just as well sit on cash. America spent most of the 1930s in a liquidity trap; Japan has been in one since the mid-1990s. And we’re in one now."
What he was saying was that during a "liquidity trap" that printing money isn't an inflationary action since people are hoarding the money. Which is pretty much a duh statement. The Fed can print tons of money but if it's not being spent it doesn't have an inflationary effect. Krugman was not saying that QE has no inflationary effect. He was stating that due to the secondary effect of a liquidity trap that the current QE has not currently had the amount of desired inflationary effect. And if he believed that QE had no inflationary effect why would he then talk about how a low inflation rate was bad? Did you seriously even bother to read the entire article or were you just looking for a convenient quote you could use as a one-up?
Next time, maybe try a little harder to understand Krugman rather than quote mining him to try to win an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
You sir, owe me a very well thought out apology.
I owe you nothing of the sort. You were wrong then and you still are wrong. You were beating a strawman and then used a failed quote mine attempt to try to win your argument.