Not exact matches
True, it was only one quarter's information and that was not enough
to change our numerical forecast of
inflation, but it
did lead us
to conclude in our May Statement on Monetary Policy that there was no longer an upward risk
to our
inflation forecast.
The economy is growing nicely and unemployment is falling, factors that typically
lead to higher
inflation — even before Congress cuts taxes, as it seems set
to do.
Moreover, core
inflation moved ahead of its level of 6 months ago, and
leading economic measures continued
to slip (though we don't see them as being indicative of recession risk at present).
In terms, I think of
inflation and bond markets, it took six, seven, eight, maybe 10 years of high
inflation in the 1970s before you had Paul Volcker brought in
to say «enough is enough,» and then again whether it's
led by American monetary policy but similar moves in Europe, obviously in the UK, a significant tightening of monetary policy because people got fed up with
inflation and I don't think that we are kind of yet at the point where real wages have been suppressed so much by that irritation that
inflation is always running ahead, life is becoming more expensive, so we need the central bank radically
to change their policy.
Surging deficits will likely require greater Treasury issuance, which will
lead to higher rates, even if
inflation doesn't rise much more.
It's true people lending
do expect
to get back money plus some profit — or they should, if they are rational, which isn't true as often as you'd think — however all that
does is
lead to inflation, and possibly more
inflation after that, which I already acknowledged.
Cheap credit can't reflate a sector in fundamental oversupply, like residential housing, unless the FOMC were willing
to let
inflation rip, perhaps
leading the value of residential housing
to rise, as it
did in the «70s.
The authors believe that governments will try
to do that and eventually fail, because credit creation will eventually
lead to significant
inflation.
But aside from monetizing debt, which often
leads to serious
inflation, QE has not shown much potency
to do anything good.
If nominal interest rates increased at a faster rate than
inflation, then real interest rates might rise,
leading to a decrease in the value of
inflation - protected securities.Diversification
does not assure a profit or protect against loss in a declining market.
Which one
do you think will
lead to uncontrolled
inflation / deflation?
You don't need
to be an economist
to understand that increasing the money supply eventually
leads to inflation, which in turn erodes the value of your money.
Moreover, core
inflation moved ahead of its level of 6 months ago, and
leading economic measures continued
to slip (though we don't see them as being indicative of recession risk at present).
According
to a recent Globe and Mail article which references Statistics Canada numbers, «the total amount of debt held in households
led by people aged 55
to 64 almost quadrupled between 1999 and 2012, while the level for the overall population
did little more than double (these are
inflation - adjusted numbers).
Because of demographics, his actions
did not
lead to price
inflation, but asset
inflation.
Did not want
to see M2 rise, which would
lead to inflation.
When global interest rates and
inflation levels are high there may be an argument for
doing something like that as that could reduce inflationary expectations and
lead to lower interest rates.
If Trump
does start
to enact some of the anti-trade policies that he has talked about during the campaign, that would likely
lead to higher
inflation and, by extension,
to higher cap rates on commercial properties, notes MacKinnon.
They don't want
inflation rates
to fall too far, as this limits their ability
to boost a weakening economy, but neither
do they want tightening labor markets
to overheat and
lead to accelerating
inflation.