|
Edited on Sun Apr-23-06 10:31 AM by TreasonousBastard
The money supply (M1, at least)is NOT the amount of cash printed, but is the total amount of "money" in cash and demand deposits plus a few other small things. The amount of cash in circulation is usually only a small fraction of the total amount of money, and the banks create it by lending deposited money, using the "multiplier effect." This has been going on at least since the Middle Ages when "bankers" held gold in their vaults to protect it from theft and relent it out at interest. Granted, the Fed does have a lot of control over how much of this money is created by controlling reserve requirements and interest rates.
Economic growth will ALWAYS (well, almost always) lead to an increase in the money supply simply because more of it is being deposited and lent out-- money just moving around tends to increase.
Inflation is a very tricky thing and has many possible causes. It's basically because there's more money available than stuff to buy with it, but the causes of that imbalance are arguable in every case. Many, if not most, economists think a little inflation is a good thing if it tracks with growth. Of course, anyone on a fixed or falling income gets burned, but interest is "supposed" to take care of that.
Now, as to tight money, deflation, or just 0% inflation-- again, most economists don't think that's a good idea. One of the major causes of the Depression was the Fed's mistake in tightening money when the supply fell, causing massive bank failures and the loss of operating capital to keep things running.
With deflation, don't forget that incomes fall along with prices and there's no guarantee that there will be a balance there. Just as in the 30's, incomes could fall a lot faster and further than prices and we're all screwed. Also, with deflation comes less capital to invest-- meaning that new jobs are going to much harder, maybe impossible, to create.
Now, the internal and foreign debts are a problem. A big problem, although Chicago and Cato-type economists try to explain how they are no big deal. Agreed that with higher inflation these debts will be easier to pay off with cheaper future dollars, kinda the way many folks think of how they make their own credit deals-- assuming they will be making more money in the future. Paying off a 30 year note (if there are still any 30 year notes) in those future dollars will be dirt cheap if we have a hundred trillion dollar GDP by then. Big "if" though, and it assumes no major interruptions along the way.
The only other alternative, if things don't go perfectly well, is to deliberately revalue the dollar, which some think they are doing in baby steps right now. Hoo-Boy! If we could only retire the debt at 10 cents on the dollar over the next five years...
That, however, has its own problems, obviously, but it just might happen if the Euro takes over as fiat currency worldwide and there's no point in holding up the dollar.
Ya know, we sit around and worry about our little incomes and the price of gas, but would we really want to be central bankers responsible for an entire country's economic survival?
|