They’re definitely right, but not how people think they are. They doubled up on inflation to make sure capital expands sufficiently to absorb any excess savings through a higher temporary cost of living. m

Slow bus over here must have a hard time reading, since he inferred things they didn’t say.

Its takes exception amount of ignorance to not understand what he said. You made no logical argument or any reasoning. I assume you are having a hissy fit because he made you feel bad by exposing your wishful thinking on asset prices? LOL

The past 1 year, lumber firms were hoarding there supply, loads of proof including pictures on the internet. Regardless of what’s happening today, price of lumber has inflated the past couple of years via expansionary (inflation) policy.

Fair enough.

I my mind governments can create money by buying debt and assets. But, if it does not result in other actors borrowing and creating more money then the government buying debt doesn’t work.

The government is essentially the only actor left at the party. (Negative rates could mean actors willing to borrow is not keeping up with gov’t purchases) Other actors are taking gov’t support and paying off debt decreasing money available in the system? Or inflated stock prices (AMC)….. And negative rates become a issue for lenders impeding the ability to lend money…..

No more lambs left to slaughter?

Does this make sense? (You do not get this information from a text book)

Has to be an exceptional amount of ignorance to make the argument prices only rise due to money printing, while reading an article about a commodity falling 40% in one month.

I think you’re confused about how the money supply is created. Money is created when people take out loans. High nflation is caused by excess money supply growth, which occurs when there is a mismatch between low interest rates and the strength of the borrower.