J. Bradford DeLong finds the inflationistas' logic hard to follow, but so is his

... the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its associated disruptions continue to cause a substantial undersupply of labor. ...

The labor market is still weak enough that workers are unable to demand substantial increases in real wages.

More.

Make up your mind, Brad.

LOL: Anatole Kaletsky says there's been no sign of mean reversion in the post-war when US GDP 2007-2018 has underperformed 1929-1940

Expansions Don’t Die of Old Age:

History shows that US expansions since the end of World War II have varied in length from 12 months to 120 months, with no sign of mean reversion.

Welcome to the mean reversion, Anatole:

Ken Rogoff calls Adam Tooze's new book CRASHED an ambitious but flawed work

Rogoff takes Tooze to task for certain inaccuracies and omissions, including about Rogoff's own published work.

It's a longish read, but well worth it, here. And don't miss the second part, which reviews Sebastian Edwards' AMERICAN DEFAULT.

Despite Fed interventions we are still left with the foregone output

Stephen Roach, here, one of the few who openly acknowledges the still-shrunken economy:

The Fed mistakenly believed that what worked during the crisis would work equally well afterwards. 

An unprecedentedly weak economic recovery – roughly 2% annual growth over the past nine-plus years, versus a 4% norm in earlier cycles – says otherwise. ...

Do we want a reactive central bank that focuses on cleaning up the mess after a crisis erupts, or a pro-active central bank that leans against excesses before they spark crises?

That question – whether to “lean or clean” – has fueled a raging debate in policy and academic circles. It has an important political economy component: Are independent central banks willing to force society to sacrifice growth in order to preserve financial stability? It also bears on the bubble-spotting debate. Yet as difficult as these problems are, they pale in comparison to the foregone output of America’s anemic post-crisis recovery.

Brad DeLong pretends that taxing the crap out of people isn't an ideology, and blames the voters for disagreeing

Here, where you observe a liberal economist admitting that there is a price to be paid for free-trade:

It is not difficult to see where the blame lies [for what ails America]. As Mark Kleiman of NYU’s Marron Institute points out, the Republican Party’s rigid and die-hard ideological opposition to “taxing the rich [has] destroyed, on a practical level, the theoretical basis for believing that free trade benefits everyone.” ... The responsibility lies instead with politicians peddling ideology over practicality – and thus with the citizens who elect them, as well as those who don’t bother to vote at all.

Now if we could just get the libertarians to admit it.

Why capitalism, communism, socialism and fascism etc. turn out to be culs-de-sac

Seen here:

'Mao famously speculated on the nature of contradictions in a 1937 essay: “The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society.”'

Brad DeLong believes we are in a depression

And calls it the true name for what we are experiencing, here.

Nothing Else Is Working, So The US Federal Reserve Should Be QEing Gold Instead Of Treasuries

So said Christopher T. Mahoney, a former Vice Chairman at Moody's, for Project-Syndicate last June, here, just not in so many words:

It may be that when rates are at the zero bound and the banking system is broken, the appropriate policy instrument may not be to buy bonds from banks, since buying them doesn’t seem to affect the price level. Bernanke was certainly correct that the Fed could create inflation by dropping money on citizens from helicopters, but that would be a rather blunt instrument.

It seems to me that the Fed needs to buy something besides Treasury and agency bonds. The obvious alternative to Treasuries would be foreign government bonds, or gold. Since the former would constitute a “currency war”, that would seem to leave gold.

I have no doubt that if the Fed were to announce that it will buy gold until it has achieved 2% inflation and 6.5% unemployment, it would get there. It would disrupt the gold market (and enrich some of the wrong people) but that is a small price to pay. No foreign government could object to the Fed buying gold; it’s been doing it for 100 years.

But I said it more or less three times a year ago this month, here, here and especially here:

The United States at present is in the throes of a deflationary collapse of monetarist making, not of dollar currency but of credit money, and it is the principal reason for the collapse of GDP. One of the largest sources of the "currency" of credit money in recent years has been mortgages, which are now effectively unacceptable as collateral because of the rot permeating the system in the form of defaults and underwaters.

Federal Reserve policy has actually been removing such collateral from circulation, along with US Treasuries, by placing it on its balance sheet. But since there is nothing "real" behind the dollars the Fed replaces this collateral with, there is no corresponding expansion of credit in size to match the former vigor of the process.

So perhaps the Fed should QE gold instead of MBS and Treasuries to provide something real behind the money created which would give that money a surer basis in collateral.

Central banks around the world have been buying gold in quantities not seen in 30 years in order to fill the collateral gap. The Fed should join them.

Balance Sheet Recession Continues To Restrain Aggregate Demand: US Halfway Through Its First Lost Decade

So says Stephen Roach for Project Syndicate, here:

As research by the economists Richard Caballero, Takeo Hoshi, and Anil Kashyap has shown, Japan’s corporate “zombies” – rendered essentially lifeless by their balance-sheet problems – ended up damaging the healthier parts of the economy. Until balance sheets are repaired, such “zombie congestion” restrains aggregate demand. Japan’s lost decades are an outgrowth of this phenomenon; the US is now halfway through the first lost decade of its own.

Honest Liberal Calls This The Worst Consumer Recession In Modern History

Stephen Roach of Yale University, here, points out that the rate of growth in personal consumption is just 25% of what it used to be:

Over the 21 quarters since the beginning of 2008, real (inflation-adjusted) personal consumption has risen at an average annual rate of just 0.9%. That is by far the most protracted period of weakness in real US consumer demand since the end of World War II – and a massive slowdown from the pre-crisis pace of 3.6% annual real consumption growth from 1996 to 2007. ...

[T]he release of pent-up demand in the current cycle amounted to just 3% annualized growth in the five quarters from early 2010 to early 2011. Moreover, the strongest quarterly gain was a 4.1% increase in the fourth quarter of 2010.

This is a stunning result. The worst consumer recession in modern history, featuring a record collapse in durable-goods expenditures in 2008-2009, should have triggered an outsize surge of pent-up demand. Yet it did anything but that. Instead, the release of pent-up consumer demand was literally half that of previous business cycles.

You Have Been Warned

"[T]oday’s low interest-rate dynamic is not an entirely stable one. It could unwind remarkably quickly."

-- Kenneth Rogoff, here

Unprecedented Weakness in Consumer Spending Growth in Post WWII Period

So says Stephen Roach of Yale, here, who can't call this is a depression evidently because such anemic growth is, afterall, growth. He must not dwell on the overall negative back to back GDP prints for 2008 and 2009.

He prefers "Great Crisis" and the term "unprecedented" to describe what many others have rightly identified as a balance sheet recession. He does not see this being repaired any time soon, however, because we're nowhere near the needed savings rate of 8 percent nor the 75 percent level of debt to disposable personal income:

The number is 0.2%. It is the average annualized growth of US consumer spending over the past 14 quarters – calculated in inflation-adjusted terms from the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2011. Never before in the post-World War II era have American consumers been so weak for so long. This one number encapsulates much of what is wrong today in the US – and in the global economy.

There's hardly a more succinct and elegant framing of the issue to be found in what follows after that.

Even Ken Rogoff Knows It's A Depression But Can't Bring Himself To Say So

We're still co-dependents in the disaster when even our truth-tellers continue to insist on the euphemism which is its rhetorical basis.

Ideas have consequences, and ideas require words.

Story here.

On the knees of the gods our fates are spun.

Kenneth Rogoff on Gold

Kenneth Rogoff for Project-Syndicate.org here weighs in on the increased interest in gold, adding the not often heard warning that rising interest rates could cause the price to fall as investors invest elsewhere seeking return in the form of cash flows which an American Gold Eagle in your safe simply cannot provide.

He also notes that the long-term inflation adjusted price lags current gold prices:

At $1,300, today’s price is probably more than double very long-term, inflation-adjusted, average gold prices.

Adjusting the price of gold for inflation from its price in 1913 to 2009 would put gold at $462 the ounce last year, so at $1,300 an ounce the price is 2.8 times that already, and climbing.

Are ya feeling lucky? Well are ya?