I would recommend this article for less diatribe and more facts. [1]
The summary of either though is that although the government is printing money, that printed money is not chasing goods and services. Even government checks direct to taxpayers are largely ending up in financial instruments: paying off debt or rent/mortgage.
The article I linked differs in believing that there are short-term inflationary forces as the world adjusts to COVID due to changed consumer patterns and disrupted supply chains. This is mentioned in the submitted article as well but is dismissed in a one-sided way.
Note that many on HN are confused or offended by the title of the submitted article because asset inflation is happening now. But the submitted article defines inflation as consumer inflation.
I am just as concerned about the consequences of money printing as anyone on this forum, but it does seem to have a much more minimal effect on consumer inflation then our intuition would lead us to believe (depending on how it is implemented). Japan would be a good example where a lot of money has been printed but never put into circulation: it may be causing problems, but consumer inflation is not one of them [2].
I am now more concerned about how our monetary policy appears to ensure large trade deficits and thus be the cause of the decrease in manufacturing in the US and perhaps a much bigger cause of wealth inequality than the normal money printing. This is explained in this very long article that is well worth understanding [3].
"[....]If the dollar is high and therefore buys lots of foreign currency, then imports are cheap. This means that we will buy lots of imports.
"If we have low exports and high imports, then we will have a large trade deficit. End of story. We can train our workers to be more productive, urge our firms to invest more and try to improve our public infrastructure, but realistically, none of these factors can come close to offsetting the impact of a currency that is 20-40% over-valued. A severely over-valued currency virtually guarantees a trade deficit."
Yes, your quotes from that article are spot on. The article itself though seems to otherwise be tilting at windmills: I would encourage everyone to review my longer reference.
Unfortunately it has little to do with NAFTA. The naive American view of trade is that goods are cheaper to produce in other countries so all production inevitably moves there.
What is supposed to happen in a global economy is that currencies strengthen and weaken to exert a balancing effect on trade. Because the dollar is the global reserve currency there is an artificial demand for dollars so the balancing never occurs.
We have a monetary policy that is the invisible hand shaping the entire US economy. The massive trade deficits it caused are now leading to populism and civil unrest. And yet there is no discussion of this root cause and almost no awareness of it.
I don't understand, how does this have "little to do" with NAFTA? Whose naive view is it that production will move? I mean, call me naive, but we could also make laws that say production won't be moved.
The monetary policy works hand-in-hand with NAFTA and immigration policies so that capital is free to wander the globe, sloshing around and popping off asset bubbles while workers feel the boot. Again... my naive view.
I agree that trade is required for trade deficit and freer trade (e.g. NAFTA) is an accelerator. I say "little to do" because to me the important issue is whether we have a system where the currency ensures trade means trade deficit or a system where currency helps to balance trade.
The summary of either though is that although the government is printing money, that printed money is not chasing goods and services. Even government checks direct to taxpayers are largely ending up in financial instruments: paying off debt or rent/mortgage.
The article I linked differs in believing that there are short-term inflationary forces as the world adjusts to COVID due to changed consumer patterns and disrupted supply chains. This is mentioned in the submitted article as well but is dismissed in a one-sided way.
Note that many on HN are confused or offended by the title of the submitted article because asset inflation is happening now. But the submitted article defines inflation as consumer inflation.
I am just as concerned about the consequences of money printing as anyone on this forum, but it does seem to have a much more minimal effect on consumer inflation then our intuition would lead us to believe (depending on how it is implemented). Japan would be a good example where a lot of money has been printed but never put into circulation: it may be causing problems, but consumer inflation is not one of them [2].
I am now more concerned about how our monetary policy appears to ensure large trade deficits and thus be the cause of the decrease in manufacturing in the US and perhaps a much bigger cause of wealth inequality than the normal money printing. This is explained in this very long article that is well worth understanding [3].
[1] https://www.epbmacroresearch.com/blog/the-money-supply-myste...
[2] https://www.lynalden.com/economic-japanification/
[3] https://www.lynalden.com/fraying-petrodollar-system/