That’s one small step for macro policy, one giant leap for the Fed

The blogosphere (including my comment sections) is full of commentary on the likely effectiveness of the recent Fed policy initiative.  I’ve already offered my opinion, but I’d like to use some analogies here, as it’s hard to grasp how a policy can be both a big deal, and also way too little.  Imagine a general was sending his troops into battle with bow and arrows, and having no success.  Then he returns the next day with submachine guns.  That would be a pretty effective change in strategy, wouldn’t you say?  But suppose that he still has cruise missiles and tactical nuclear warheads back at the base.  You’d still say the general had brought less than 10% of his firepower into battle.

The Fed hasn’t even come close to pulling out the big guns, which would include:

1.  Level targeting, to make up for shortfalls.

2.  Targeting the forecast; doing very aggressive QE until NGDP expectations are right on target.

On the other hand they seem to have taken at least two important initiatives.  And just as guns are much more powerful that arrows, these Fed tools are much more powerful than previous policies:

1.  Making the size of QE conditional on actual progress on the jobs/inflation front.

2.  Promising to keep policy expansionary for an extended period, even after the economy has recovered.

I speculated that the second policy is a sort of “dog whistle” to the markets—trying to convince them that the Fed would allow slightly above 2% inflation, without formally stating that goal (for fear of setting off the Tea Party.)  Baby steps toward level targeting.  Obviously that’s a tricky maneuver, and I have no idea if it will work.  Bernanke was asked how the Fed would react to above 2% inflation, and indicated that they would bring it down gradually, in a way consistent with their high employment mandate.  They aren’t aiming for high inflation, but they won’t get overly excited if it exceeds 2% for a modest period of time.  Sort of like when the government said they weren’t trying to assassinate Saddam, but wouldn’t be overly concerned if he happened to die in a bombing raid.

Ryan Avent suggested that this policy is a test of the ideas that market monetarists have been promoting.  I agree.  Where I’d differ is that in my view the results are already in on the NGDP front.  The policy succeeded in raising NGDP expectations, but failed to raise them enough to make a dramatic impact on the business cycle.  (I’d guess 0.3% to 0.5% as a ballpark figure for the boost to NGDP expectations.)

There’s another aspect to market monetarism, the claim that more NGDP would lead to more RGDP.  Although we have pretty good proxies for NGDP expectations, I don’t think our RGDP expectations proxies are nearly as good.

[Which is a disgrace.  If we had both types of futures markets, both the MMTers and John Cochrane’s macro views would be refuted within 10 minutes of the Fed announcement.]

So we’ll have to wait on that one.  If NGDP does accelerate sharply (which I don’t expect), and if all the increase comes in the former of higher prices, then I will have been wrong in claiming it’s mostly a demand-side problem.  Oddly, I actually consider that failure much more likely than finding out that the Fed can’t boost NGDP (which I consider extremely unlikely.)  And yet I think most policy pundits would regard the failure to boost AD, or NGDP, as being the more likely “failure.” For some reason there are lots of economists who don’t think the Fed can boost AD (NGDP) and yet also think that if they succeeded it would almost certainly boost RGDP.  I.e. there are still lots of old-style Keynesians.

I have no fear at all of the policy “failing” in the direction of high inflation. It won’t happen.

PS.  I knew I shouldn’t try to list names in the previous several posts.  I forgot David Eagle, who has worked for many years on NGDP targeting.  And people like Doug Irwin, Niklas Blanchard, Kantoos, and many others.  And of course there’s Paul Krugman, who’s 1998 paper started the ball rolling on the expectations approach to the zero rate trap.

PPS.  The Washington Post mentioned my views on QE3.

PPPS.  I was asked whether the new Fed policy will enable Obama’s big spending plans for his second term.  I doubt it.  The policy initiative is too small to decisively impact growth or the deficit, but large enough to take away support for further fiscal stimulus.  Obama will be forced to adopt Simpson/Bowles-style austerity during his second term.  There’s no longer any point in even wasting keystrokes on Mitt’s plans.  He’s done—put a fork in him.

PPPPS.  I was brought back to Earth after fantasies of saving the world economy yesterday, as I revised a NGDP targeting paper for the Mercatus Institute.  There were so many grammatical (and content) suggestions from George Selgin and the other referees that I had to virtually re-write the paper.  Only by putting them side-by-side can I see just how appalling my writing style really is.  George speaks extemporaneously better than I can write.  The good news is that it will probably be my best paper, but I really should make the referees my co-authors.



38 Responses to “That’s one small step for macro policy, one giant leap for the Fed”

  1. Gravatar of DonG DonG
    15. September 2012 at 11:52

    This is a test. And the critics are eager to denounce QE3 as a failure. Worst-case scenario is that the Fed gets timid before the economy picks up and NGDPLT is a casualty for an entire generation. Best case scenario is that BOJ and ECB join in monetary “stimulus” and success comes quickly and Scott Sumner never has to buy his own lunch again. Expected scenario is that things slowly get better and all the partisans claim credit.

    I do think there is a supply-side effect that will happen once inflation starts showing itself. Once all those underwater homes starting to clear it will free homeowners to right-size, relocate,… I also expect businesses sitting on that $1T in cash to start investing, since ROI’s look better.

  2. Gravatar of Tommy Dorsett Tommy Dorsett
    15. September 2012 at 11:53

    Scott, I think the Fed finally IS targeting the forecast. Not with a NGDPLT but with open-ended QE that it promises to ramp up if it’s forecast is undershot. The FOMC raised their 2013-2014 forecasts as they announced QE3. Thus, they expect the forecast to succeed and if it doesn’t, they pull harder on the QE lever every month. And by promising to keep rates low/base large for a considerable period ‘after the recovery strengthens’ they are setting a much higher bar for backing off than ramping further. I think this is rather momentous.

    Of course mr. Sunshine (Krugman) threw a wet blanket on it because well, I guess anything short of a higher inflation target + fiscal stimulus is not enough for him.
    I think Avent is right on the jobs impact, as the system has been gradually healing and thus this ‘nudge’ from the Fed could help to fortify that process.

  3. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    15. September 2012 at 12:41

    I agree that this is a test, but there is an inherent problem with real world tests – no one can ever know what would have happened without the policy. So people can believe QE was a “failure” beacuse the economy isn’t fully recovered. Of course, these are many of the same people who predicted QE would lead to hyperinflation. It seems more likely to me that it prevented deflation and depression, but wasn’t strong enough for a good recovery.

    I suspect DonG is correct. When the economy recovers, partisans will claim it recovered on its own or it was because of their tax and spending policies – depending on whether their party is in power or not. Only a small slice of the population will credit monetary policy, and most of them are regular readers of this blog.

    Having said that, congratulations on your increasing recognition and policy influence. Hopefully when you get the Nobel, that will put even more pressure on the public officials to implement market monetarism as a permanent policy, rather than ad hoc discretion.

  4. Gravatar of George Doolittle George Doolittle
    15. September 2012 at 13:30

    I’m curious what historical context you feel the Chairman is using as a basis for targeting nominal GDP. Obviously if we look at spending relative to GDP the answer is clearly WW II. I only ask this because as someone who has with both ease and specificity shown a way forward by fighting this Fed (North Dakota, oil and railroads) I think questioning of the ability of this policy to succeed must be answered as well…and only by putting this policy in an historical context can we begin to asses the viability of this approach.

  5. Gravatar of Neal Neal
    15. September 2012 at 13:32

    I was asked whether the new Fed policy will enable Obama’s big spending plans for his second term. I doubt it. The policy initiative is too small to decisively impact growth or the deficit, but large enough to take away support for further fiscal stimulus. Obama will be forced to adopt Simpson/Bowles-style austerity during his second term.
    I wonder if that’s an intentional political calculation.

  6. Gravatar of Free Banking » 2003 Redux, or, Why Market Monetarists Had Better Start Talking About the Dangers of QE3 Free Banking » 2003 Redux, or, Why Market Monetarists Had Better Start Talking About the Dangers of QE3
    15. September 2012 at 13:48

    […] your beliefs, are quite contrary to those beliefs. If you fail to do so now, (and especially if you appear to endorse those aspects of the Fed's new policy) you may not have much to gloat about after the "long and variable lag" that ends some time after […]

  7. Gravatar of maynardGkeynes maynardGkeynes
    15. September 2012 at 14:31

    Do you have any concerns with the distributional effects of Fed policy, are you, like most economists, of the opinion that, it doesn’t matter who actually pays the “tax” for this policy? To me it does matter, and the fact that the rich disproportionately benefit from a “solution” that has a serious risk of not working would keep me away at night.

  8. Gravatar of John John
    15. September 2012 at 14:42

    I can’t understand why this is so negative for Romney? I understand what went on with Intrade, the thinly traded website that predicted Rob Portman would be the VP this year and Hillary Clinton would be the democratic nominee in 2008. While Intrade’s predictive record is questionable, just like all other predictions, what isn’t questionable is that the Fed was forced to act because of the Obama administration’s terrible management of the economy over the last four years and failures to reach any agreement on taxes for the future. I think voters will be able to understand the fact that Obama’s incompetence forced Bernanke into this.

  9. Gravatar of MarkS MarkS
    15. September 2012 at 15:16

    Were you also “brought back to earth” when Woodford told the Wash Post that your work has had no influence on what he thinks and says NGDP Targeting is not an optimal approach?

    “DM: One big advocate of an NGDP target, on his blog and elsewhere, has been Scott Sumner at Bentley University. Did he influence your thinking on this?

    MW: I don’t think it affected me.”

  10. Gravatar of Don Geddis Don Geddis
    15. September 2012 at 15:41

    @Maynard: surely the most direct benefits of the policy are the millions of unemployed, who have spent four years suffering from 8+% unemployment instead of the more natural 4-5% rate. The working class getting more jobs is the #1 goal (and effect). The rich only benefit indirectly.

    @John: “Obama’s incompetence forced Bernanke into this”. You’ve got it exactly backwards. It was within the Fed’s power to have avoided this extended recession, four years ago. Nothing Obama did, or didn’t do, would have been able to change what the Fed made happen to the economy. Bernanke is finally starting to correct an earlier economic mistake … and all you can think about is Obama politics?

  11. Gravatar of Greg Greg
    15. September 2012 at 15:43

    The Woodford interview at WaPo said you had no influence on any of his thinking and that NGDP was not the best approach. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  12. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    15. September 2012 at 16:57

    Greg, Thanks for making my day! I’m thrilled that the WaPo felt they had to ask Woodford about me. Do you think that would have happened in an interview 5 years ago?

    I agree that NGDP isn’t the “best choice,” wage targeting is. I agree with Woodford that NGDP is a good pragmatic second choice.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    Tommy, I agree, but my point is that even the newer and better forecast is still for a rather slow recovery. Just don’t expect miracles. But this definitely does help.

  13. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    15. September 2012 at 18:14

    maynard –

    “the fact that the rich disproportionately benefit from a “solution””

    I think you have a very loose definition of the word “fact”. Like Don, I think the people who would get jobs would be the primary beneficiaries.

    In any case, it makes no sense to destroy the economy to spite the rich. If you think the rich have an unfair share of the pie, it would make more sense to tax them more than have the Fed cause a depression so we can all suffer together.

  14. Gravatar of maynardGkeynes maynardGkeynes
    15. September 2012 at 20:05

    Thanks for the responses to my earlier post. People tal about “jobs” like this is a done deal. Hardly. Where is the evidence that stoking inflation (as opposed to warding off deflation) creates significant number of jobs? What we do have evidence of (see the BOE report) is that this type of policy intervention operates as a major wealth transfer to the wealthy. The job gains are pure speculation, while the wealth transfer is clear and demonstrable. Sadly misguided.

  15. Gravatar of Rademaker Rademaker
    15. September 2012 at 22:51

    Mr. Sumner I have very general question on interest rate setting policy that I would like your input on, I hope asking about it here will not be inappropriate. When interest rates in the domestic economy are bought down, but monetary policy in foreign economies is tighter such that interest rates there remain relatively high, the possibility for interest rate arbitrage between the two economies via the carry trade emerges. Does such arbitrage constitute a drag on real GDP in the final analysis? Intuitively it looks like a form of capital flight to me, with the tighter economy deriving benefit from the policy of the looser economy. Likewise, is there a negative effect on real GDP from commodity speculation under influence of lower interest rates and the price effect Krugman describes in this blog post (

  16. Gravatar of Full Employment Hawk Full Employment Hawk
    16. September 2012 at 02:31

    ” There’s no longer any point in even wasting keystrokes on Mitt’s plans. He’s done—put a fork in him”

    The remarks by Romney and Ryan with respect to what the Fed has done once again shows that the establishment of monetary policy based on market monetarism requires that Obama and the Democrats be reelected and Romney be defeated. Romney almost certainly knows better, is being dishonest and demogoguing, and would want to continue expansionary monetary policy as his competent economic advisors, like Mankiw, will be advising, but the right-wing Repubican base in Congress will not let him do it. And Romney has never demonstrated any backbone in standing up to these people. Therefore people who are serious about market monetarism should be supporting and voting for Obama and the Democrats in this election.

  17. Gravatar of Full Employment Hawk Full Employment Hawk
    16. September 2012 at 02:34

    ” There’s no longer any point in even wasting keystrokes on Mitt’s plans. He’s done—put a fork in him”

    It will be interesting to see when, or if, Romney’s competent economic advisors, such as Mankiw, Feldstein, and Hubbard will abandon the sinking ship before their academic reputations are irretrivably damaged.

  18. Gravatar of Full Employment Hawk Full Employment Hawk
    16. September 2012 at 02:40

    “Where is the evidence that stoking inflation (as opposed to warding off deflation) creates significant number of jobs?”

    This is not about stroking inflation. It is about stroking NGDP growth. When output is depressed, most of the effect of faster NGDP growth is on output (and therefore on reducing unemployment) and only a limited amount is on the rate of inflation. The greater the effect on output and the smaller the effect on the rate of inflation, the more the number of additional jobs created.

  19. Gravatar of maynardGkeynes maynardGkeynes
    16. September 2012 at 05:45

    @Full Employment Hawk:

    Thank for the explanation. That makes more sense to me; what I hear from Krugman and others sounds more like an argument for inflation qua inflation, in that people will spend more now if they expect prices will be going up due to inflation. That just strikes me as crazy, because the threat of inflation mostly just scares people, causing them to spend less, if anything, and secondly, to the extent it stimulates current spending, is merely borrowing from future consumption.

  20. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    16. September 2012 at 06:40

    MaynardGkeynes, There’s no tax on anyone from QE3, except criminals who hoard cash. It’s a positive sum game.

  21. Gravatar of Jeffrey Lacker, the lone dissenter | Historinhas Jeffrey Lacker, the lone dissenter | Historinhas
    16. September 2012 at 07:17

    […] to Scott Sumner the Fed has made progress exchanging “arrows” for “small caliber handguns” in its efforts […]

  22. Gravatar of Gregor Bush Gregor Bush
    16. September 2012 at 07:54


    “There’s no longer any point in even wasting keystrokes on Mitt’s plans. He’s done—put a fork in him.”

    Intrade has Mitt had 34%. So Shouldn’t you use half as many keystokes to discuss Mitt’s plans as you do to cover Obama’s? Unless you don’t beleive in EMH… :)

  23. Gravatar of Our pal George tells us not to rest on our laurels « The Market Monetarist Our pal George tells us not to rest on our laurels « The Market Monetarist
    16. September 2012 at 08:18

    […] George is telling us not to rest on our laurels after the Federal Reserve took “a giant leap” after it effectively announced an Evans style policy rule. I have called the Fed’s new rule the […]

  24. Gravatar of maynardGkeynes maynardGkeynes
    16. September 2012 at 09:23

    My thanks to Scott for his response @ 06:40, which is quite helpful to me as I try to understand this. Can someone elaborate just a bit on his response? It seems to me that anyone who has a strong preference for cash, not just criminals who must hoard it, is “taxed” by QE3. .

  25. Gravatar of Peter in Larkspur Peter in Larkspur
    16. September 2012 at 10:27

    What do you think about this solution for the foreclosure and short sale crisis? First I have been arguing since the collapse that the housing crisis was a key, if not the key to recovery. When tens of millions owe more than their home is worth they are not going to spend a penny they can avoid spending. They are not going to pay their property taxes and that destroys the revenue base of most cities and towns. The only solution is what I think the administration should name “The Main Street Bailout”. Wall Street and the auto industry got their bailouts, and now it’s far overdue for Main St. to get it’s bailout. The Main St. Bailout would be a buy down of every underwater residential mortgage in America down to 90% of current market value. The cost would be paid for in two ways. First the lenders will be convinced to eat two thirds of the cost. This will be less costly to them than the cost of foreclosure sales and short sales which are typically sold at much less than 90% of current market value, plus the lenders incur all of the legal expenses included in those sales. But if they eat two thirds of the cost to buy down every mortgage to 90% of current market value, they will then have performing mortgages once again and borrowers with 10% equity who in a year or two once housing values increase, could refinance and trigger a spurt of growth and spending. The lenders will be far better off than letting those homes go to foreclosure or short sale. The remaining third of the cost should be taken from TARP funds which have been repaid. After all these mortgages are the very toxic assets that the Toxic Assets Recovery Program was named for. And if it is not possible to fund The Main St. Bailout with TARP funds, the Congress should finance the cost. Let any member of Congress vote against The Main St. Bailout at their own peril.

  26. Gravatar of chris mahoney chris mahoney
    16. September 2012 at 10:37

    I can’t help but think, as we talk about level targeting, that the Fed’s self-imposed 2% inflation target should be doubled.

  27. Gravatar of maynardGkeynes maynardGkeynes
    16. September 2012 at 11:06

    @chris mahoney

    Whoever is in office when inflation is 4% will probably not be reelected; whoever is in office when they announce that the target for inflation is 4% will definitely not be reelected.

  28. Gravatar of Full Employment Hawk Full Employment Hawk
    16. September 2012 at 12:03

    “Whoever is in office when inflation is 4% will probably not be reelected”

    During the Reagan administrtion, the Fed stopped its contractionary monetary policy designed to bring the inflation rate down when the rate of inflation was still 4%, and the rate of inflation remained at about 4% for the rest of Reagan’s terms. That did not keep him from being reelected. Probably the major reason he was reelected was that the economy was recovering from the recession and the unemployment rate, while still high, was coming down at a solid rate, so that he could claim that “it’s morning in America.” If the Fed had kept the monetary brakes on until the rate of inflation was down to 2%, that recovery would not have happened and he would have lost.

    A faling unemployment rate with 4% inflation is much better for the incumbent than a 2% inflation with the unemployment rate not coming down significantly.

  29. Gravatar of RebelEconomist RebelEconomist
    16. September 2012 at 14:18

    “There’s no tax on anyone from QE3, except criminals who hoard cash.”

    And how is that not a lie, Scott? If you think that QE3 is not inflationary, then criminals who hoard cash (I assume you really mean currency) won’t get taxed. If you think that QE3 is inflationary, then anyone with unindexed nominal claims in general, and bank deposits in particular (another interpretation of “cash”), which tend to be held by relatively poor and financially unsophisticated savers, the majority of whom I would imagine are not criminals, will lose too.

    Sometimes your glibness goes too far.

  30. Gravatar of Jeff Boyd Jeff Boyd
    16. September 2012 at 18:20

    Perhaps I don’t really understand NGDP targeting but I would like to ask a question and then express a few opinions.

    Question – What happens if all the cash merely winds up buying assets such as stocks, gold, farmland, etc.? I would expect that lots of investment would flow toward those endeavors such as we saw with the housing boom and internet boom but what if it takes bidding up the S&P to ten times its current level in order to get the investment/consumption going? Has Dr. Sumner or someone else addressed this concern?

    Opinion – Maybe Dr. Sumner doesn’t deserve all the credit for the idea but as he is the only one this non-economist has heard it from I give him the credit. I always thought his ideas were a great way of illustrating what the Fed does and I’ve thought that had the Fed done this in 2008 the “shock treatment” might have avoided many of the foreclosures and banking confidence issues by virtue of preventing asset price collapses but we went through it and it seems like most of the worst is over so implementing it (assuming that is what is happening) now seems overly risky and benefits asset holders (and I put myself in that category) and borrowers at the expense of those who have been too scared to buy assets and were therefore were “cash hoarders.”

    No easy answers and I have always appreciated the humbleness that Dr. Sumner has shown when expressing his views but getting back to my question, what about asset prices? Isn’t there a huge risk that we are just creating a huge asset bubble? If it has been addressed I apologize but I’m an economist/intellectual wannabe and need to be pointed in the direction of where this has been addressed.

  31. Gravatar of Economist’s View: Fed Watch: Now We Wait Economist's View: Fed Watch: Now We Wait
    16. September 2012 at 23:24

    […] passed me by). See, for example, Mark Thoma, FT Alphaville, Gavyn Davies, FT Money Supply, Scott Sumner, and Econbrowser. I would add that this policy shift indicates that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben […]

  32. Gravatar of To To
    17. September 2012 at 00:09


    People holding their savings in bank accounts and other safe investment vehicles currently earn interest below the inflation rate. The reason, if you believe SS (and Friedman) is that the Fed has kept money too tight in the past which forces it to keep rates ultra-low now to avoid catastrophic deflation. After some QE and a robust recovery, they’ll be able to raise rates again so savers can actually save money.

    Which do you prefer, .5% interest with 1% inflation or 5% interest with 3% inflation ?

    The Israeli central bank carried out aggressive monetary easing during the peak of the crisis, to the point that inflation rose to 6% for a year. Then, they were the first CB of a developed country to raise rates in 2009, taming inflation immediately. Compare with the Japanese situation: 20 years of negative real rates. That’s what hard-money mania brings to savers.

  33. Gravatar of RebelEconomist RebelEconomist
    17. September 2012 at 00:09

    Jeff, you are right. It is likely that the base money supplied by QE will bid up asset prices, since that is what the asset holders that sold to the Fed preferred to hold.

    The respectable argument is that this will prompt the creation of new assets and hence real investment to boost real GDP as well as prices. However, my own suspicion is that many of the advocates of QE are middle aged, moderately wealthy owners of stocks and real estate who have been disappointed in the returns on their investments in the approach to their retirement, and either cynically or sub-conciously, would rather like to see a bit of air pumped back into the asset price bubble. In addition, investment banks which continue to hold some risky assets at unrealistic prices can be expected to comment favourably on policies that might let them off that hook.

  34. Gravatar of RebelEconomist RebelEconomist
    17. September 2012 at 01:01

    @To, I don’t believe Scott Sumner that the Fed was too tight in 2008, and Friedman can’t talk for himself. I think the Fed did pretty much what they had to do in 2008, which was to allow the market to take as much base money as it wanted at a very low short-term interest rate. But I think there comes a time when it is necessary to accept that the demand for liquidity is no longer driven by panic, but is a sign of a lack of what I call “reckoning”:

    It is hard to argue that the recent Fed policy initiative is driven by fear of deflation, with inflation quite close to the Fed’s own target – if you think it is not, ask yourself what the reaction would be if the Fed tightened monetary policy because inflation was overshooting the target by a similar amount.

    I don’t know much about the Israeli economy, but I do know that it is relatively tech-heavy, and this sector, having been beaten down in the early noughties, has done relatively well since the financial crisis. I would be looking there to explain Israel’s recovery, rather than to its monetary policy.

  35. Gravatar of Advocates of Reason: 17 September 2012 | Economic Thought Advocates of Reason: 17 September 2012 | Economic Thought
    17. September 2012 at 01:01

    […] about me; let’s take a look at the market monetarist material published over the weekend. Scott Sumner and Bill Woosley urge caution in appraising the recent Fed decision. Both note that the Fed […]

  36. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    17. September 2012 at 04:03

    A basic tenet to economics is that higher real prices will lead to increased supply be it for widgets or for financial assets. Specifically, higher stock prices will lead increase stock issuance and a reduced cost of capital for firms, and in addition portfolio theory suggests that an increase in the price of one asset class will result in the increase of other assets prices so higher equity prices normally leads to higher debt prices (i.e. lower costs for the the debt issuer) leading to increased borrowing and spending by business and firms.

    Also higher financial asset prices will induce businesses and households that hold financial assets to exchange these for real goods and services (i.e. increase spending).

  37. Gravatar of Inflation Is the Plan | Jeremy R. Hammond Inflation Is the Plan | Jeremy R. Hammond
    26. September 2012 at 23:45

    […] byproduct, of QE3. He quotes from economists Scott Sumner and Paul Krugman (linked below). Murphy’s blog is: […]

  38. Gravatar of Bob Murphy: Inflation Is the Plan (Not A Side Effect) | The Freedom Watch Bob Murphy: Inflation Is the Plan (Not A Side Effect) | The Freedom Watch
    12. October 2012 at 12:21

    […] byproduct, of QE3. He quotes from economists Scott Sumner and Paul Krugman (linked below). Murphy’s blog is: […]

Leave a Reply