Dear Vince,
vincecate wrote:
> If printing money still works, then you can sort of fix any
> economic problem by printing up some money and throwing money at
> the problem. For there really to be no solution, things will have
> to get to where they can not just print money to solve problems.
>
This seems like it should be true, but it just isn't true.
In the 1990s, if someone had given me $10,000, then I would have
spent some of it, possibly most of it. But today, if the Fed
"printed" $10,000 and gave it to me, I'd barely spend a cent of
it. I'd save it all, for fear of being unemployed, or for fear
of not being able to borrow any money when I needed it for an
emergency.
What's the public mood like in Anguilla? Is it any different from
America? In America, everyone is in what I would call a "locked down"
mood. People don't want to spend money, businesses don't want to
invest money, and banks don't want to loan money.
It's not like "printing" money hasn't been tried. The U.S. has
"printed" almost $10 trillion in money in the last 3-4 years, but it
makes no difference at all. All the money goes into mattresses and
bank accounts, rather than into inflation.
Now Vince, think about this. How does the public mood in America
today differ from the public mood in 1920s Germany or 1970s America?
Even if the U.S. government "printed" another $10 trillion, I don't
think it would make any difference, while in the 1970s, or in 1920s
Germany, it would have caused massive inflation. That's why
hyperinflation is impossible at this time. Printing money
makes no difference at all, if the money doesn't circulate.
John