Quote (Santara @ Dec 16 2021 03:42pm)
It's a formula for inflation, not a full on explanation of extenuating circumstances.
M went up 40%. M2, to be precise, mostly through government stimulus payments, and the Federal Reserve with 120 billion/month in bond/MBS purchases.
V went down 27%.
Anything that tries to explain inflation and doesn't have a supply term is not applicable to our current circumstance where supply has been diminished and productivity has been lowered. It could just as well be that price points went up which lowered the velocity of money. There's no reason to treat price levels purely as the dependent variable.
M1 went up but it wasn't mostly due to money printing. It was mostly due to shifting from M2 to M1.
This video is really good and is by a professional economist. At about 8:30 he talks about the change in M1 and M2 money supply changes. This came out in August, well after stimulus and lots of federal reserve activity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkClrikc1bkThere was a substantial change in the definition of M1, which changed M1 to include savings and other checkable deposits. This makes M1 look like it went up drastically. Additionally, lots of people took money from fixed savings accounts (M2) and put them in checking or spent the money (M1).
So the argument that the monetary supply is causing the current sustained inflation falls flat on its face when you examine the data. It's the supply chain, all the economists know it. At least, all the honest ones.
This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 17 2021 01:18am