We shouldn't be reassured that our prosperity's backstop is a printing
press
By ROBERT P. MURPHY
Ever since the federal government and Federal Reserve’s unprecedented
responses to the financial crisis, hard-money types such as Peter Schiff (and
less famously, me) have warned Americans to prepare for
sharply rising price inflation and interest rates. Keynesians such as Paul
Krugman dismissed such fears with the term “invisible bond vigilantes,” and
understandably have been pointing to the record-low yields on Treasury
securities as proof that the “inflationistas” (another derogatory term) are crazy.
Thus far the debate
had been at a standstill: The hard-money types could claim that the dollar and
Treasuries were in unsustainable “bubbles,” just as the housing market had
been. Peter Schiff was famously laughed at by
the pundits in 2006 for warning of a coming crash, and only time will tell if
he has also been right about the stimulus package and various rounds of
quantitative easing.
However, in a November
9 blog post Paul
Krugman took matters even further. He argued that even
if the
hard-money types were correct, and investors around the world suddenly doubted
the ability of the US government to repay its debts…that this would help the US economy. In a moment
I’ll walk through Krugman’s extended argument (he
dubs it “wonkish”) and show where he goes wrong in reaching such an absurd
conclusion. But to reassure the reader that this really is what Krugman is saying, let me
quote from a post three days later, in which Krugman responds to a
correspondent who (understandably) couldn’t believe the Nobel laureate actually
meant what he had written:
A skeptical correspondent asks whether I really truly believe what I’m
saying in my post about how an attack by the bond vigilantes is
actually expansionary when you have your own floating currency. How does this
jibe with the experience of the Asian financial crisis of the 1980s, he asks?
And do I really believe that Japan would be better off if markets became less
confident in the value of its bonds?
Good questions — but ones that I and others have already answered.