<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
	<channel>
		<title>unavoidable, permanent feature of fiat money</title>
		<link>/blogentry/55622</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.lotterypost.com/rss/blogcomments/55622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description>time*treat's Blog: unavoidable, permanent feature of fiat money</description>
		<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
		<generator>Lottery Post RSS Generator</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Original Blog Entry: unavoidable, permanent feature of fiat money</title>
			<link>/blogentry/55622</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">/blogentry/55622</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:56:07 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>time*treat</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>From the FOMC meeting, August 22, 2000<br /><br />transcript, page 82,<br /><br />CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. President Jordan.<br /><br />MR. JORDAN. Thank you. I agree that leaving the funds rate unchanged at this point is<br /><br />the right thing to do. I am also sensitive to the communications issues involved; it would not be<br /><br />desirable to communicate the expectation that we are not going to raise the funds rate in the<br /><br />foreseeable future or to imply that the next change might be down rather than up. But it is a<br /><br />challenge as to how to avoid communicating that.<br /><br />Regarding the language on the balance of risks, part of me would like to say that the<br /><br />statement should always be that an unavoidable, permanent feature of a fiat money system is a<br /><br />balance of risks toward higher inflation. [Laughter] If it ain t going down it s going up! But since I<br /><br />am not likely to win that one, I think we do have to spend a little more time here on what it is that<br /><br />leads us to believe that the balance of risks is toward higher inflation. I say that because in some of<br /><br />the discussion today and in previous meetings it sounded to me as if we worry that higher<br /><br />productivity through various avenues--through demand increases, wealth effects, higher real interest<br /><br />rates, and liquidity injected by the central bank--causes higher inflation. And as Governor Meyer<br /><br />suggested, we worry that lower productivity causes higher inflation. So, until we sort out a little<br /><br />better whether higher productivity causes inflation or lower productivity raises the risk of inflation,<br /><br />we are not quite ready to explain why we think the risks are toward higher inflation.<br /><br />(I get the distinct impression they are/were not laughing WITH us.<br /><br />If you&#x27;d like to prove to yourself I&#x27;m not making it all up ... )<br /><br />www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/<br /><br />http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm<br /><br />Transcripts and other historical materials<br /><br />http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc_historical.htm<br /><br />Year 2000<br /><br />http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2000.htm<br /><br />August 22 Meeting<br /><br />transcript (page 82)<br /><br />http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20000822meeting.pdf<br /><br />... &#x5b;&#xa0;<a href="/blogentry/55622">More</a>&#xa0;&#x5d;</p>]]></description>
			<category>Blog Entry</category>
			<category>time*treat</category>
			<wfw:comment>https://www.lotterypost.com/blogentry/55622</wfw:comment>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

