Pa(b)st, you might want to re-think this. The first part that is. Surely you understand why any significant actual deflation would not be very pleasant for the US. This is not the 18th century, we are not on the gold standard, and we are a nation in debt and a nation of debtors.
Ironically, it is the republicans that spend more than democrats. Public opinion usually thinks it's the other way around. Reason is that republicans like to spend alot more money on military, calling countries axis of evil, and cutting taxes. The last thing is very dumb move because without taxes you will have growing deficits. It's funny how republicans both hate deficits and taxes, yet they don't realize that their frivolous war spending is the main cause (remember vietnam) Appeasement to Iran by Obama may be bad in the long run, but it's a hell of alot cheaper than a third war. Remember, Iraq has a budget surplus. America getting screwed left and right because of the republicans. Republicans are ironically also the party responsible for the heavy foreign oil dependancy. Also republicans responsible for the bankers toxic assets. I just read an article where Merril Lynch supposedly is bankrupting a Kazakstan bank on purpose while having a CDS on the bank that gets paid on bankruptcy. That's like having life insurance on your spouse and hiring a hitman to kill them. Republicans are the moral downfall of the US, it is more and more become a fact.
There is another solution that i did not find mentioned in Krasting's blog, viz, increasing the income cap for SS payroll deductions. I expect that a combination of increasing the rate and increasing the cap will be used to put SS on a sound basis. It won't be difficult to do. Considering the most recent Wall Street shenanigans, i doubt if the nation is in much of a mood to put their entire retirement savings into the hands of Wall Street investment bankers! Most people, i think, prefer the hybrid system we have now with government protected mandatory SS contributions and voluntary supplemental retirement contributions. Now medicare and medicaid, that's a different kettle of fish.
Treasury longs are not going to accept massive supply coupled with inflation. Just wait and see the damage of an 8.5% Long Bond upon growth.....
Pa(b)st, do you mean long traders or bond holders like China? Either way, I don't see that they have a choice. Fortunately for us they have nowhere else to go with their money except hard assets (which they are purchasing now with abandon). I think an 8.5% long treasury will just be the beginning unless the Obama tax policies keep the economy vacillating and in the tank for 4 years. BTW Maybe China is going to take away Washington's credit card. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i4estRSYeFBIII9kezxnP4jgoGZQ
Really? Do you have any acceptable deflation numbers in mind? I was under the impression that deflation had its own negative spiral. As I vaguely understand it, excessive inflation causes people to spend quickly, before their money loses value, whereas excessive deflation causes people not to spend, waiting for prices to drop. Either scenario, beyond a narrow and acceptable range can cause a troublesome and self-perpetuating imbalance. As I understand it, to the limited extent that I do. So, what would be an acceptable deflation rate for you?
Rice Rocket makes a dare I say ground breaking observation in a thread here. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=162658 I've often thought the same thing. Conventional wisdom says a slowing, deflationary environment spells lower rates. Rice Rocket contends-and I'd confer recent history says the same-Bond prices are a beneficiary from the same excess liquidity that fuels asset strength. In a severe depression Treasury supply may be virtually unmarketable at lower yields.
A continued break in housing until prices reach historically mean earnings to resale metrics. A break in stocks until p/e's are high single digits to low doubles digits. A break in commodity prices to a point where a Happy Meal doesn't cost an hour of wages. A break in consumer sentiment to a point where folks treat many best selling products-few of which are built domestically- as luxuries and not essentials.
The top priority on the agenda of conservatives after the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 was the privatization of Social Security. Financial institutions which stood to be the biggest beneficiaries of this plan were the largest contributors to his re-election coffers. Bush tried to do the bidding of his benefactors, overtly and unashamedly. Nothing could be more plain and simple. Bush's allies at Fox News and USANext were attacking AARP, which opposes privatization. When interviewed in early 2005 by the Washington Post, Bush corrected the reporter's use of the term "privatization plan", insisting on the phrase "personal savings accounts." Privatization was halted as the term used by Republicans to describe the plan, due to its poor performance in polls and focus groups. Another euphemism was deployed by Karl Rove during February 2005 interview with Hannity & Colmes on Fox News - "modernizing Social Security." IMAGINE IF THEY HAD SUCCEEDED AND SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE MARKET JUST PRIOR TO THIS BLACK SWAN.