by Twilight » Sun 30 Dec 2007, 16:13:28
Here is how I see it, I may be wrong but here it goes:
Banks go to the Fed or their friendly local central bank for a loan. The expiry date is very short-term, a matter of days. On the expiry date, they need to be back with the cash, plus interest (this can even be charged at a penal rate), or there are consequences. They can lose collateral or they can be seized. This is a rotating facility, so it repeats (although extension cannot be taken for granted), but at the close of play the money that was created with every loan, is destroyed in the act of repayment. That does not strike me as being particularly inflationary as there is no long term net input of credit into the system for as long as it runs this way.
Where it can get ugly is if the banks default and the Fed breaks its own rules and does not collect. Then the money it created stays in the system. Were the central banks to print electrons in order to fill the hole of unservicable debt, they would devalue the money everyone holds. That sounds like inflation. However, governments have to service debt too; the UK government apparently spends around 5% of its income on this. Holders of this debt will not take kindly to being repaid with devalued currency. When they take capital losses in proportion to inflationary inflows, it gets political very fast. And expensive. The government might as well default on its obligations, destroy its currency and creditworthiness and become a pariah.
I think if you wish to argue inflation vs. deflation, you have to consider whether the government has more to gain watching your credit rating get trashed, or trashing its own. A few precedents aside, I do not think there are many governments out there willing to take that bullet. They would rather watch the consumer go to the wall and start cleaning up with their capabilities largely intact. Anything else runs contrary to their self-preservation instincts.