There is also no Austrian rule that booms and busts are experienced evenly throughout the economy. As I learned it the theory is they won't be. This fed money pumping has created two distinct economies or at least two distinct perceptions of it. There is one economy where the fed money pumping is creating a boom. There is another where the last bust is still largely on-going. Where the economy is sputtering along with only a partial recovery if any and various measures are still at what used to be called recession levels. People see the economy they live in. They see the one for their location and/or their industry. That perception drives how they look at the measures of the economy and which ones they look at.
Is it possible that the Fed's measures of price inflation are skewed to the downside, as John Williams et al. contend? Is it possible that the Fed is prevented from hiking by political considerations, such as the impact of cutting short the credit-fueled boom before a presidential election, as Peter Schiff et al. contend? Is it possible that they intend for an ever-rising market to provide yield to institutions such as pensions that have traditionally relied on bonds?RW posits that the Fed will be slow to hike in response to price inflation, but is it possible that they will forego hikes and knowingly pursue Mises' crack-up boom instead?(I honestly don't know)
Thank you for the response. I am reading it now. Cheers!
RW, I respect your work, however I am completely flummoxed by the cognitive dissonance in focusing on the results of manipulation in defining your boom and ignoring everything else pertaining to the real economy, which is generally in weak to awful shape. Could you do a post on something like why industrial production declines or corporate earnings declines should be disregarded?
Real output in US manufacturing does not appear to have experienced a decline except during the 2008 crash as many individuals have often claimed. See here:https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS#