Hi d&o,
Nope.
Some folks presumed that high inflation or even hyperinflation would flow as a direct result of quantitative easing.
The open-ending of the timescale is the response of those who don't wish to concede or don't understand the economics of the zero bound.
The whole point was that we were and continue to be in a depressed, low-demand, deflationary environment, and the Fed is unable to create negative interest rates; so in order to accommodate the economy and encourage demand, - to the extent the Fed is able to influence things via monetary policy - they need to find a way to loosen the money supply. That is what QE did. It is the practical equivalent of a negative interest rate.
You apply high interest rates to combat imaginary inflation, you create a depression. Brilliant!
If demand begins to appear, and then becomes robust, of course it will be appropriate to tighten the money supply at that point to combat inflationary pressures. But the point isn't what will be; it is understanding what has been and still is.
It is a species of nonsense to use the tools to combat inflation in a deflationary environment. To predict inflation in a deflationary environment is nonsense on stilts.
So saying let's wait and see is another way of saying you are not understanding the nature of the problem. The problem of deflation and lack of demand is the problem we are currently facing. One day we may face inflationary issues again. But three years into a wrong-headed idea of the problem, it's time to concede the argument.
And to stop pretending that your analysis was correct. The people on the right who actually care about the reality are beginning to concede the point. The dogmatists will never do so.
So - I don't accept your critique. And I think cat should get off his high horse in the midst of the predictive catastrophe he has visited upon us.
| 