Albert Edwards Says Yield-Curve Control Inevitable For Western Central Banks

Yield-curve control may be over in Japan, but it's coming soon to a central bank near you. That's according to SocGen's Albert Edwards, who's concerned about inequality. Or as concerned as someone who's worked at one of the largest banks on Earth for decades can be anyway. (I'm just joking Albert.) "My view is that decades of excessively loose monetary policy has allowed governments to ‘ruin’ their fiscal situations to the point that public debt to GDP ratios are on wholly unsustainable tr

Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today for as little as $7/month

View subscription options

Or try one month for FREE with a trial plan

Already have an account? log in

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

11 thoughts on “Albert Edwards Says Yield-Curve Control Inevitable For Western Central Banks

  1. It’s a win-win! The wealthy get to enjoy ever-lower tax rates while the rest of us get to pay for it via higher inflation, which has an out-sized impact on Wall Street. Plus it aids to GOP efforts to cut spending on entitlements which benefit the lower 75%. Are we surprised that Trump looks like a shoo-in this November?

  2. Gradually inflating away the debt burden may be the best alternative. If Biden is reelected with a house majority and a closely split senate, I would expect there to be a modest tax increase focused on unwinding some of the tax breaks for upper income individuals and corporations. Between those two, the US could be in good shape. As long as debt grows a little slower than nominal gdp we should be fine….that and medicare social security needs to get a little more funding…the adjustments don’t need to be radical

    1. Sadly, that looks like an unlikely election outcome.

      Imagine if Presidential Medal of Honor recipient Artie Laffer is appointed Fed Chairman or even Treasury secretary.

      1. I applaud your sentiment, but I think the harm of a second Presidency by the loser is highly unlikely. The reason is the body politic knows he is a risky choice. And most people including those: in 3% mortgages, CEO’s, upper middle class know intuitively that a second term could upset their suburbian world with bedlam and thought police. The most powerful will be under the most pressure. Therefore I think the safe bet is that as long as Biden continues to breathe he will be in for another 4 year term.

        I also applaud you noting Laugher is a potential for Fed Chair. (I debated whether to drop the t in laughter or not)

        1. You are hoping that voters who weigh their personal economic self-interest will outweigh voters who pull the lever for racist reasons and out of resentment against their personal economic circumstances.

          I hope you prove correct, but thanks to our constitution, votes cast in the southern and rural states carry more weight than votes cast in more populated states. So I’m afraid we’ll get a rude wake-up call.

          A similar dynamic kept the LDP in Japan in power for decades.

    2. I disagree with Derek and think — thanks in no small part to Trump’s looting of the RNC to pay his mounting legal bills — that Ria has nailed the likeliest scenario: a (narrow) Biden vixtory with the Senate closely split and Dems regaining their House majority.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints