I worry that no decision-maker is setting out any vision of where we should to be in say 2 years time, or 3 years or whatever. I don’t care that no-one really knows just how bad it’s going to get, I want to know how those making today’s decisions see the end-game of their decision-making. How much leeway is there to keep bailing and guaranteeing whatever happens to come along? If they think there’s a limit, what is it and should that mean a rethink on what’s being bailed-out now, in order to keep something in reserve for what’s undoubtedly to come.

Meanwhile, just reacting to the next accident in the muddle-through way that mirrors what we’ve recently experienced will risk an eventual catastrophe – a final act too far that will crush the bond market and the currency.

Good to hear from you. The cost clearly is inflation. I am of the view that the Fed was too late to the party and that deflation will set in by early next year. However, that is a call that is yet to be confirmed.

In the meantime, the Fed, with all its money and liquidity risks inflation. I certainly appreciate the aggressiveness of the response. But, like you, I worry about unintended consequences.

Feel free to add your two cents.

Cheers.

Edward

but at what (inevitable?) longer-term cost?