Bitcoin rebounded as much as 15% on Monday to trade around $38,683 per coin after a vicious sell-off over the weekend. The cryptocurrency slipped 18% to $33,674 at intraday lows on Sunday.
The crypto space has faced a tough few weeks of risk-off sentiment causing the total industry market cap to fall over the weekend to $1.57 trillion from record highs of $2.56 trillion on May 12, according to data from CoinMarketCap.com.
Mark Cuban called the sell-off the “Great Unwind” in a tweet on Sunday, arguing crypto traders were forced to unwind their leveraged trades amid falling prices in the space.
“Traders borrow to buy Eth, used eth to borrow alt/stable coin, used that to LP a high APY Pair, took the SLPs and staked them to maxout yield. The minute Eth drops to their Tragic Number, they had to Unwind. Unstake, Remove Liqudity, Repay,” Cuban wrote.
Some bitcoin experts believe the recent downturn may be over, however. Pankaj Balani, the CEO of Delta Exchange, a crypto derivatives exchange, told Insider that he believes “most of the leverage is out of the system now and bitcoin should start to form a base here.”
On the other hand, Paul Krugman, a noted economist and Nobel Laureate, published an op-ed titled “Technobabble, Libertarian Derp and Bitcoin” last week where he compared the crypto craze to “a natural Ponzi scheme.”
Krugman was roundly mocked by the crypto community for his comments, with bitcoiners pointing out the economist had previously said the fax machine was going to have as much impact on the economy as the internet.
“By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s,” Krugman wrote in a 1998 Red Herring article.
In other bearish news, JP Morgan analysts said in a note to clients on Monday that it was “too early to call the end of the recent bitcoin downtrend.”
The JPMorgan team said there is “a significant risk of further de-risking given continued decay in our lookback period momentum signal and given the absence of buying in either the bitcoin fund space or the regulated bitcoin futures space.”
Despite the falling price of crypto assets, over the weekend bitcoiners celebrated Bitcoin Pizza Day.
The holiday pays homage to Laszlo Hanyecz, who paid for two pizzas using 10,000 bitcoins in the first-ever transaction using the currency 11 years ago.
At the time the 10,000 bitcoins were worth roughly $41, now they are worth more than $3.8 billion.
Bitcoin isn’t a convenient medium of exchange and carries with it other shortcomings. But Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has begrudgingly admitted that the cryptocurrency is here to stay.
“BTC isn’t a new innovation; it’s been around since 2009, and in all that time nobody seems to have found any good legal use for it,” wrote Krugman in a string of comments he posted about bitcoin on Twitter on Wednesday.
He continued: “But I’ve given up predicting imminent demise. There always seem to be a new crop of believers. Maybe just think of it as a cult that can survive indefinitely.”
The New York Times opinion columnist has previously called himself a “crypto skeptic” and on Wednesday he outlined what he sees as flaws in bitcoin, the world’s most traded digital currency.
“It’s not a convenient medium of exchange; it’s not a stable store of value; it’s definitely not a unit of account,” he wrote. “Its value rests on the perception that it’s a technologically sophisticated way to protect yourself from the inevitable collapse of fiat money, which is coming one of these days, or maybe one of these centuries. Or, as I say, libertarian derp plus technobabble.”
His comments echoed his July 2018 article in which he said he could be wrong about holding a skeptical view toward cryptos. “But if you want to argue that I’m wrong, please answer the question, what problem does cryptocurrency solve?”
Krugman – who won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008 for his work on international trade theory – posted his comments on Twitter on the same day of a massive selloff in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies after the People’s Bank of China said digital tokens can’t be used as a payment form by financial institutions.
Bitcoin at its lows fell 31% to around $30,000 on Wednesday before paring losses.
Modern Monetary Theory economists are the trailblazing left-wingers in the field. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says he’s farther left than them.
Both schools are inspired by the great 2oth-century English economist John Maynard Keynes, whose theory of fiscal stimulus influenced not only FDR’s response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, but $5 trillion of federal spending amid the coronavirus recession.
Krugman was one of the “neo-Keynesians” who worked to integrate his theories with neoclassical economics of the 1950s and onward. But in recent years, MMT has taken that legacy forward, arguing that, since the US is the only power that can print US dollars, the government can spend first without raising cash through taxes.
Where the prevailing policy strategy sees budget deficits as the primary obstacle to spending, MMT asserts that inflation is the biggest risk. Taxes can then be used to slow inflation by reining in the money supply, according to the theory.
Krugman says policymakers can also rely on the Fed to handle inflation, and that’s actually a more progressive economic policy.
“MMTers, at least if they’re consistent with their own doctrine, are substantially to the right of people like me,” Krugman told Insider earlier this month. “The MMTers don’t seem to believe that monetary policy can ever be used for anything useful.”
The MMT framework existed on the fringes of economic policy before the COVID-19 crisis, but Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said that, so long as interest rates stay at historic lows, the government should spend what’s necessary to power the economic recovery. That’s a sharp reversal from the Obama administration’s approach, which was hindered by fears of deficit spending and the growing national debt pile.
If deficit worries took center stage in 2009, inflation is the biggest risk looming over the pandemic-era recovery. One camp, led by conservatives and moderate Democrats, is concerned that unprecedented spending and the Federal Reserve’s low rates can spark the worst inflation crisis since the 1970s.
The other, which Krugman resides in, sees inflation cooling once reopening ends and the country settles into a new normal. But while MMT supporters view taxes as the key weapon for curbing inflation, Krugman believes policymakers can rely on the Fed to keep price growth in check.
Followers of MMT, then, can be “more cautious and less willing to go wholeheartedly into progressive policies” than those who appreciate the Fed’s power, he added.
While the economy hasn’t fully rebounded yet, Krugman sees a repeat of Obama-era concerns potentially being the biggest mistake policymakers make during the recovery.
President Joe Biden has teed up another $4.1 trillion in spending on infrastructure and care programs in recent weeks, as well as several tax increases set to pay for most of the plans. Such pay-fors are appealing for those who worry about the budget deficit, but in practice, they could keep the recovery from reaching its full potential, Krugman said.
Passing more spending packages while leaving taxes untouched could keep the US from entering a demand-starved recovery like that seen after the Great Recession, he added.
“What the doctor ordered is some sustained moderate deficit spending,” he said. “That’s what worries me a little bit. That we’re still too worried about fiscal responsibility and not sufficiently worried about persistent weakness of demand.”
Businesses’ need for workers similarly rebounded as firms look to service outsize consumer demand, but the US added only 266,000 jobs in April, a sharp deceleration from the job growth seen in March and a big miss of the 1 million-payroll estimate. Yet average hourly earnings surged through the month and the average workweek grew longer as businesses converted part-time employees to full-time work.
These developments are “consistent with constraints” in the labor market, rather than a lack of demand for workers, JPMorgan said.
“We had anticipated bottleneck pressures this year, but signs of similar constraints in US labor markets is a surprise,” the team led by Bruce Kasman said in a note to clients.
Economic data published Tuesday morning supports such claims. The country ended March with a record 8.1 million job openings, according to the monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. The hiring rate climbed slightly, and about 1.2 Americans competed for every job opening. Although April JOLTS won’t be released for another month, the March figures suggest businesses were ramping up hiring efforts as the economy continued to reopen.
The rising commodity prices also point to another pressure plaguing the labor market. Experts including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell suggested before the report that a jump in average wages would be indicative of a worker shortage. If wages need to climb to accelerate hiring, the combination of higher labor and materials costs could further boost inflation and create new economic worries.
JPMorgan, for now, sees such bottlenecks fading as the recovery charges on. Sustained policy support and strong economic growth should drive more Americans into the workforce. This should, in turn, alleviate some manufacturing pressures and help producers address their massive order backlogs.
The bank isn’t alone in its optimism. The expiration of bolstered unemployment benefits and the start of the school year will push more Americans to job openings, Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said Sunday.
The creation of new businesses can also offset permanent job losses. While April job data was hugely disappointing, it still seems as though the labor market will emerge without the long-term scarring many feared, Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said Wednesday.
“People seem to be eager to go back to work. Not enough to make companies that don’t want to pay higher wages happy. But this whole thing is really looking like a V-shape recovery,” he told Insider.
A new debate is emerging as the US economy nears reopening, and it’s not as cut and dried as the party-line stimulus arguments that preceded it.
In one corner, economists and politicians argue they have learned lessons from the slow growth that followed the Great Recession, and “going big” is better than “going small. They posit that years of below-target price growth show the economy can run hotter than previously thought and fears of runaway inflation are overblown.
The other side fears that inflation overshoots can quickly morph into rampant price growth and that the Federal Reserve might lose its grip on inflation, plunging the country into a 1970s-like downturn. The lessons of the Great Recession are not as relevant as the lessons of the Great Inflation, they claim.
The argument was mostly partisan – with one significant exception – while Democrats were pushing to pass President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan. Yet with that measure now law and Biden now aiming to spend another $4 trillion, more and more moderates are raising concerns.
Here are the 14 loudest voices on both sides of the issue, from dueling central bank chiefs to renowned economists.
Against: Larry Summers
Long a leading voice of the Democratic economic establishment, Larry Summers led early, vocal opposition to Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus.
Representing a small-but-influential side of the party that opposes additional spending, the former Treasury Secretary (under President Bill Clinton) and director of the National Economic Council (under President Barack Obama), Summers repeatedly railed against the party’s stimulus strategy, suggesting in a Washington Post column that the latest package could spark “inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.”
More recently, Summers appeared on Bloomberg TV to accuse Congress of backing the “least responsible” macroeconomic policy of the past four decades.
“What is kindling is now igniting. I’m much more worried that we’ll have either inflation or a pretty dramatic fiscal-monetary collision,” he said, adding that he sees only a one-third chance the Treasury and the Fed will see the combination of inflation and growth they’re hoping for.
For: Paul Krugman
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has served as Summers’ foil in recent weeks, taking the side that Democrats’ massive spending is fitting for the scope of the pandemic’s fallout. Biden’s $1.9 trillion package is more “disaster relief” than stimulus, Krugman said in a New York Times column published last month.
“When Pearl Harbor gets attacked, you don’t say, ‘how big is the output gap?'” he added in a February debate with Summers hosted by Princeton University.
Inflation concerns are also likely overblown, according to the famed economist. Krugman posited that much of the $1,400 direct payments included in the latest aid package will be saved instead of spent. He said this is a positive outcome for inflation fears, as such a trend would fuel less inflation than if the entire payment was swiftly used to purchase goods and services.
Against: Olivier Blanchard
French economist Olivier Blanchard echoed Summers’ critiques in a series of February tweets, then in a longer article for the Petersen Institute. While “too much is better than too little” when it comes to relief spending, he wrote, Democrats’ plans are too large and risks overfilling the hole in the US economy.
“We should spend what we need to save people from poverty and fund the needed response to the pandemic. I think we do not need to spend $1.9 trillion for that, and we should have a smaller program,” he added.
The economist has modified his tone, however. In a later thread, Blanchard said part of the stimulus package should be contingent on how the virus develops.
If the pandemic worsens and Americans need more aid, they would receive full-sized checks. But if people need less support, Congress should only send out reduced checks, if they send any payments at all, he said in a February 27 tweet.
Somewhat lightheartedly, Blanchard also likened Biden’s plan to the old proverb of the elephant swallowed by a snake, accompanied by a cartoon, on Twitter.
“The snake was too ambitious. The elephant will pass, but maybe with some damage,” he said.
For: President Joe Biden
The president is unsurprisingly one of the biggest supporters of the stimulus bill. Biden repeatedly emphasized the need to “go big” with a new package, and said he wouldn’t back down from some elements he campaigned on while running for president.
“This historic legislation is about rebuilding the backbone of this country, giving people in this nation — working people, middle-class folks, people who built the country — a fighting chance,” Biden said after signing the measure into law on March 11.
The president’s desire to pass the full $1.9 trillion bill marks a stark reversal from President Obama’s plan in similar circumstances. When pushing for more fiscal relief in the wake of the financial crisis, the Obama administration haggled with Republicans over the measure’s price tag and passed one less than half as large.
Biden instead used budget reconciliation to win passage in the Senate, forgoing Republican support entirely, and his advisors are now proposing a $3 trillion initiative to follow it, one that may also pass via reconciliation.
Against: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
The nonpartisan organization thought the American Rescue Plan was just too big, although it focused more on its colossal price tag than inflation fears.
Congress “shouldn’t shy away from borrowing what’s needed” to bridge the health crisis, but it also “can’t afford to ignore the long term,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a February press release.
“Ignoring this long-term debt picture will harm economic growth, hold down incomes, and make it even more difficult for us to tackle income inequality, support for families, and a backlog of necessary infrastructure improvements,” the CRFA added.
The nonprofit cited projections from the Congressional Budget Office as support for its argument. The office sees the federal debt pile reaching 102% of GDP by the end of the year and nearly doubling to 202% by 2051. Those figures didn’t account for the latest stimulus measure, either.
For: Jerome Powell
Though the Fed chair has largely refrained from supporting or criticizing fiscal policy, his recent comments make clear he sees the inflationary risks associated with ARPA as of little consequence, at least for now.
Inflation is likely to move higher as stimulus boosts spending and the economy reopens, Powell said while testifying to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday. Still, the Fed’s “best view” is that such effects on inflation will be “neither particularly large nor persistent,” he added.
The central bank’s latest projections call for inflation to reach 2.4% by the end of the year before falling to 2% in 2022 and then trending slightly above the 2% target. That outlook matches the Fed’s updated framework that seeks inflation above 2% for a period of time before falling back to the desired threshold.
Powell’s remarks at last week’s policy meeting signal the inflation overshoot is expected and possibly necessary to bring about a full recovery. Seeking maximum employment is just as important to the Fed as controlling inflation, per the central bank’s dual mandate, and the tradeoff once thought to exist between the two might no longer be relevant.
“There was a time when there was a tight connection between unemployment and inflation. That time is long gone,” Powell said in a March 17 press conference. He implicitly acknowledged former President Donald Trump’s influence in dispelling a conception long held on the right: “We had low unemployment in 2018 and 2019 and the beginning of ’20 without having troubling inflation at all.”
Against: Haruhiko Kuroda
Not all central bank leaders are as unperturbed as Powell. Yields for government bonds have risen in recent weeks as investors brace for higher inflation. The trend signals people are forecasting strong economic recoveries, yet higher yields can also slow rebounds by prematurely lifting borrowing costs.
While Powell has shown little concern about the sell-off in Treasurys, Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda recently fired back at rising yields on sovereign bonds. The central bank chief told parliament late last month that the Bank of Japan is ready to buy bonds in order to keep yields from rising too high.
“It’s important to keep the entire yield curve stably low as the economy suffers the damage from COVID-19,” he added.
Such policy, commonly known as yield curve control, can counter rising inflation expectations by keeping borrowing costs low. Fed policymakers have suggested they’re not yet considering such tools, but Kuroda’s comments signal other countries are willing to do more — and act now — to combat the effects of inflation.
For: Jason Furman
Jason Furman, the former chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, has taken a different path from his Harvard colleague Summers regarding the Biden administration’s efforts. The White House should err on the side of overfilling the hole in the economy and test the maximum growth estimates made by the CBO, he said.
“The idea you test potential by year after year throwing logs on the fire is incredibly compelling, but that’s not the same as spending over 10% of GDP in one year,” Furman told the Financial Times in February.
The benefits of the $1.9 trillion deal outweigh the risks “by a decent margin,” but spreading the relief out over a longer time horizon might dampen fears of a sudden inflationary surge, he added in a tweet.
Against: Ken Griffin
Citadel CEO and founder Ken Griffin entered the inflation debate on March 28 in an interview with the Financial Times, saying he expects the $1,400 payments included in Democrats’ stimulus plan to draw even more retail traders into the stock market.
He said he was concerned that a sudden surge in inflation could derail markets just as more everyday Americans are getting involved.
“Given the incredible amount of stimulus that has been unleashed, there is a possibility we see a real surge in inflation,” Griffin told the FT. “The question is whether it is transitory or becomes permanent and structural, and there is a much higher chance that it becomes entrenched than any other time over the past 12 years.”
Whether inflation rocks markets or not, retail traders are now a mainstay in the investing landscape, Citadel’s chief executive added.
For: Joseph Stiglitz
The Nobel Prize-winning economist gave Axios his own take on Tuesday, saying he’s largely unafraid of inflation leaping out of the Fed’s control. While Summers’ concerns have basis in precedent, fearing inflation today is “totally unnecessary,” Stiglitz said.
“There’s an awful lot of scope to increase demand, both in terms of the American Reinvestment Act and the new infrastructure [plan] to bring us back into a more normal world where we don’t face that deficiency of aggregate demand,” he added.
Stiglitz also gave a more full-throated rebuttal to Summers’ thesis, noting Summers himself famously argued that secular stagnation — a period of low inflation and low growth — plagued the recovery from the financial crisis.
The observation is true, but the stagnation stems from a lack of spending, Stiglitz said.
“I think he didn’t really think through what he was saying because the irony was that we’ve been in a long period where we’ve been facing lack of aggregate demand at the national and global level,” he said.
Against: Greg Mankiw
While more hedged than most in the inflation debate, Greg Mankiw views Biden’s $1.9 trillion as possibly pushing growth “beyond the limit.” There’s still room for the government to lift demand and push the recovery forward, but overstimulating activity could stifle the expansion just as it picks up the pace, said the Harvard economics professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.
“Fiscal policymakers may have already pushed on the accelerator hard enough to bring the economy close to its speed limit by year’s end, when widespread vaccination is likely to have released much of that pent-up demand,” Mankiw wrote in a New York Times column published in February.
Some elements of the bill, like spending on public health initiatives and aid for the hardest-hit Americans, are necessary, he added, but many receiving the direct payments aren’t in such dire need.
For: Claudia Sahm
Strong inflation only becomes a major risk once it spirals out of control, Claudia Sahm, senior fellow at the Jain Family Institute and former Fed economist, told The New York Times in March.
Sahm has been outspoken in her support of the Fed’s positioning and previously criticized Summers for his opposition to new stimulus.
“To me, overheating is inflation starts picking up, and it keeps going,” Sahm told the Times. “It could happen, but it would take a while and not only do we know how to disrupt a wage-price spiral — we know what it looks like.”
Sahm has also argued that Biden should continue to push for massive spending packages until it’s clear the economy has recovered, and then some. The $4 trillion infrastructure plan the president is slated to unveil on Wednesday “will not get us to the finish line” and instead can build momentum for more aid packages, the former Fed economist told Insider.
“We cannot afford to have another jobless recovery. That’s why we see both fiscal and monetary policymakers committed to getting people back to work safely as soon as possible,” she added.
Against: Niall Ferguson
Famed economic historian and Hoover Institution fellow Niall Ferguson warned Powell in a March Bloomberg column that policymakers should keep the inflationary pressures of the 1960s and 1970s in mind when pursuing above-2% price growth.
Investors’ behavior in recent weeks suggests they “fear a repeat” of past decades’ hyperinflationary environments, Ferguson said. Powell has countered such concerns, but the breakeven inflation rate and steepening yield curve signal that inflation will still exceed the central bank’s expectations.
“The conclusion is not that inflation is inevitable. The conclusion is that the current path of policy is unsustainable,” Ferguson said.
A sudden rise in inflation expectations could lift rates and, in turn, damage highly levered companies and the government itself, he added.
For: Wall Street banks
Economists at UBS, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, among others, lifted their estimates for US economic growth in 2021 soon after the passage of the latest relief package. The firms now expect US GDP to reach pre-pandemic levels in the first half of 2021 and exceed those highs soon after.
Yet inflation isn’t concerning them much. Morgan Stanley sees price growth surging to 2.6% in April and May before dropping to 2.3% at the end of the year. Those levels are in accordance with the Fed’s guidance, economists led by Ellen Zentner said.
Economists at UBS were even more pointed. The roughly 10 million jobs still lost to the pandemic mean there’s room for a period of strong inflation, the team led by Seth Carpenter said.
“We see sustained growth, well in excess of the long-run sustainable pace, but we also see a substantial amount of labor market slack,” UBS added.
Paul Krugman expects the US economic recovery from the pandemic to be “much faster and continue much longer than many people expect,” he said in a recent New York Times column.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist predicts mass vaccination, pent-up demand, greater household savings, technological progress, and the Biden administration’s backing to fuel a jobs boom.
Americans grew their personal savings by 173% year-on-year between March and November last year, as disposable incomes ballooned by $1 trillion and household spending tumbled by $535 billion, a New York Times analysis shows.
“I’m in the camp that expects rapid growth once people feel safe going out and spending money,” Krugman said.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman predicts the US economy will enjoy a strong, sustained recovery once the pandemic threat recedes.
Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2008, warned in a recent New York Times column that the next few months “will be hell in terms of politics, epidemiology, and economics.” However, he expects the economic rebound to be “much faster and continue much longer than many people expect.”
The economics professor and writer anticipates that once vaccines are rolled out nationwide, a combination of pent-up demand, increased household savings, technological advances, and the Biden administration’s support will underpin a jobs boom.
Krugman laid out a “clear case for optimism” in his column, arguing the US economy will bounce back much faster than it did from the financial crisis.
There was a “Wile E. Coyote moment” in 2007 when consumers and businesses woke up to sky-high house prices and vast sums of household debt that promptly tanked the economy, he said. However, the private sector doesn’t appear significantly overextended this time around, he added.
Indeed, a New York Times analysis found that Americans’ personal savings grew by $1.6 trillion or 173% year-on-year between March and November last year, as disposable incomes rose by $1 trillion and household spending fell by $535 billion.
Unemployment insurance benefits, stimulus checks boosted savings, and the Payment Protection Program shoring up incomes, while lockdowns and virus fears hammered spending on flights, cruises, and other services.
“I’m in the camp that expects rapid growth once people feel safe going out and spending money,” Krugman said. While the pandemic has devastated the livelihoods of millions, the average American has been “saving like crazy,” he added.
Krugman doesn’t expect the economy to require as much support as it did under President Obama. Moreover, he predicts technological advances in sectors such as biotech and renewable energy, coupled with a president who is “actually interested in doing his job” and not anti-science or obsessed with fossil fuels, to drive growth.
The economist also took a parting shot at Republicans for undermining the legitimacy of the recent presidential election.
The party’s members “keep demonstrating that they’re worse than you could possibly have imagined, even when you tried to take into account the fact that they’re worse than you could possibly have imagined,” he said.