However, the mantra is that monetising Fanny and Freddie will be inflationary. Why? Is not rescuing them by monetisation an anti-deflationary measure? It prevents debt default by them, which would have been deflationary, but is not, of itself, inflationary. Nor does it address the root cause of the problem, millions of people with mortgages that they can’t afford. How does monetisation affect them?
Fully, 12:13, what you describe is deflation. Nobody can pay the debts, so the debt default is deflationary. Nor was the USD fully backed by gold in the thirties - that was partly why they revalued gold upwards by 75%, to try to bring it more into line with the dollars in existence. Note also that is why gold and gold related stocks did well in the thirties depression: by fiat decree.
I disagree with Monty Guild in that the emerging world (presumably he means economies) are strong. The stock markets of Brazil, India, Pakistan, China and Indonesia are down by 25%, 30%, 40%, 60% and 40% respectively - they don’t sound like strong economies. China’s (the world’s) biggest mall, 1500 shops, has 12 (twelve) occupied after three years. All commodities apart from iron ore, and maybe coal and cement, are off their peaks by over 20% - nickel, 70%. And if Europe, USA and Japan fall into recession, their export industries will suffer.
The picture is really ugly right now. I think it is unwise to concentrate on headline inflation figures as being the foretaste of things to come; let’s look at what is happening around the globe that may affect prices in the future. Clearly the rapid rise in all types of commodity prices in the past was going to result in CPI inflation eventually. Just a clearly, falling prices will result in CPI deflation in the future - we already have that in fuel prices, Diesel is already 15% cheaper now than a month ago (in Oz).