Economists Uncut

David Lin (Uncut) 01-20-2025

‘Barrelling Towards An Economic Crisis At Year-End’ Unless This Happens | Steve Hanke

Incoming Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bassett is warning that Americans are facing an economic crisis in 2025 if tax cuts are not extended. We’ll talk about what he’s referring to and whether or not Americans are indeed facing some sort of calamity. Joining us to discuss the outlook for economic growth as well as markets is Steve Henke, Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University.

 

Professor Henke, always good to see you. Welcome back to the show. Happy New Year.

 

Happy New Year to you, David. Great to be with you, as usual. Yes, as usual.

 

Right before, two weeks ago, you were on, right before the end of 2024. You had given us your growth outlook for 2025 and your inflation outlook. People can revisit your calls by clicking on the link down below.

 

Let’s start by talking about some warnings, shall we say, from incoming government officials and senior government members. Let’s take a look at what Scott Bassett is saying here. This is a testimony at Congress.

 

Take a listen. Government has a significant spending problem, driving deficits that have averaged an historically high 7% of GDP during the past four years. We must work to get our fiscal house in order and adjust federal domestic discretionary spending that has grown by an astonishing 40% over the past four years.

 

Productive investment that grows the economy must be prioritized over wasteful spending that drives inflation. As we begin 2025, Americans are barreling towards an economic crisis at year end. If Congress fails to act, Americans will face the largest tax increase in history, a crushing $4 trillion tax hike.

 

We must make permanent the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and implement new pro-growth policies to reduce the tax burden on American manufacturers, service workers, and seniors. Now, here is the complete opposite opinion by the outgoing Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen. She said that plans by the incoming administration to extend the 2017 Republican tax cuts risk roiling financial markets and worsening an already challenging U.S. fiscal outlook.

 

The projected fiscal path under current budgetary policies is simply not sustainable, and the consequence of inaction or action that exacerbates projected deficits could be dire, Yellen said Wednesday in what’s likely to be her final speech in office. Both are warning of dire economic consequences for different reasons. Who do you agree with more? That’s it.

 

Let me remind our viewers that I was on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and was one of the original supply-siders, and what did the supply-siders look at? What was part of Reaganomics all about? It was about cutting taxes so that we did have proper incentives in the economy to save and invest. You got to save to invest, and you have to invest to improve productivity and stimulate economic growth. A healthy economy rests on reasonable taxes, not only the level of taxes, but the structure of taxes.

 

That’s why the supply-siders, by the way, were very much always in favor of a flat tax where everybody was paying the same tax rate for all their income with no deductions or any of the usual loopholes that are in the tax system, with a rate of maybe 15 percent or something like that, maybe 15-16 percent. So that has it right. All you have to do to understand this, look at how the European economies have collapsed and why we have what’s called exceptionalism going on in the United States with much more rapid growth than Europe.

 

The European tax rates, by the way, tax take out of GDP is over 50 percent in Germany, France, and Italy. It’s almost unbelievable. That means that the state owns more of your income than you do in Europe, and they have very slow growth and all kinds of political turmoil and so forth going on as a result of that, plus the fact that if you look at the European stock markets relative to the U.S. stock market, there’s a huge discount in the European markets.

 

So everybody’s very pessimistic. The PEs are much lower and very heavily discounted in Europe relative to the U.S. Now, that’s Besson. I agree with Besson.

 

What about Yellen? Yellen has never seen a tax that she didn’t like. She’s been a complete disaster. She was the one pushing for a world minimum tax on corporations.

 

But is she right that at this time, if we cut taxes, the deficit will widen? No, we’re not cutting taxes. They’re just leaving the current regime in place. That’s all Besson’s talking about.

 

He’s not talking about cutting taxes. He’s talking about leaving everything in place and allowing it to move forward. The tax cuts that were made in the first Trump term have continued throughout the Biden term, but they’re coming to an end.

 

Their legislative life is coming to an end. And what Besson is talking about is just keeping those in place, just renewing those. If you didn’t do that, you’d actually have a tax increase.

 

Yes, correct. And I think to Yellen’s point, if we do have a tax increase, that would help with the deficit. Why would you not agree with that idea? Because it’s a stupid idea.

 

That’s why I disagree. It would slow the economy down. If you’re going to tax and take more people’s income away from them to funnel it into the government, to feed the government hog, it’s ridiculous.

 

The idea is, if you’re worried about deficits, which Besson is clearly worried about, he gave the numbers of how high they’ve been over the last few years with Bidenomics, he wants to dump Bidenomics. And to do that, you have to cut government spending and retain the current tax structure that we have. Don’t increase it.

 

It’s two different worlds. Yellen is for increasing taxes to attack the deficit, and Besson is for leaving the current tax structure in place that’s been in place since the first Trump administration and cutting government spending. I’m for cutting government spending and leaving the same tax structure that we have right now.

 

Actually, I would like to cut taxes and move to a flat tax. I’d like to change the whole system. He’s not talking about that.

 

He’s just talking about the avoidance of a tax increase. If you do not renew the tax legislation that’s in place right now, you will actually have a tax increase. Before we continue the video, let me tell you about how important it is to protect your personal data.

 

A massive data breach recently exposed nearly 3 billion personal records, once again, highlighting the growing risks of having your private information online. It’s a reminder of why protecting your data is so important. That’s why I use today’s sponsor, Delete.me. They help remove your personal details like your address, phone number, and more from hundreds of data broker sites.

 

It’s simple, effective, and something I trust to keep my information safe. Getting started is quick. Submit your details, and within a week, you’ll get a privacy report showing exactly where your data was found and removed.

 

Delete.me keeps working all year round to monitor and remove your data so you don’t have to worry. Go to joindelete.me.com slash David Lin, link down below, or scan the QR code here, and use the promo code davidlin at checkout to get 20% off of all U.S. plans. Start taking control of your privacy today.

 

Well, for the audience, if you’re watching this right now, comment below which side of the debate you’re on, if you’d like to see tax increases, especially on corporations or not. But Professor, to, okay, so going back to the issue of growth, now, what about if we just tax the billionaires and the corporations and leave the middle class alone? I mean, that is the Democrat argument. Well, actually, maybe some right-wingers as well, but no.

 

I think it’s a bad argument. The most equitable and efficient tax system is a flat tax, with all income being generated, being taxed at, let us say, 15%. That’s the end of the story.

 

You could fill this thing out on a postcard and send it in. You could eliminate thousands of IRS agents if you did this. It would be very simple, very straightforward, and this idea that somehow you can gouge the billionaires, because that’s where the money is, it doesn’t work that way, because they’ll end up with a thousand loopholes.

 

The billionaires will lobby, they’ll get the loopholes in, and they’ll do what they do now. They’ll end up, in many cases, paying, sheltering income, getting it offshore, getting it away from the taxmen, and that wouldn’t happen. Okay, so you support the idea of cutting government spending.

 

Now, can you just walk us through the mechanics of cutting government spending, and in particular, how that affects the money supply, which we know you believe is the core driver of inflation or disinflation. Would cutting government spending decrease the money supply, necessarily? No. The money supply is determined by monetary policies, and monetary policies are determined by the bank regulators and the Federal Reserve, the central bank, and that is what really drives the nominal GDP.

 

But the potential for the nominal GDP is affected by taxes and the fiscal policy. Let us say that, look at the U.S. right now. The rate of real growth in the economy, and that is one of the two components of nominal GDP growth.

 

Nominal GDP is a real growth in GDP, plus inflation. And the monetary policy is mainly affecting the inflation part of that nominal GDP. The real part is very affected by taxes and the tax structure.

 

That’s what’s going on in Europe. That’s why they’re smothered with taxes. Not only the level of the taxes are up and high, but they have a very stupid tax, the VAT, value-added tax.

 

It’s like a national sales tax. In Europe, right away, off the top, before they even talk about income taxes, license fees, anything like that, you’re paying around 20% in a VAT for everything you consume. Everything you’re consuming is eaten up with a huge chunk and bite out of it being taken by the VAT.

 

This is a counter-argument I’ve heard to the Fed driving the money supply, and I’d just like to get your response to this. The argument here is the Federal Reserve doesn’t directly control M2 money supply. That’s the commercial banks.

 

They have to be the ones issuing. Just take a look at what’s in the money supply, M2 money supply. You’ve got cash and cash equivalents, anything that’s liquid, checkable deposits, so on and so forth, small denomination time deposits.

 

The commercial banks need to be in a position or have the appetite to issue additional notes in commercial loan products, regardless of what the Federal Reserve does with monetary policy. Even if the Fed eases and commercial banks do not want to issue more notes, the money supply still won’t increase. Does that make sense to you? I’ve repeated that a thousand times on your program.

 

The elephant in the room with the money supply are commercial banks. Seventy-six percent of all M2, the broadest measure of money that the Fed uses in the United States, it’s accounted for by liquid deposits of commercial banks. Absolutely.

 

But do you agree that that has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve? No. The Fed has some indirect effect on it because of the federal funds rate. The interest rate indirectly works into what the commercial banks are doing.

 

Also, bank regulation, to the extent that the Fed’s regulating the banks, there are various regulatory agencies that regulate banks, commercial banks, and those regulations do affect what the commercial banks do. But that’s the supply side of the picture with commercial banks. The demand side depends on what the confidence that businesses have about the economy, where they think the economy is going.

 

So if they’re very bearish on the economy, the demand for loans is not going to be very high. And as a result of that, of course, the new increments to the money supply that are being put in by the commercial banks will be smaller than would otherwise be the case. If they’re very bullish, the demand for loans is higher, and the injection of money into bankable projects is higher.

 

But you got a bunch of moving parts here. The big elephant in the room is the commercial banking system. And the biggest thing that affects the supply side of the commercial banks are all the regulations put on banks.

 

Here’s a chart of the M2 money supply, Professor. If we were to speculate what is happening next, and more importantly, why we think it’s happening, do you think that money supply will make new record highs this year or next year, keeping in mind that it’s been trending up basically ever since the beginning or middle of 2023? Well, yeah, it’ll make new highs, but it’s still growing way too slowly to hit Hankey’s golden growth rate of 6%, a rate that’s consistent with hitting the Fed’s inflation target of 2%. It’s only growing year over year at about 3.25% right now.

 

Yeah, that’s right, yeah. It’s growing a little bit, but it’s too sluggish. They should stop quantitative tightening at the Fed immediately.

 

Okay. All right. Well, the other issue I want to bring to your attention is Trump’s new economist or economic advisor, Stephen Moran, is proposing that the US could be better off with average tariffs of around 20% and as high as 50% compared with current 2%.

 

So it looks like they are serious with this broad-based tariffs across the board. Well, yeah, the broad-based tariffs, the National Tax Foundation just did a simulation, and the simulation ended up with the average tax tariff, not tax. Well, in a way, it is a tax.

 

Yes, yes. It’s like a sales tax on imports. But at any rate, the tariff would go up to, with their simulation, 17.5% given the kinds of things that Trump and his advisors are talking about.

 

Now, that is almost as high as the average tariff was with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, which, by the way, did what? It contributed to the US going into the Great Depression. The big driver behind the Great Depression, by the way, was a contraction in the money supply 1929 to 1933. The money supply actually contracted by about 38%, huge contraction.

 

But then you had these tariffs come in, and not only the US put in the tariffs, but there was a tit-for-tat kind of thing. Everyone tried to counter the US. They put in tariffs.

 

So this Moran, the new proposed chairman for the Council of Economic Advisors, is just off-base with this, because he’s going through a hypothetical argument, given a bunch of assumptions, and he’s using what’s called in economic theory the optimal tariff argument. What would be the optimum tariff? Well, he comes up with a number. The problem is all the assumptions that he’s making, none of them are satisfied in the real world.

 

It’s like being in a classroom. It’s like being a professor screwing around on the blackboard. You make 10 assumptions about how the world works, and given those assumptions, you come up with what’s called the optimal tariff.

 

And that’s what he’s doing. He’s going through an optimal tariff exercise. The problem is I could shoot every one of these assumptions down.

 

They don’t exist in the real world. So his hypothetical scenario is rubbish. What is the end result of actually implementing 20% tariffs? Well, I’m not saying we’d get exactly what we got with Smoot-Hawley, but it’s negative.

 

It is going to increase the cost of imports for final consumers, and a lot of those imports are not used by final consumers. They’re used as inputs in the manufacturing, producing things, and so it would increase the cost of those inputs. So it’s bad news.

 

It’s an absolute negative sum game. There’s an interesting dynamic where some of these input costs are increased, but the M2 money supply is not yet growing at 6%. So what is the net result on inflation? Well, the net result is zero.

 

The idea that these tariffs are going to somehow affect inflation is just misguided. The thing that affects inflation is the change in the money supply. What the tariffs do, they change the relative prices of different things.

 

The things that we import that have big tariffs attached to them, those would go up in price relative to other things. There’s a relative price change, but the price level is an aggregate of hundreds of goods and services, and that is affected by the money supply. So people get their feet tangled up because they don’t get the causality figured out.

 

Okay, so some things would go up, but not all. Some things would go up, but not all. Let us use an example that people can understand.

 

Let’s go back to the 1970s, which, of course, a lot of your viewers weren’t even born then, so they have no idea what we’re talking about, but they can read history. I think there are some viewers over, many viewers over 50 on my show. Actually, I looked at the analytics, but anyway, please continue.

 

Yeah, good for them. How many are over 80? I think you’re the wisest of us all, but please. You’re suggesting that Hankey is an outlier? No, I think statistically you might be, but in many ways, the one.

 

Let’s go back to the 1970s, because there’s a very good illustration of what I’m talking about with relative prices versus the overall price index. So the 1970s, we had two oil crises, one in 1973. These were caused by OPEC cutting back, 1973 and 1979.

 

The 1973 OPEC cutback caused the price of crude oil to shoot up, and in Japan, the Bank of Japan, so the relative price of oil went up. It went up in 1973 relative to everything else. Now, what about inflation? Well, inflation in Japan did go up, but it went up because the Bank of Japan used the money supply, thinking they had to accommodate this increased relative price of crude.

 

The second crisis, 1979, the relative price of crude, it went up. The absolute price went up, the relative price went up, and the Bank of Japan said, oh, we’re not going to play ball. We’re not going to accommodate this price increase in oil.

 

And as a result, inflation didn’t go up. They didn’t goose the money supply in 1979. So that’s a very good illustration of how relative price increases occur and change versus aggregate price level movements where the whole basket of things is going up and down.

 

And the basket goes up, David, because of changes in the money supply. Well, how would you explain the notion that we had high levels of inflation in the 70s because of the—by we, I mean the United States, not Japan now—because of the OPEC oil crisis of 73 to 74? Because the Fed goosed the money supply. So it had nothing to do with the fact that oil was scarce during those two years? No, no.

 

Okay, interesting. All right, let’s go back to the economy currently. Oil—let’s put it this way.

 

Oil was a problem for people using oil. It went up. But the inflation problem that accompanied stagflation in the 1970s in the United States was a monetary phenomenon.

 

It was something created by the Fed and monetary policy. You would think actually, you know, let’s say monetary policy aside, let’s assume the Fed doesn’t do anything. An oil shock may be deflationary because if people can’t afford gas or they have to buy gas to, you know, go to work or whatever the case may be, you know, they would spend less money on other things.

 

It would eat into their discretionary income, would it not? And so an oil shock, all else being equal, assuming no action from the Federal Reserve, would be a deflationary shock, not an inflationary one. Well, if the money supply wasn’t changing, there’d be no change in the course of inflation. That’s my point.

 

I’m just concocting a theory. Does my theory make sense that people spend less? Yeah, I’ll give you an A for concoction because it is— Thank you. That’s all I need from Professor Hankey.

 

Yeah, so this is a kind of thinking that tangles people’s feet up. Yeah. And you have to keep thinking about what is the theory behind or the idea behind national income determination? And national income determination, what do we mean by that? That means the course of nominal GDP.

 

And nominal GDP includes real GDP changes and inflation changes. And money is the thing that is driving nominal GDP, and in particular, that inflation component. Because the real GDP, it doesn’t fluctuate that much.

 

It can fluctuate, there’s no question about that. But it isn’t as volatile as the inflation component. And the inflation component is something that is caused by changes in money.

 

Because remember, if we have changes in the money supply, what happens? With a lag, we will get changes in asset prices. And with another lag, we get changes in real economic activity. And with another lag, we get changes in inflation.

 

And the problem most people have is that they’re looking at daily data. What’s coming out today? What’s coming out next week? And they don’t realize that the cause of those data changes that are coming out with regularity are all caused by changes in money supply that happened a year or maybe two, maybe even three years ago. Fair enough.

 

I’d like you to respond to this chart. NFIB, Small Business Optimism Index, been surging the last two months. The last time we had this surge was, incidentally, 2016, 2017.

 

Yeah, 2017, when Trump won. Well, 2016, rather. 2016, when Trump won the first election.

 

Anyway, both times, small businesses were very optimistic about a Trump presidency. Do you think this renewed optimism, at least according to the NFIB survey, will translate to renewed economic growth, higher investment, more hiring, so on and so forth? Well, confidence always is a plus. It’s a subjective factor, but it’s definitely a plus.

 

And by the way, it tells you a lot about Bassett’s testimony in our first question about taxes. They think Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate and Congress will pass and renew the tax structure that we have now, and we will not have an increase in taxes. That’s a very good indicator of what businesses think about the tax environment.

 

They think it will not be Yellen’s tax increase that they’re seeing. That’s my interpretation of what’s going on. Of course, these confidence is a very whimsical thing.

 

It can change around very fast, by the way. I’d like to talk to you about something that’s closer to home for me, because I’m in Canada. Canada, the Canadian government has been threatening retaliation against the U.S. tariffs by threatening to cut off energy exports.

 

First, it was Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, then the Foreign Affairs Minister, Melanesia Lee, recently doubled down on this as well on the media. Canada warns of tit-for-tat tariffs on U.S. if Donald Trump imposes levies. Ottawa has warned it will impose tit-for-tat tariffs.

 

So now not only are we talking about potentially cutting off the energy exports to the eastern seaboard—by the way, Canada is the dominant source of energy imports for the United States—Canada is now talking about retaliatory tariffs on other goods. My broader question is actually how, not just economic impacts, but your analysis of Canada’s and the U.S. relationship going forward. Well, I think that tit-for-tat is usually what happens when you impose tariffs.

 

If you punch somebody in the nose, they usually will take a swing at you. Now, that’s the reality of what happens. I think if I was advising Canada, I would advise them to back off, don’t double down, don’t take a swing.

 

In short, don’t shoot yourself in the foot. That would be my advice. Why not? Just from an economist’s perspective, I understand that politicians have an ego, they have to look strong and whatever, but why, from an economics point of view, is retaliatory tariffs not a good idea? Well, for the same reason that tariffs in the first place aren’t a good idea.

 

They’re going to slow the economy down. Why not incentivize the U.S. to not impose tariffs? Well, this is a game-theoretic problem that we’re not going to solve on a podcast. That’s usually what happens.

 

You do get tit-for-tat and you can get a ramping up on both sides. I think it’s bad for both sides. It’s a negative-sum game.

 

In a game-theoretic sense, it’s a negative-sum game. It’s not a positive-sum game. Both sides lose.

 

Both sides lose. If Trump would impose tariffs on Canada, it would be a bad deal for Canada and the United States. If Canada would impose tariffs, it would be bad for Canada and it would be bad for the United States.

 

So why not minimize the pain by forgetting a counter tit-for-tat? You see what I mean? If the U.S. puts tariffs in, it’s negative for both sides. If Canada adds to that, it’s a negative for both sides. So if Canada does nothing, it’s better for both sides than if they would have done something.

 

That’s why I would always advise, do nothing. I want to actually, after the inauguration, I’d like to have you on and I’d like you to just think about how you would advise the current Trump administration. I don’t want to ask you now.

 

We’ll save it for the next time. But suppose you were at the Council of Economic Advisers once more, what you would actually advise? We’ll get into more detail. We’ll see what happens.

 

We’ll see which executive orders he signs on day one and then we can react to that. I can give you a quick 30,000-foot thing. It would be exactly what I was advising Reagan, and that is flat taxes, supply-side economics, one.

 

Deregulation of the economy, two. Free trade, three. And four, although the White House doesn’t control directly, stable money.

 

That means Hankey’s golden growth rate of about 6% growth rate. So we’ve covered money, regulations, taxes, and also we better throw in the big one, cutting the size of government. Let’s revisit these in more detail next time.

 

Yeah, I’d like to get specifics on how those could be accomplished. Let’s finish off on some market activity. Bond yields are surging around the world.

 

Government bond yields have surged across the developed world in recent weeks, jarring stocks and pressuring indebted countries. The worldwide bond route threatens to complicate the efforts of central banks that have been cutting short-term interest rates. This is reported by the Wall Street Journal.

 

This is an issue. Actually, a reporter asked Powell at two conferences ago, not the last one, two conferences ago, are they watching the 10-year yield? And Powell’s response was, yes, on the periphery. But first of all, why is this happening? And second part of the question, I guess, which is presented in the article is, will this affect monetary policies at other central banks? Well, I think the bond market, again, they have no theory, economic theory of what’s going on.

 

Just like the Fed, they’re not looking at the money supply. And they don’t realize that the money supply has been contracting since the summer of 2022. The growth rate currently in the money supply, although it’s been coming up a little bit, is still below Hankey’s golden growth rate at 6%, consistent with hitting inflation target of 2%.

 

And that means inflation is going to do what? It ended the year at 2.9% in the United States. That’s right in the Zoom, Greenwood, John Greenwood and I had using the quantity theory of money a long time ago. We said the inflation rate would end the year at 2.5 to 3% per year.

 

It ended at 2.9. And it’s going down. It’s going down. Next year, we’ll get some readings on the headline CPI that probably will be below 2%.

 

Now, what’s that mean for bond yields? Bond yields follow inflation. The first step is what is going on with the money supply? The money supply is too slow. And the second step means that the inflation will come down as a result of that slow growth in the money supply.

 

The third step is that yields always follow inflation. So yields will be coming down. So I think the bond market just has the whole thing wrong.

 

And by the way, the US 10-year, the yields have been going up around the world. But the key benchmark really that drives the international market and puts sentiment in the international bond market is the US 10-year. The US bond market is the biggest, most liquid one in the world.

 

And it does influence everything going on in the world markets. Yeah. Inflation in Japan has been a little bit sticky as reported.

 

But do you think that this is just following the US than the other bond markets in the world following? Bond traders are selling off just to follow what’s happening in the US market? Yes. Okay. So bottom line, you expect yields to fall.

 

So you’re bullish bonds for 2025. I’m, for a trade, I’m very bullish on the 10-year. The 10-year is going to definitely come down.

 

The yields, that means the price is going to go up. If the yield, if inflation fall, if my forecast of inflation is right, David, the yields will come down and the price of the 10-year will go up. So it’s a very good trade because obviously you’re getting paid.

 

The interest rate is pretty high, relatively high in the current context. And you will have a nice capital gain because the price will go up as the yield comes down. Last topic I want to revisit with you, Professor, before we close out today is China.

 

China’s economy, according to the latest report, grew by 5.4% in Q4, beating the market forecast for the full year 2024. The world’s second largest economy grew 5%, meeting the government’s annual growth target of around 5%. Analysts have forecast 4.9. Here are some key statistics here.

 

Market reaction, China’s main stock market in Shanghai was up 0.3%. CSI index was up 0.4%, so not a huge move. But anyway, on the surface, it looks like maybe the stimulus measures they’ve introduced in the fall may have worked. But I don’t know if there was a lag effect and the GDP would have been up anyway.

 

I’ll let you comment on China. Well, China, first of all, again, what’s my model for national income determination in the United States or China or anyplace else? It’s the quantity theory of money. And money supply is very anemic.

 

It’s growing at 7.25% in China. Panky’s golden growth rate is 11%, consistent with hitting China’s inflation target of 3%. So slow money growth, very tight money.

 

And as a result, what do you have? You have inflation came in in December at zero. Their inflation target’s 3%. The actual inflation number is zero.

 

So you gave the real growth in the economy, but the other part of nominal GDP is inflation, and it’s zero. So everything is very slow. I think their stimulus package is off base because what they’re talking about is fooling around with interest rates, like the US, not looking at the money supply.

 

They used to pay a lot of attention to the money supply in China. They said they’re not going to be doing that. They’re going to be paying attention to interest rates and lowering interest rates to try to stimulate things.

 

I don’t think it’s going to work. And N, by the way, will lead to continued weakness in the Chinese yuan, the RMB, the currency. So I think they’ve just got everything wrong.

 

And basically, we’ll see what happens in 2025. But their big announcement with the Politburo that they were going to stimulate, put some stimulus in the economy, was very vague. But now they’ve given more detail as we’ve gone on.

 

And the detail is the change in the monetary policy, that they will be lowering interest rates. And I think this is not going to increase the money supply much, number one. And number two, it definitely will lead to a lot of selling pressure on the yuan.

 

All right. Another very good update. Thank you for doing this first interview of 2025.

 

We’ll speak again very soon. Tell us where we can find you and reach out to you. Okay.

 

You can follow me on X, or what they used to call Twitter, at Steve underscore Hankey, H-A-N-K-E. Or you can always, if you want to be on my distribution list, just send me an email at hankey at J-H-U dot E-D-U. Okay.

 

I’ll put the link down in the description. And if you want to get out in the weeds and read some heavy duty stuff, read my new book with Leland Yeager, Paul Gregg McMillan. The book’s called Capital Interest and Awaiting.

 

Yeah. We should talk about the book in a bit more detail. Okay, we will.

 

In future episodes. All right. Thank you very much.

 

We’ll put the links to our professor’s book as well as his email and Twitter down below. Speak again soon. Take care.

 

Yeah. Same to you, David. Thanks for having me.

 

Thank you for watching. Don’t forget to like and subscribe.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button