Options
How long until hyper-inflation sets in?
renman95
Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭✭✭
A few months back I asked "how will you prepare for hyper-inflation?" After this weeks Fed action, which to me signaled the beginning of the end of the last bubble the treasury bill, tells me the Chinese are done buying our debt because we are too reckless. We still have some deflation in the markets but oil and other commodities say there is some change in the winds. So, how much time until the 'velocity' is let loose?
Ren
Ren
0
Comments
...I'll say as soon as this summer begins to cool off inflation (Stagflation!) will pick up. By Christmas the common man will begin wondering why everything is so bad.
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
The only way we'll see it under these circumstances is if the government overextends itself and prints too much money. If that triggers a flight from the dollar (Chinese dumping their treasuries, etc.), which is a real likelihood, then that would result in serious inflation. Iceland went through that when its currency collapsed. Of course the collapse of the US dollar would be a massively larger event and would pull down many other countries and banks worldwide.
That's the real danger of the trillions on "stimulus" spending. People somehow think all this money is just free money. It's not. It's either being borrowed or just printed out of thin air (like the Federal Reserve purchases of Treasuries announced last week). Too much printing will unsettle those who have lent to us and could cause the whole thing to collapse, thus destroying our currency. Even if no whole-scale collapse occurs, the printing of all this new money still erodes our currency over time. So we end up paying for the expansion of government through inflation.
CPI up .4% last month, the highest since July 2008. Even PPI is up.
Copper up very over the past several months. Throw in oil and silver as well. Many agri-products and other base metals moving as well.
roadrunner
Sinclair points out that we are having financial asset deflation at the same time that we are having commodity price increases. The idiots are creating money to give to the banks and yet the banks are not lending - they are paying off the winning bets to their counterparties on their derivative gambles.
To me, that spells "ECONOMIC DISLOCATION" whether it happens via stagflation or hyperinflation - the effect will be the same. Lots of unhappy and poor people. Lots more in the USA than ever before in our lifetimes.
If you manage to have money or to somehow keep ahold of what you have worked so hard for, it would be wise to be low profile.
To answer your question, hyper-inflation will come as money gets out into circulation via the banks and begins to chase fewer goods with more dollars.
The Feds purchasing of T-Bills is one big circle-jerk, and to me it signals the beginning of the hyper-inflation mode. That money is coming. Given the bad judgement, corruption and sheer stupidity that we are seeing in Washington DC, if an impact is seen from this move, they will jump on this ploy like a bull in heat.
Yeah, I'm leaning towards the hyper-inflation scenario by Christmas Time. One big splash for the retailers, and then it's SHTF time.
I knew it would happen.
While it is true that copper and some agri commods have rebounded from their recent lows, this is merely a "dead cat" bounce after 80% drops. Hech, even the Nasdaq nearly doubled after the 2002 lows. These prices will stabilize and there will no YoY increases, thus no inflation.
Unless we grow demand for goods/services we can not have meaningful price increases. Anybody wanna tell me where demand will come from.
The stag-flation that we experienced in the 70's was brought on by huge demand from a baby boom coming to age. Their overcomsumption for the next 25 years gave us what we have today. We have no such boom this time around.
The housing crisis is not the reason for this "recession". It goes well beyond that. For the 92% of counties that never experienced a housing boom, the bottom is in place. The other 8% need to correct to levels that are 3-5x household income.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If the fed continues its path and the spending continues to increase a hyperinflation could start in 3-7 years, but not this soon.
Sinclair is a smart man but he makes big bucks selling us the scare.
<< <i>There will be no hyper inflation.
Unless we grow demand for goods/services we can not have meaningful price increases. Anybody wanna tell me where demand will come from.
The stag-flation that we experienced in the 70's was brought on by huge demand from a baby boom coming to age. Their overcomsumption for the next 25 years gave us what we have today. We have no such boom this time around. >>
Care to explain Zimbabwe? Are the prices there outrageous (in Zimbabwe money) because of all of the demand, or because the government keeps printing dollars? You can have inflation without any change in demand.
"Normal" inflation in this country is considered to be 3%.
I can remember when CDs at banks had a 17% interest rate.
So, what is the "rate" that creates "hyperinflation" ??
thanks
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
starts at about 50% a year.
Camelot
Camelot
<< <i>
<< <i>There will be no hyper inflation.
Unless we grow demand for goods/services we can not have meaningful price increases. Anybody wanna tell me where demand will come from.
The stag-flation that we experienced in the 70's was brought on by huge demand from a baby boom coming to age. Their overcomsumption for the next 25 years gave us what we have today. We have no such boom this time around. >>
Care to explain Zimbabwe? Are the prices there outrageous (in Zimbabwe money) because of all of the demand, or because the government keeps printing dollars? You can have inflation without any change in demand. >>
You cannot compare the events in Zimbabwe to the USA. Its like comparing an ant to an elephant. My point was that currencies have been debased in the past and humanity has survived.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There will be no hyper inflation.
Unless we grow demand for goods/services we can not have meaningful price increases. Anybody wanna tell me where demand will come from.
The stag-flation that we experienced in the 70's was brought on by huge demand from a baby boom coming to age. Their overcomsumption for the next 25 years gave us what we have today. We have no such boom this time around. >>
Care to explain Zimbabwe? Are the prices there outrageous (in Zimbabwe money) because of all of the demand, or because the government keeps printing dollars? You can have inflation without any change in demand. >>
You cannot compare the events in Zimbabwe to the USA. Its like comparing an ant to an elephant. My point was that currencies have been debased in the past and humanity has survived. >>
At what rate have they been debased? So far we're talking in the realm of 4 trillion dollars of fiat currency released since November. This rate has only a couple references, pre-war Germany and Zimbabwe. Do you do the shopping?
When comparing America's dollar to the Weimar, Zim, Argentina currencies, their currencies weren't the reserve currency of the world. The dollar is THE currency and that has to have some effect on whether or not the central banks will let it fail(?) Dollars are everywhere are the world, it's failure will take some doing. Maybe that is why the banks around the world are holding onto their dollars....and waiting and hoping the Fed and Treasury stop playing the inflation game.
Ren
That's why I think we should all have a plan and be prepared for the day, so we can act very fast ourselves.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>I don't know when hyperinflation will arrive, but my worry is when it does arrive, it'll arrive VERY FAST.
That's why I think we should all have a plan and be prepared for the day, so we can act very fast ourselves. >>
Agreed. By the time you see it , it will be too late. We will never have Zim style hyper-inflation but I would not have
ANY credit with a variable rate that you do not have the cash the settle immediatly.
Loves me some shiny!
Unless we grow demand for goods/services we can not have meaningful price increases. Anybody wanna tell me where demand will come from.
People still have to eat and drive vehicles which equates to demand. With less food and oil available due to production cutbacks, that leads to demand>supply. The oil production cutbacks will show their face soon enough in markedly increased oil/gas prices. But I'm also aware that further rounds of toxic asset deleveraging may instantly change the status quo.
The stag-flation that we experienced in the 70's was brought on by huge demand from a baby boom coming to age. Their overconsumption for the next 25 years gave us what we have today. We have no such boom this time around.
That's actually the first time I heard the 1970's stagflation attributed to the Brady Bunch. While that may be case I've usually thought it was due more to Johnson's Great (increasing govt) Society programs, the Vietnam war, and most importantly the cutting of the gold standard. Commodities boomed and real estate and stocks stagnated, but good. There was no boom here except in oil prices, collectibles, and hard assets (ie a commodities boom ultimately fueled by releasing our currency from a strict standard). I don't remember food prices going up or the price of clothing, and most durable goods. That's why they called it a recessionary stagflation. I don't recall anyone back then thinking the 1970's were "boom" times. And we haven't seen a stagflationary cycle in over 25 years. The last 2 generations don't even know what one is. The 80's and 90's boomed as well, but they weren't commodity booms and they sure weren't stagflationary. We are still in a long term commodity boom that will only get worse longer term as the increasing money supply works "FED reserve ratio" magic. These cycles don't last just 7-9 years and then disappear, just like 20 year stock boom cycles don't correct themselves in 7 years. If anything, the FED interventions will accentuate the lengths of the booms as well as the busts.
The housing crisis is not the reason for this "recession". It goes well beyond that. For the 92% of counties that never experienced a housing boom, the bottom is in place. The other 8% need to correct to levels that are 3-5x household income.
Agreed. It all comes back to OTC derivatives and everything associated with them. If it was just a housing based problem, we could have fixed it without fear of destroying the financial system. The primary problem is at least 50X bigger than the housing problem.
roadrunner
Food is the only thing that will have steady demand. If manufacturing declines then so does energy consumption. All other prices, including industrial metals, materials will be stagnant. American farmers can produce enough food to feed the world. Last year they tried to fuel the world and failed. Now farmers have cut back to maintain higher prices. What a great business to work 75% as hard as last year and make the same money. What incentive to farmers have to produce more, to drive prices lower? The only service I can see as having strong demand will be in healthcare.
The baby boom has HEAVILY influenced this economy since 1950- from direct consumption to policy decision. Most household formation occurs around the age of 28-32. Babies are born and houses are built/bought. Remember the last great housing boom, in the early/mid 80's. Caused by the boomers. Then the boomers kids had to have every new invention creating the tech boom in the 90's. Now the boomers are in their mid 50's-early 60's and becoming savers.
The boomers kids are a formidable group, althought they are spread across a 30 yr time frame as opposed to the 16yr time frame for the boomers. All of this translates into a slower, and perhaps more manageable period of economic growth, which in itself, should contain inflationary pressures.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The official measure of inflation in this country is the Consumer Price Index which, as you all know, is a basket of goods and services.
Back in the early 1980s, my reporting on problems with the CPI and the unemployment rate prompted the Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise both indexes. I'll talk about unemployment another time.
The revision of the CPI came by offering two baskets of goods and services, one for "all consumers" and one for "urban consumers."
But even with that revision, the Consumer Price Index is still flawed. Both indexes still measure a basket of goods and services which may have little reflection on the true consumption of American consumers.
Therefore, a critical rise in just a few elements of the CPI might bring on the true hyperinflation we are all worried about, without the actual CPI index showing that hyperinflation.
And the unemployment stats? Theyre a scam. the unemployment rate is based on a survey taken during one particular week each month. And back in the 1970s companies learned about this "survey week" and had short term layoffs that avoided the survey week, and the layoffs went undetected in the official unemployhment rate.
That same strategy can be used now to disguise the true unemployment rate in a recession.
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
You believe that the CPI is manipulated, you believe that the unemployment numbers are manipulated but you seem to have a problem believing that the price of gold is manipulated???
the unemployment numbers and the CPI numbers are determined by a survey method and a reporting method which is contrived by government.
show me that the gold market is not a "fair market" -- in other words, prove to me that it's manipulated -- and I will be very attentive.
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
If money is to be made, scoundrels will find a way.
Camelot
<< <i>Everything financial, is manipulated by someone.
If money is to be made, scoundrels will find a way. >>
Reminds me of the little ant who has no perception of the boy kneeling, holding a magnifying glass.
It will happen under the present monetary policies.
and getting it. would you rather get slightly less money or have to put up a sign
stating this place for lease for the next months and possibly longer?
all i see are signs of deflation... and NO signs of hyper-inflation.
possible inflation down the road, yes. hyper inflation.. zip. nope. nada. none. zilch.
just another talking point to be discussed by the newsletters people subscribe to
at this point in time to me.
<< <i>all i see are signs of deflation... and NO signs of hyper-inflation.
possible inflation down the road, yes. hyper inflation.. zip. nope. nada. none. zilch. >>
What more of a sign do you need than this?
Oh, and the announcement about monetizing our debt this week?
The effects aren't immediate, but these are "inflation ahead" sign if there ever is one.
<< <i>
<< <i>all i see are signs of deflation... and NO signs of hyper-inflation.
possible inflation down the road, yes. hyper inflation.. zip. nope. nada. none. zilch. >>
What more of a sign do you need than this?
Oh, and the announcement about monetizing our debt this week?
The effects aren't immediate, but these are "inflation ahead" sign if there ever is one. >>
where is the chart showing how much money was destroyed in this
latest round of economic issues from the last year or two? It is not
a one way street in my opinion.
We had 1,125 billionaires last year. This year we have 793 world wide.
Gee. Where did all that money go?
A classic hyper-inflation a la Weimar may not possible for the US. There is too much at stake for the world central bankers and "leaders" of their ilk. America needs to be brought down a tier of two before massive inflation can let to be happen. I think what will happen is the "diminishing" of the US (in many ways). I think that this has already been in process for decades in some facets of our American way of life.
The G20 will meet and will discuss the possibility of a new reserve-world currency. This will take some time. It took, what, nearly 50 years for Europe to become the EU. There were at least three forms before the final iteration of the current EU. As far as currency, I can see three currencies emerge e.g., dollar, euro, yen. This diminishes the roll of the dollar. Timeline is unpredictable but let's say inflation goes double digits. As the dollar goes more local the central bankers allow a more localized hyper-inflation as the world un-latches itself from the dollar. This let's the euro, yen and maybe the yuan be the emerging leaders with what will be amalgamated into a final new currency. The dollar blows up and the Americas get swallowed up by a new world currency.
There are many assumptions here, of course. I believe that the overall world trend is to diminish the US militarily, monetarily, spiritually, economically, and socially. The trend towards social Marxism (political correctness) has been in place for as long as we've had liberalism (progressives) in this country. Once these forces are happy that we have now joined the world...a one world currency and one world government can be achieved. Bottom line for these social engineers is that America must be defeated for all she stands.
It's interesting that every once in a while, we get to see a glimpse of the new order. My first overt memory was Bush-41 speaking of a new world order. And recently when Timmy Geithner speaking to CFR about investigating the possibility of new currency. He forgets that on the other side of the camera lens are Americans listening and not a room full of new-world-CFR'ers. He forgot the mantra of all GS-Treasurers...."I believe in a strong dollar."
I have heard the argument for years that America must join the world. I have always thought it the other way around. It's the world that needs to embrace individual freedoms, liberty and pursuits of happiness, real free-markets (not these perverted ones.)
<< <i>where is the chart showing how much money was destroyed in this
latest round of economic issues from the last year or two? It is not
a one way street in my opinion. >>
When was money destroyed? Did the fed destroy any money? Were lots of debts paid off or discharged?
I assume you're talking about plummeting asset value and stocks. Good news - the money used to buy those assets and stocks is still in existence. I'll give you an example.
I bought a house for $200k at the beginning for the RE bubble (2004). I sold it (and someone bought it) for $300k near the peak. The home is worth about $200k now. I still have the $100k profit. Between my $100k gain and the buyer's $100k loss, the net is zero.
<< <i>We had 1,125 billionaires last year. This year we have 793 world wide. >>
The "billionaire" calculations were based on the valuation of appreciated assets, not a tabulation of cash sitting in a vault. You're referring to unrealized appreciation which has no effect on the economy by itself, except for the extent that it is used for leveraged financing (new loans, new money) which does create dollars. Those assets have merely been revalued, but that does not cause any actual money to be destroyed.
Back to my house example... I could claim my house is worth $1M based on an offer someone made to me a year ago that I didn't accept (instead of $200k, what I paid for it). Now if I sell it tomorrow for $200k, does the economy lose $800k? Nope. If I had sold it for $1M, I'd have $800k in my pocket, and someone would owe an extra $800k on the home, and the net effect to the economy would still be zero.
<< <i>
<< <i>where is the chart showing how much money was destroyed in this
latest round of economic issues from the last year or two? It is not
a one way street in my opinion. >>
When was money destroyed? Did the fed destroy any money? Were lots of debts paid off or discharged?
I assume you're talking about plummeting asset value and stocks. Good news - the money used to buy those assets and stocks is still in existence. I'll give you an example.
I bought a house for $200k at the beginning for the RE bubble (2004). I sold it (and someone bought it) for $300k near the peak. The home is worth about $200k now. I still have the $100k profit. Between my $100k gain and the buyer's $100k loss, the net is zero.
<< <i>We had 1,125 billionaires last year. This year we have 793 world wide. >>
The "billionaire" calculations were based on the valuation of appreciated assets, not a tabulation of cash sitting in a vault. You're referring to unrealized appreciation which has no effect on the economy by itself, except for the extent that it is used for leveraged financing (new loans, new money) which does create dollars. Those assets have merely been revalued, but that does not cause any actual money to be destroyed.
Back to my house example... I could claim my house is worth $1M based on an offer someone made to me a year ago that I didn't accept (instead of $200k, what I paid for it). Now if I sell it tomorrow for $200k, does the economy lose $800k? Nope. If I had sold it for $1M, I'd have $800k in my pocket, and someone would owe an extra $800k on the home, and the net effect to the economy would still be zero. >>
good points.
I guess i should turn around and ask a question then. How does money
get taken out of the system, a la destroyed then?
Burning a dollar bill cannot be the only way
It just seems to me if someone buys a 200,000 dollar house with a bank loan, defaults on the loan due to not wanting to pay 200,000 for
a house only worth 100,000... that the bank just lost 100,000 dollars
that just went poof.
The next buyer cannot claim they bought a 200,000 dollar house for
100,000 dollars thus evening out the equation.
<< <i>good points.
I guess i should turn around and ask a question then. How does money
get taken out of the system, a la destroyed then?
Burning a dollar bill cannot be the only way
It just seems to me if someone buys a 200,000 dollar house with a bank loan, defaults on the loan due to not wanting to pay 200,000 for
a house only worth 100,000... that the bank just lost 100,000 dollars
that just went poof.
The next buyer cannot claim they bought a 200,000 dollar house for
100,000 dollars thus evening out the equation. >>
A dollar is created either a) when the fed prints it or b) when a bank lends one out
So conversely, a dollar is destroyed when a) the fed destroys them or b) when debts are paid back (to banks).
When a debt is not paid back, dollars are not destroyed because the dollars that were created were given to the seller of the home and are still in existence. The $100k vacuum that is created in your example is filled by dollars the bank already has (perhaps from that month's profits) or obtains through some other way. This might slow the economy down some because not the bank will earn less profit for the period where the loss is incurred, but the net inflationary effect should be zero.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
after reading your posts. I was just thinking here is everyone taking
losses by the boatload.. what is a trillion dollars being ejected into
the economy going to do when 2.5 trillion was lost.
I will google later on tonight more about how money can be destroyed
except when an individual burns/loses it physically at sea/etc.. it or the fed destroys it.
What if the house is only worth 150k now and the buyer has a 150k loss?
Or suppose you took your 100K bought a Mercedes that is now worth 50k? Using your example, Daimler would have the 100k and you would still have 50k. Did we just create 50k?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
no i guess not you only hear what you want
so ya the money's all gone
your save
no one owned them they were sold in to the market thats why anyone got anything they wanted
but some one shorted them the money is on the sidelines
this is for everyone else
not those who won't listen
you do your math now
in 18 months it will cost 150 dollars
to grade a coin economy class.
Camelot
<< <i>What if the house is only worth 150k now and the buyer has a 150k loss? >>
In your example, the house was purchased for $300k. The seller has the money from the original transaction.
<< <i>Or suppose you took your 100K bought a Mercedes that is now worth 50k? Using your example, Daimler would have the 100k and you would still have 50k. Did we just create 50k? >>
When I buy a value meal at McDonald's for $5, I consume the meal, and the $5 goes into McD's bank. No US Dollars are created, and none are destroyed in the transaction. A small amount of wealth gets transferred from me to McD's.
It is not unlike when I buy a car for $100k, Daimler gets my $100k and no money is created or destroyed. When I sell it a year later for $50k, someone hands me $50k and I give them the car. No money (US dollars) are created or destroyed.
<< <i>should i add everything was sold off in funds car, homes ,credit cards everything it goes on and on
no one owned them they were sold in to the market thats why anyone got anything they wanted
but some one shorted them the money is on the sidelines
this is for everyone else
not those who won't listen
you do your math now >>
Your posts are difficult to understand, but a short sale (of stocks or commodities) is no different than a regular sale. Every transaction (short or long) involves a seller and a buyer. The only difference in short sale is that there is a certain amount of credit or trust that the seller will ultimately perform on his obligation to close out the position. Over the long term and assuming everyone performs their duties, it makes no difference whether you buy and then sell or vice versa.
track about what he is saying. One just has to think it through to its
conclusion.
So to get back on track with the topic of this thread... would not hyper
inflation require massive borrowing by the banks to individuals?
You have to create a lot of money and loans do just that.
The govt "printing money" is not enough. As long as the banks simply
hold onto it to weather the storm.. it never makes it out in the form
of loans. If they decide to pay most of it back, if the agreement calls
for that, years down the road.. the printing of the money will not make
a lick of a difference.
Right now it seems the money supply is retracting as banks are hesitant to make loans
and therefore i am seeing deflation.
yep your
OK!!!
FC
why does a stock go down i won't write a book here but short answer more short sellers then buyers so the money
flows to the sellers of the stock not the buyers
that's the way the market works for ever dollar lost the short seller gains a dollar
so how much is lost
thats how it works the cash is their
but were
<< <i>after doing some reading it does appear proofcollection is on the right
track about what he is saying. One just has to think it through to its
conclusion.
So to get back on track with the topic of this thread... would not hyper
inflation require massive borrowing by the banks to individuals?
You have to create a lot of money and loans do just that.
The govt "printing money" is not enough. As long as the banks simply
hold onto it to weather the storm.. it never makes it out in the form
of loans. If they decide to pay most of it back, if the agreement calls
for that, years down the road.. the printing of the money will not make
a lick of a difference.
Right now it seems the money supply is retracting as banks are hesitant to make loans
and therefore i am seeing deflation. >>
fc, thanks for getting it back on track. You are right. The banks are holding on, that's why we won't see h-i until they release the funds. I would add no one hear understands the velocity of trillions pushed by quadrillions of obligations more than the CB's. I think the central bankers are the only ones that are close to understanding the immensity of this new pandemic. Their understanding makes this a weapon of mass (wealth) destruction.
inflation will not occur. However, eventually all the money
sloshing around will have an impact unless at an appropriate time,
it is siphoned off by the FED.
Camelot
completely impossible to understand.
are you a native english speaker? if so.. please write your words more
coherently. if not, i apologize and assume you are trying your best.
but based on what you just said:
"that's the way the market works for ever dollar lost the short seller gains a dollar"
you just agreed with the idea money was not created or destroyed
in that transaction.
the short seller, when they cover, will have made some money.
when the stock was sold someone owns the stock that has lost
that amount of value that the short seller gained.
no money was created or destroyed. it was a wash between two parties.
i hope i was clear. i had to read several articles on the subject tonight
to clear it up in my head.
just google, "money destroyed" and pick through the results for the
relevant articles. But be careful, some are quite wrong. You have to go
to authors that have a credible background in economics.
But i would be interested in a way money is destroyed besides the
ways outlined by proofcollection.
<< <i>after doing some reading it does appear proofcollection is on the right
track about what he is saying. One just has to think it through to its
conclusion.
So to get back on track with the topic of this thread... would not hyper
inflation require massive borrowing by the banks to individuals?
You have to create a lot of money and loans do just that.
The govt "printing money" is not enough. As long as the banks simply
hold onto it to weather the storm.. it never makes it out in the form
of loans. If they decide to pay most of it back, if the agreement calls
for that, years down the road.. the printing of the money will not make
a lick of a difference.
Right now it seems the money supply is retracting as banks are hesitant to make loans
and therefore i am seeing deflation. >>
Maybe. The part of the equation that we really don't know is the amount of money created every year in the amount of loans. The number would seem to be much bigger than the recent money that has been printed, but that's not the number that matters. It's not the amount of loans issued year (or other time period), it's the amount of loans issued per year MINUS the amount of loans paid off per year, so that factor is presumably much smaller than expected. You're essentially talking about a number that is the rate of increased (or decreased) net borrowing in the country.
I'll try to use speed as an example. If your car was going 64mph last hour, and is going 65mph this hour and will go 66mph for the next hour, then the rate of increase is 1mph per hour. So, if the total lending last year was x-1 Trillion USD, and this year is x Trillion USD, then you could say that $1T of "new money" was introduced to the economy. It doesn't matter what the value of "x" is. In a stable/stagnant economy this number (new money from loans) would be quite low.
Also keep in mind that I believe (I'm not 100% sure though) this only applies to money that is lent out by banks that the banks borrow from the fed. Money that is pooled by investors and is lent out does not add to the money supply. That could be an important factor because during the height of the RE bubble, it's not clear to me how much of the money that fueled the bubble was actual "new fed money" vs. investor money.
So to arrive at a conclusion, I don't think the rate of change in lending from banks in this country will actually dwarf the recent money creation as much as people here seem to think. There is a very good reason that the world is suddenly talking about dumping the USD as the reserve currency and a reason why China is warning against reckless spending.