Live data from Hacker News

The Third Depression

nytimes.com

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: The Third Depression

#61
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is credited amongst Austrian economists That is clearly uncharacteristic of the Austrian school. I never heard of an Austrian economist saying that's the reason we got out of the depression. I have heard the Austrians arguing just the opposite. You will need to produce your claim that Austrian economists believe it to be so. Beside, nobody can detect sarcasm on the internet. There's no body language to detect. Add…

You do not understand the fallacy of argument from authority. I did not engage in this. If you think what I did was an example of the fallacy of argument from authority then you must think that people who insist that the person who performs their heart surgery be a heart surgeon are also engaging in this fallacy.

You do not understand the fallacy of argument from authority. I did not engage in this.

Mere assertions is not going help you there. You have to explain why I am wrong.

Re: The Third Depression

#63
post #13

Considering that his Keynesianism has basically destroyed Japan's future (while at the same time he faults them for not borrowing enough) I'd hope he'd proceed with a bit more caution. The basic problem he has is that he doesn't really understand why we're here. When debt chases bad assets it's a disease that has to be cleared. He ignored some pretty serious depressions in his analysis as well. The panic of 1819 come…

Our fear of short term pain might be the worst part of the modern political system. When people realize that they can vote themselves more money, they will. Government will then promise more than it can deliver and proceed to spend money like no tomorrow just like what happens to Greece and California. But it's heresy to suggest that democratic institutions should be scrapped altogether. Everyone thinks democracy equ…

Well, that gets into the question of "to whom to you extend the franchise to"?

Cut that back (yes, I know, beyond hard), maybe limit it to a new class of Taxpayers, and things could change real fast.

Of course the Social Justice types would be ... unhappy.

Used to be in many states you had to own some land (one guy owned a doghouse sized plot of land to make a point) or pay a poll tax to vote. The latter's corruption by the Southern segregationists makes that right out for the time being, but ... well, republics tend to last only as long as they have the moral fiber to not vote themselves the treasury. We're obviously way beyond that point, but the game will run out at some point. And with so much of our debt in bonds (1 year or less maturity) is could have very quickly. Probably would already be happening if not for the Eurozone crisis.

Re: The Third Depression

#64

I often wonder why more engineers don't get into economics. It is a control system and would be well suited to engineering graduates with expertise in control systems.

Doesn't control system theory require some level of predictability in the system, plus a system that does not adapt to the controls placed on it?

"Adaptive control involves modifying the control law used by a controller to cope with the fact that the parameters of the system being controlled are slowly time-varying or uncertain" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_control

Re: The Third Depression

#65

Considering that his Keynesianism has basically destroyed Japan's future (while at the same time he faults them for not borrowing enough) I'd hope he'd proceed with a bit more caution. The basic problem he has is that he doesn't really understand why we're here. When debt chases bad assets it's a disease that has to be cleared. He ignored some pretty serious depressions in his analysis as well. The panic of 1819 come…

That is one thing I don't understand about this whole fiasco.

He advocates spending and stimulus to get out of the this. He says "And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps".

But didn't Japan spend a shitload of money during the 90ies (making their debt 200% of GDP)? Don't they now sit with that debt, a declining population and still no growth?

I'm not an economic expert and maybe I just have a biased for government/personal austerity and saving.

Re: The Third Depression

#66

Related article from this morning's reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_prit...

I'll read this later, but do note that he's been aptly described as "never the calmest man in the room" ^_^. (I like him a lot but you have to apply a certain filter while reading most of his financial stuff.)

Re: The Third Depression

#67
post #58
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs that don't create long term value AND don't serve a basic human need. We need X farmers, but we have X + Y actual farmers the Y is are optional jobs that have limited long term economic value.

Must all jobs create long term value and serve a basic human need? I guess pretty much every job would serve a basic human need (to be employed) to someone who needs to be employed in order to make ends meet. I guess what I'm trying to get at it is that your post read like someone trying to apply what they thought the world should be like and not how it actually is. For example, if we have an excess of farmers that w…

Must all jobs create long term value and serve a basic human need? The negation of ((not A) and (not B)) aka !((!A) and (!B)) = A or B.

A) Jobs which meet a basic human need are more stable than jobs that fill a want. They also come back vary quickly vs jobs that fill wants.

B) Jobs that invest in the future are somewhat more stable than jobs that fill wants and they come back quickly as the economy improves.

C) Jobs that fill wants are the least stable because people need to feel that their future is very secure before they spend much in this category.

Government spending to prop up A or B can be cost effective, but to prop up C tends to be extremely costly. In some ways money is less useful than confidence. Consider the state of mind someone needs to be in to spend a weekend at a spa, get married in Hawaii, or buy an Accura vs. a Honda.

For example, if we have an excess of farmers that would be cleared up in the market as those not making enough income to continue being farmers would pack up and leave the occupation or try to get loans to maintain their employment long enough to weather the current conditions. The only time I see problems in employment is when an entity steps in to maintain a job when the market is already dismissing it

I was expressly commenting on farm subsidies. There is an idea that giving welfare to people is worse than giving it to industries however from an economic standpoint there is little difference when the output of said job does not create long term value.

Re: The Third Depression

#68

I often wonder why more engineers don't get into economics. It is a control system and would be well suited to engineering graduates with expertise in control systems.

I've wondered if it would be beneficial to apply some control systems theory to financial systems. But I'm not convinced that it would be applicable since control systems are designed for systems that follow the laws of physics. Financial systems include emotional responses and irrationality, how would control systems cope with that?

P.S. I find it interesting that the majority of Chinese presidents from 1993 to 2010 have an engineering background.

Re: The Third Depression

#69
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The most important area to save money: we have military bases and/or installations in about 3/4 of the countries on this planet. We need to stop that. We also need to allow state and local governments to go through bankruptcy to renegotiate pensions, etc. Harsh, but necessary. The easy copout is printing money.

The interest we're paying on Federal debt is or soon will equal the total US defense budget (or so the Chairman of the JCS recently noted). You might also be really upset if the US returns to a pre-WWII isolationist mode (you do remember one of the things that happened as a result...). We keep the peace in large parts of the world and e.g. implicitly prevent a lot of those we're protecting from going nuclear. The onl…

Why? The US involvement in WWI led to the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, if the US held back it's been argued that England and France would have sued for peace earlier and the harshness of the treaty wouldn't have been there and then one of the prime causes of WW2 would not have existed.

The Us involvement in WW2 is due to escapades in China and the Philippines - the reason Japan attacked the US.

Re: The Third Depression

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm glad to finally find someone who knows exactly what caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash. Could you explain it to me? I find the whole matter very confusing myself, although I've read a lot about it. Yeah, it is a complicated topic. What did you want to know specifically, what were your questions? > So: low interest rates caused the housing bubble. Could you explain how that happened exactly? Low inte…

I guess my question was very vague. Let me be more specific. When people talk about causes, they can mean a few different things. For example, if someone is crossing the street at a walk signal, and is hit by a drunk driver, we tend to say that the drunk driver caused the accident. The accident could have been prevented if the pedestrian had been more careful, perhaps, but he was generally justified in crossing at a…

I find the recent financial trouble really fascinating, partly because so much of it was predictable, and partly because I'm not certain that it was avoidable.

Let's rewind the clock. IIRC, in 2000-2001 we had the dot-com crash and its various effects on the economy, but there was a relatively fast recovery, partly due to low interest rates. Low interest rates in and of themselves didn't directly affect consumers' habits, but they did have a powerful indirect effect in the form of easy credit.

This easy credit prompted the poor and lower middle classes to overextend themselves. They took the opportunity to buy consumer products they couldn't technically afford, in the form of new cars, electronics, furnishings, etc., and that in turn caused a brief period of economic boom.

But, one of the interesting things about the poor and lower middle classes is -- despite another article on HN this morning -- they're always on the lookout for a way out of their situation. Especially anything that looks like a "cheap" solution.

The housing market. The combination of cheap credit -- with lenders practically falling over themselves to hand out loans to individuals that didn't qualify on paper for the loans -- along with the mentality of the lower socio-economic classes that housing was suddenly "a good investment" -- because prices were going up, up, up and nobody at the time believed they could ever fall -- caused a housing gold rush.

In places like the Bay Area, a lot of the available land for new housing is party far removed from everything else. This is the classic suburban housing model, and it's also going to be factor.

Because, things actually were going pretty great for about a year or two. If your credit was shaky for any reason, you couldn't afford to move or buy a house, but hey, everyone else is happy. And, remarkably, the price of basic goods and services didn't seem to change much during that period -- just the price of housing, which exploded.

And then, in a perceptibly short period of about a year or so, gas prices went through the roof. (I still don't understand why that happened, but it was timed nicely with the war in Iraq.)

What happens if you're running down a hill as fast as you can, and then you try to make a slight course correction? There's a pretty good chance that you eat pavement, and that's what started to happen.

The over-extended poor and lower middle classes had by this time used much of their available credit, and they were doing fine, unless the day-to-day cost of living changed much. Thing is, many of them had nice homes that were a 30 minute commute from work, and many of them had nice, huge vehicles. Both of those turned into the perfect storm of a price sensitivity on gas.

The first stumble happened in the car market. The distinctly American SUV, which had been considered invincible, suddenly started to see a slow-down in sales. A slow-down of anything in a bubble economy makes people nervous, but there didn't seem to be a very noticeable reaction from any major groups.

But, the price of gas stayed fairly relentlessly high, and significant numbers of people started to fall slightly behind on their credit card payments. This led to effect number 2: a very slight downward change in consumer spending.

The really neat effect though was on housing. Seemingly overnight, nobody wanted to move farther away from work. Houses started to stay on the market longer, but the prices didn't drop, at first. Thing is, too many of the people trying to sell were doing so because they themselves were overextended in credit, and they were trying to get some of that free equity out of their home that everyone had promised them.

Realtors at the time were still naively optimistic though, so they -- nearly to a one -- encouraged their sellers to stick to their price and wait it out.

The net effect was precisely what most people had considered impossible: the housing market stalled, and then crashed.

The lower socio-economic classes by now were really beat up financially, so even when the price of gas fell again, they just weren't spending money anymore. A huge number of people got soaked on their home purchases, seeing decades of savings evaporate seemingly overnight.

The big financiers and creditors then ran into trouble, and we all know the rest.

I think that the price of gas was the metaphorical straw that broke our economy's back, but I also think that the trends at the time were totally unsustainable and doomed to failure eventually. I also see how people are so willing to blame low interest rates and cheap credit (two sides of the same coin), but the thing is, those also resulted in the rapid growth of economy. What few people want to admit is that a healthy modern economy absolutely depends on the lower socio-economic classes spending money; the more they spend, the better off everyone else is. Maybe someday our economy won't work that way, but for now, it does.

Without those low interest rates, it's just as likely that we would have seen a long period of stagnation coming out of the dot-com crash. Whether that would have been intrinsically better or worse for us is way over my head.

Post reply on HN