Live data from Hacker News

Inflation Truthers

awealthofcommonsense.com

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Inflation Truthers

#71
He's also ignoring how the substitution effect, which normally serves to tamp down realized inflation as folks change the composition of the basket of goods and services they consume, is not applicable or less applicable to most of the red lines (food, housing, medical care).

On a long enough timeline if food and housing prices keep outpacing other prices, the proportion of consumer money devoted to such items will trend towards 100%. And if the basket is 100% stuff that keeps quickly going up in price, then CPI is also quickly going up in price (ipso fact).

Re: Inflation Truthers

#72
post #59
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing he's arguing against is the Chicago/Austrian school of economics, whose response to just about every monetary policy measure is "But inflation!" UBI would cause inflation; raising the minimum wage would cause inflation; worker protections would cause inflation; government borrowing causes inflation. That kind of economics gained popularity in the 1970s, when inflation caused genuine hardship. It left a kind…

> especially among people who have money, because inflation erodes the value of savings. What? Wealthy people don't buy CDs. They tend to invest heavily in assets. Often, these are leveraged assets like real estate or equities in a margin account. NOTHING makes the rich richer like inflation. Reducing the burden of low-interest mortgage or margin debt whilst boosting earnings in equities. Meanwhile, the poor still pa…

My interpretation of the comment you're replying to is that "people with money" doesn't refer to the wealthy - who, as you point out, are typically asset-rich - but instead of a cash-rich, asset-poor middle class (or even anyone in the working class with some savings).

Certainly if you're currently saving up to buy your first house in large parts of the West, inflation is your bogeyman - it threatens to simultaneously drive up house prices further and devalue your deposit.

Re: Inflation Truthers

#73
Isn't GDP also kind of subject to inflation, as it measures monetary value of things? If so, saying "it's OK, because GDP grew at the same rate" doesn't make much sense.

Re: Inflation Truthers

#74
post #3

Is the author debating a strawman or something? Actually, they just seem confused. At the start, they state asset price increase is not inflation, then, at the end, agree that there is some inflation going on in the real estate space. So the author is agreeing with the people they're supposedly countering. I don't understand the point of this piece.

Yeah, this article is strange. Not even a mention of the Cantillion Effect, which is what people point to when they're describing "asset inflation".

I'm saddened to see that while this post isn't down-voted, it is not the most up-voted post that it deserves to be so. I expect this to be because most people don't know what the Cantillion Effect is, so this post will attempt to show it.

People think of inflation like they think of the oceans. If the ice caps melt and water melts in, the shore lines from New York to Tokyo rise slightly. If you track this rise, that's inflation. That's not how it works, and it's not what the CPI tracks. Inflation is much more analogous to inland water, you know, lakes and rivers.

If you give the bottom 80% of the income distribution more money, they will spend it right away like a river. If you give the 81-90%, portion of it will be saved in their lake(say, a 401k) and they will spend some of it. And if you give the top 10% more money, they save all of it in their reservoir.

The way that we have been introducing new money into the system is not by melting ice in the middle of the ocean. We also haven't been raining all over. The key way that new money has been introduced over the past 50 years is by lowering the interest rate. When you lower the interest rate, what happens is that people refinance, and suddenly they can pay less, but quickly realize, oh, I can also borrow more, so they do.

I'll show you a few numbers, which I got by going to the zillow housing affordability page with default settings. I only modified the interest rate, all other values stay the same.

Year | Average Interest Rate 30 Year Fixed | Home you can Afford

1981 | 18.39 | $124,797

1991 | 9.00 | $200,862

2010 | 6.26 | $244,531

2020 | 2.67 | $328,569

And so what we see people and REITs and companies doing is taking out larger and larger loans, and putting those dollars into assets. Companies take out a bond and buy back their own stock(which props up zombie companies). And why wouldn't they, it's profitable because the environment makes it so. And that money flows throughout the system. We can track the inflow of all of this money by looking at say.. the M3. This seems to be the crux of your point, if the amount of money in the M3 has gone up by 40x since 1971, why is inflation not out of control?

The CPI is a measure for inflation that does not track the oceans water level. The M3 tracks that, and as you can see the M3 is out of control. The CPI doesn't track stock purchases, even though if you ask any personal finance person, they recommend that the average person put 15% of the money into retirement stocks, why is that? If the CPI were to track stocks weighted at 1971 levels, inflation WOULD be out of control. The CPI tracks, specifically, an average of tangible items that the bottom 80% spends their money on. Therefore the inflation number is based on the height of certain rivers. Now that's an important figure to keep in mind, after all if you get inflation in that bracket and income isn't rising, you quickly run into a revolution. And so that's what the FED has found, if you track the CPI you get the perfect amount of heating to boil the frog without them noticing.

But when you introduce money into the system by lowering interest rates, you are in effect giving the money in proportion to the assets already owned. Someone bought that home in 1981, and someone with the same exact income would bid 328k for it today. You basically tripled that home owners asset, without any need to compare anything else, like actual income rises, or for instance SF has moved upmarket which would also effect prices. And so if you don't have much assets, it's a desert. If you do, it's a rain forest. And because the wealthy already have all that they want, demand for those items that the bottom 80% spend their money on doesn't change. So the supply and demand of those items don't change. So the CPI value stays the same. But money was introduced. If you take a look at the velocity of the M3, the M3V, you can see this take place. The wealthy get the gains of the new M3 dollars, and store it away. The more dollars created, the lower the velocity.

So the question we have to ask ourselves, now that interest rates are at 0%, is that the FED has two options, they can continue to do they have been doing this year and dump the money straight into the reservoir by buying bonds and we'll get the same results, but it doesn't look like that is going to have popular support much longer. You see lowering interest rates is an implicit way to give wealth to the wealthy, and much like how CO-VID is implicitly killing more people per day than 9/11 did explicitly, but now that the FED is forced to explicitly give money out. What happens if it starts raining in the desert by printing money and handing it out fairly, say through a UBI? Will the rivers rise? If the CPI inflation indicator shows that the rivers are rising, what are we set to do?

Re: Inflation Truthers

#75

>Cars last longer Are there any studies showing the longevity of cars over time? I don't think this is necessarily true.

There probably aren't publicly-available studies on the subject, but, in general it is true.

1. Material science has improved dramatically, even since the 90s. We now have oils that don't break down for years, even under extreme temperatures, and tolerances within engines are tight enough that oil can go 10,000 miles without meaninful gasoline contamination. Also, rust-proofing, rubbers, and plastics (!) are much, much better.

2. Solid state electronics have replaced mechanical systems. This is a big one: vacuum lines were a nightmare, carburetors were fickle, distributors wore out, etc. All of these systems have been replaced by maintenance-free electronic versions.

3. Better computer-aid modeling. This is kind of a good and bad, since now components aren't overbuilt like in the 90s, but they are also less likely to be underbuilt.

There are absolutely manufactures who still make unreliable heaps, but generally, reliability has improved. Most of that reliability comes in the form of less maintenance: no car needs the valves adjusted every 30k miles anymore (except maaaybe exotics).

Jay Leno likes to joke about how cars used to come with 90 day warranties in the 70s. 90 days!

Re: Inflation Truthers

#76

One gotcha about how inflation is calculated (at least in Germany, I assume it to be the same in the US), is that they try to compare identical products. So if this years cars do not have air conditioning, but next years cars do, the prices can increase accordingly without showing up as inflation, because you are getting "more car for more money". The problem appears at the point, when there are no cars without air c…

This is the same in the US, yes. And it's still the correct thing to do. Inflation can't be a measure of every dimension of economic hardship at once. As the article points out, healthcare has risen in cost dramatically more than most other things. Does that mean that somehow the inflation rate must reflect the pains of those households not in the average and aggregate? Less capable goods may no longer be available.…

[deleted]

Re: Inflation Truthers

#77
post #9

It's a bit confusing what he's arguing against. But his 2nd-last graph is the good one, [1]. That's only 20 years but [2] is the same thing since 1950. Some things have become much cheaper, other things have become more expensive. Attempting to summarize that in one number seems like it hides more than it exposes, no matter what number you pick. [1] https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/... [2]…

I find it interesting to look at this graph against Maslow's hierarchy of needs. First layer, shelter and food, have increased almost perfectly in line with wages. That's reasonable. Second layer, security - including healthcare in the US - "feels like it’s experienced hyperinflation", according to the author. And, as you age, your healthcare needs increase. So if you're low in this hierarchy, being relatively poor,…

In 2009 the price of a colchicine prescription went from $ 4.00 a month to $ 360.00 a month. But I don't think it registered in the inflation statistics.

(The last time I got some it was handled by my mandatory obamacare insurance... which means it cost the insurance company 240 and me a 160.00 copay. Yay high deductables.)

Re: Inflation Truthers

#78
post #5
post #4

I'm not saying the article is wrong in general, but I don't get this last bit: > The government isn’t suppressing the “actual” inflation number. And if they were, they would also be suppressing reported economic growth... Surely by suppressing inflation they are increasing reported economic growth. If the dollar value of the economy increases 10% with no inflation, then that's 10% growth, but if inflation was also 10…

Isn't the federal reserve intentionally propping up markets? I thought in one of the reports they argued that there was higher inflation but it was restricted to certain markets like housing and so over all inflation was ~2%.

Not sure it's a case of intentionally propping up equity markets (of course interest rate policy directly impacts on government bond markets although I don't think that would normally be described as propping them up). But the phenomenon has been around for a while - I've heard it called "biflation" - high inflation in some markets/products (asset markets in general, as well as some services), alongside deflation in others like imported goods with not many goods/services actually following the middle road which the official inflation statistics give as an average. It's exaggerated to some extent but it's definitely there.

Re: Inflation Truthers

#79

I found the “Price Changes” graph about 2/3 down the page really alarming. Virtually all of the gains in the form of lowered prices are purely in discretionary consumption and subsistence goods. Cheap entertainment, toys, staple foods. Meanwhile the insane price increases are in critical needs, medical care, housing, college education. In my mind that graph is pretty strong evidence that there really is massive infla…

This was a point I made when the pandemic shortages kicked off. The entire world's purchasing habits shifted towards guns, food, prepping gear, and TP. The prices of those items skyrocketed (when they could be found). I predicted at the time that, even though everyone was experiencing massive price inflation in the stuff we were actually buying, largely due to increased demand, it was not going to show up in the numb…

This is true. There's another even more interesting question related to the effects lockdowns etc had on the economy I think. How do you even measure inflation with your old basket when some of it becomes unavailable anywhere (some services) and for other parts half of the venues where they were sold (non essential retail outlets) are now shut?

My conclusion is that statistics about what happened to the economy during 2020 (ie the month to month path) are likely to be very unreliable. This might have implications for policymaking in future which I don't think have really been explored anywhere.

Re: Inflation Truthers

#80
The problem with measuring inflation is that you can cherry-pick the goods in your basket to paint the picture that you want to see. If I make a basket full of housing, healthcare, college education, and fresh produce, I can show you that inflation is out of control.

If you look at the "price changes" chart, prices for the red line items have gone up 4-6% per year over 20 years. While it's nice that you can buy a 55" flatscreen for the price of a 15" crt from 1998, TVs (and cars, furniture, clothing) are occasional purchases and can be cost-controlled by choosing cheaper options. Unlike healthcare/insurance, where you're stuck with paying for what you can get.

Post reply on HN