Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How This Ends

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 698 posts

Re: How This Ends

#481

Post by fddhjjj »

jqgatsby wrote: post #231
nostrademons wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you're expecting inflation to moderate over 10 years. I think people who expect we're going to go back to pre-pandemic supply chains are vastly underestimating the difficulty of bringing a complex system like the economy up from a cold start. In my experience with complex systems that are much less complex than the economy (merely a few hundred million lines of code), it can't be done . You have to increment…

your point cannot be overstated. my biggest fears around the pandemic shutdowns came from my own experience managing production systems, and I think our policymakers were frighteningly naive as to what it meant to shut down the economy. and here we are.

Is your sense that the pandemic shutdowns have left us with supply issues?

It seems to me the economy is delivering all it ever did and more.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCES

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEDG

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96

Re: How This Ends

#482

Post by FollowingTheDao »

chillingeffect wrote: post #454
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell you how much I hope they crack down on people owning multiple houses. It’s just criminal. Not only do they own two houses but instead of renting it at market rate they put it on Airbnb an inflated price three or four fold. The truth is under capitalism everyone cannot be a Capitalist. Please, I need you to think deeply about that last sentence. It’s not as simplistic as it sounds. Until we treat housing…

I look forward to this. Atm there are benefits to owning multiple houses... [alef] [bet] [Alef] https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/second-home-tax-benef... [Bet] https://homeguides.sfgate.com/tax-deduction-multiple-homes-m...

Why do they do this? Why do they just keep pulling on the benefits to people that already have enough?

Re: How This Ends

#483

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

BigBubbleButt wrote: post #406
fny wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually don't have a good answer for this. Not financial advice. Talk to a fiduciary. The problem with inflation is that you need to protect yourself before the fact, and at this point, it's difficult to read to what extend the fed will respond with rate hikes and how much inflation we get going forward. In my personal view, it would be stupid to hike to 10% since that will also cut off the needed supply response:…

> In my personal view, it would be stupid to hike to 10% since that will also cut off the needed supply response: this will decapitate energy, farm, and housing expansion while at the same time decimating all forms of wealth. But there is a possibility depending on how trigger happy the fed becomes. The only reason Volcker managed to bring down inflation is because he was willing to actually do what needed to be done…

Lots of assumption buried in your comment/worldview about what's actually causing inflation. Is it actually just a slow accretion of growing costs for resources, distribution? Is it companies deciding that now would be a great time to increase prices "because inflation" and thus get ahead of the nascent wage growth that was threatening to take off post-pandemic? Clearly it's a mixture of the two but the implications are completely different if its 90/10 vs 10/90.

Re: How This Ends

#484

Post by lettergram »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #471
lettergram wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All GDP is not equal. As an example, Ireland’s GDP was ~1/3 tourism, with covid they lost that GDP. Russia GDP is primarily raw goods, commodities. They also have a decent domestic market for manufactured goods. Look up the global production of wheat, natural gas, oil, etc and look for Russia and Belarus. To put it bluntly, USA GDP is a mix and has everything from commodities to information tech to finance. Russia is…

> I see Russia winning on all fronts tbh. I do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. They have failed abysmally at that, and capturing a few towns in Eastern Ukraine (just a little bi…

> do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions.

Where does that assumption come from? No Russian source has ever said that. The only sources I’ve seen were the US propaganda arm. Putin said that they were now in a defensive war with the west (his words, not mine). I don’t think they expected that to be over any time soon.

But just for fun let’s assume you’re correct. Their objective is to conquer Ukraine..?

It still doesn’t change the fact Ukraine isn’t winning. They’ve lost territory, most of the military assets, and the territory they’ve lost thus far is their most productive (industry and agriculture is based around the coast). By no measure is that trending toward victory.

Now my position on this — Recall, Ukraine had one of the largest standing armies prior to this war. Order of magnitude more prepared than Iraq in the 90s or 2000s. With better equipment, heavily entrenched and much larger by land mass.

I don’t think there’s any way that Russia expected to conquer Ukraine with 50k troops (1/5 the size of Ukraine’s standing army) in 90 days. But I also don’t think Ukraine is the only theater of battle. The real war is the war of logistics and in that, Russia is far better prepared and capable.

Re: How This Ends

#485

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

fny wrote: post #431
soared wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you’re retiring in the next 10 years, or planning on purchasing a house in the next few years, then just make your emergency fund a little bigger and hold on to your job. Follow your normal financial planning. You’re not going to outplay market trends, and if you’re young/middle aged then it doesn’t matter any way.

Yes it does. If you invested near the dot com peak or the japan peak, you still haven't made your money back. This notion of passive investing that has been pounded into peoples heads for years is complete bullshit and has only worked because there was always someone else ready to pay more for the same asset and because rates were perpetually held low. Some points to consider: (1) You have fewer millennials than baby…

> If you invested near the dot com peak or the japan peak, you still haven't made your money back.

What does this even mean? That you invested the only money you ever invested entirely in the relatively brief period of the dot com peak? Who does that? (Obviously not nobody, but ...)

To all effects and purposes, nobody does that. So what it really means is "the money you invested during that one period (perhaps a year or so), and likely only the money you invested in dot com and adjacent stocks, has yet to be made back". In the meantime, the other money you invested before and after the dot com peak has done rather well, unless you specifically made some particularly disastrous choices.

Re: How This Ends

#487

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lazide wrote: post #458
vintagedave wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for non-finance-experts, what should we be doing with our money? Investing in what? Keeping in the bank? It sounds from your comment like there is _nothing_ that won't be devalued, even gold. Is real estate worthwhile? (Note: I am in the EU not US.)

Real estate is going to be gutted - increasing mortgage rates (already have been happening) will decimate qualified buyers. Decreasing prices will further decimate those willing to Hail Mary with cash offers hoping to get something after years of frustration.

But the effective, on-the-ground housing shortage is going to continue to keep demand for housing extremely high in almost all areas with reasonable economic options or amenity migration destinations.

Re: How This Ends

#488

Post by robocat »

ethbr0 wrote: post #321
architravesty wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worst part is the utterly absurd shortage means RE is never going to meaningfully dip for any period of time without serious structural reforms. The focus on interest rates as the main RE driver is almost completely cope and I wish I could believe it. Low-rate mortgages certainly aren't helping, but they're "not helping" in the same way that hucking an armload of kindling into an already-raging house fire is "not hel…

Local zoning codes change on the order of decades. That will take a long time to play out.

In theory a state could force cities to allow more development?

New Zealand had a bi-partisan agreement at the national level to prevent city council level restrictions, which is going to have a massive impact on the number of apartments built. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300433304/labour-n...

New rules that mean that property owners have a mostly automatic consent, if you build within the limitations. Councils and neighbours are mostly prevented from blocking development. There are rules/constraints on height, setbacks, shadowing (recession planes) etcetera, however the restrictions are not ridiculous.

Similarly, after the Christchurch earthquake (which caused a loss of about 5% of the housing stock), the government stepped in to force the local councils to allow more new development. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1088-housing-pressures-...

I would say NZ is fairly similar to Oregon if you want to compare size, population etcetera against the US. Although looks like NZ has more population in major cities than Oregon (Greater Auckland population 1.5M, cf Portland 650k). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_New_Zealand

Re: How This Ends

#489

Post by psadri »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #83

> I would be planning to ride this thing out for at least eighteen months or more. I'm betting more like three to five years. I was talking to a friend (another old guy, like me, but really rich, unlike me). We've both been through at least two recessions (big, nasty ones, with teeth and claws). We realized that there's an entire generation of folks; many running companies, that have never seen a real bear market. It…

We live in a competitive world where organisms (including companies) need to take advantage of every edge they can to out-compete their peers. If they don't, they risk getting left behind or being devoured by their competitors.

Taking advantage of near zero interest cash to grow like crazy is one of those. If you don't, your competitors will. Kind of a game theory situation.

Sometimes, things don't work out for individual organisms. But in aggregate, the ones that through luck and/or foresight manage to make the in hindsight correct decisions emerge as winners.

Re: How This Ends

#490

Post by walleeee »

ketzo wrote: post #474
walleeee wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

instead of pursuing speculative gains consider investing it in yourself or in your immediate locale or region, in the economic and ecological transformation we all sorely need devaluation of everything is a consequence of unsustainable economics and the fix is not to find a convenient hidey-hole for your money but to invest time, money and attention building a future sans witless speculation, profligate consumption,…

I appreciate this comment. I think the way that it’s written might drive off, say, a more traditional conservative — but I think if rephrased, they would agree. “Spend time at your church, and spend money to invest in a local private school” would line up perfectly w/ 75% of Republicans that I know, (and, if I may assume your views, probably does not line up with them); and yet I think it is a very similar line of th…

I wrote it to try to appeal to traditionalists and progressives and people of all political persuasions!

spending time building a religious or spiritual community is fine by me, especially if it provides material services to the locality and a sense of civic responsibility

also fine with private schools although I do think they should cater to students without the means to pay exorbitant tuition (some provide tuition aid, in fact I went to one that did) and I think there is something to be said for allowing public schools some degree of curricular independence, which might make them more appealing to those who presently prefer private alternatives

really I think there's a lot most people can agree on and I hope we can begin to identify less with team R or D and reason from principles in our politics

> It’s surprisingly difficult. Not everyone does it. And we would be better off if they did!

totally agree, it's difficult but worthwhile!

Post reply on HN