Live data from Hacker News

What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

novum.substack.com

111–120 of 393 posts

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#111
post #73

I suspect near-zero interest rates for a decade also contributed to the political realignment of affluent suburbs trending Democrat. So long as the Fed would buy federal debt cheaply and there was no significant inflation, Democrats could advocate multi-trillion social programs while promising to maintain Reagan-era tax rates on even quite affluent folks.

What multi-trillion dollar social programs? What country are you talking about— I want to live there, sounds a lot better than the pittance we have in the US. Unless you think the Defense Department is a social program.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#112
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know what happened to the promised "Peace Dividend". Military spending was supposed to go way down, not just down, and civilians were supposed to reap the benefits... Instead Industrialists took up the Globalization mantra and forgot the little guys (the guys and gals working in factories) and happily told them it would mean lower cost of living --conveniently leaving out that they would also earn much less…

How did Bernie sell out?

They told him he was a Kremlin asset in 2016 and he believed it. They gave him committee chairmanship as a consolation prize and now he’s one of the biggest hawks for the Dems’ proxy war in Ukraine. Even called out the CPC letter calling for diplomacy alongside military aid.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#113

I definetly think a lot of the startup world view is just a function of low rates. Startups could run for decades with $billions in losses and only a passing focus on eventual profits. All of those losses flowed into the bank accounts of big tech (via AWS credits, Google and Facebook Ads). All of the high salaries, employee expectations and leverage in tech startups and big tech derive from that spigot of cheap money…

> I definitely think a lot of the startup world view is just a function of low rates. Startups could run for decades with $billions in losses and only a passing focus on eventual profits.

Yes. Buying growth at a loss is so over.

A stock is worth the present value of future dividends.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#114

I definetly think a lot of the startup world view is just a function of low rates. Startups could run for decades with $billions in losses and only a passing focus on eventual profits. All of those losses flowed into the bank accounts of big tech (via AWS credits, Google and Facebook Ads). All of the high salaries, employee expectations and leverage in tech startups and big tech derive from that spigot of cheap money…

[deleted]

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#115

Given that putting interest rates up is an artificial intervention into the market for money, what if your worldview is based around allowing financial institutions to extract rent by taxing people for setting up home? Why is setting the price of money artificially - which gives free government money to financial institutions - better than the alternative: setting the base price of labour by guaranteeing people a job…

For what it's worth, I don't fundamentally disagree with the MMT viewpoint that you're coming from. But it's not so clear cut.

> gives free government money to financial institutions

By this, the parent means that nonzero interest rates on government debt represents "free money" that the government pays voluntarily even though it doesn't have to.

I'm not so sure. First of all, most of the institutions getting these payments hardly seem happy to be getting them, and would much rather see interest rates drop.

Secondly, the money does not come free to the recipients. It comes with a very high opportunity cost. That's exactly the point, because it's an attempt to encourage people to save money when they'd rather spend it because inflation is high.

A job guarantee sounds nice, and I do think we should be encouraging full employment without worrying about wage growth. But with a jobs guarantee, who decides what the job is in service of? The point of not having a command economy is that price signals should influence such decisions.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#117
I just can’t take this person seriously. Clearly written by a non-expert and the questions/ideas are, as a result, well-trodden ground without anything original to add.

Take this representative quote “It’s Jerome Powell’s world: never before have I seen markets move so erratically in response to a once-boring Jackson Hole conference. Actually, the first time I ever heard of this event was this year since some acquaintances of mine were trying to ‘trade’ it.”

So, essentially, this person had no clue what Jackson Hole means in the financial world but makes a huge judgement on past events, then says immediately they know nothing of the past and just learned of them this year. No analysis of market volatility around these events, just a blanket statement that makes them look foolish.

Basically they are now opening their eyes to the huge role central banks play in the economy.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#118
post #117

I just can’t take this person seriously. Clearly written by a non-expert and the questions/ideas are, as a result, well-trodden ground without anything original to add. Take this representative quote “It’s Jerome Powell’s world: never before have I seen markets move so erratically in response to a once-boring Jackson Hole conference. Actually, the first time I ever heard of this event was this year since some acquain…

He's right in one sense, that the implications of Fed policy for the last decade are truly astounding, but I'm not sure he actually understands why he is right.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#119
I've been saying this for the last 5 years. People don't realize how powerful the 'money printer' is. All the money which exists in the system was created out of nothing and injected into the economy through a few specific channels (mostly as credit backed by debt). IMO, everything in modern society is influenced in some way by interest rates; even culture and morality. Money printing can distort the market pricing mechanism and distort all economic activities.

IMO, a low interest rate environment is about luck, first mover advantage and media exposure. A high interest rate environment is about value creation. IMO, as interest rates increase, many successful people of the past decade are going to wake up to a new reality; those who have the humility to understand that they were lucky will be able to adapt their strategy to suit the new environment but most will go out of business.

I believe that in this new high interest environment, some people who were previously unsuccessful will thrive while some who used to be successful will start failing. The majority of investors will not be able to escape the mindset that they should only invest in successful people (since that has worked consistently in the past) and they will end up chasing loss after loss and not understand why their proven strategy of track-record-based investing is no longer working.

Re: What if your entire worldview was just because of near-zero interest rates?

#120
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are completely different with respect to their impact on stock options . If you hold stock options, a dividend doesn't benefit you. You need to hold shares to get the dividend. In fact, the dividend can cause the share price to fall (if it was not already anticipated) as the company's capital gets drained to pay shareholders. On the other hand, buybacks (causing a sudden, surprising increase in share price) are…

This isn't accurate. Options are discounted by their expected dividend payout. Unless a company is issuing either 0 dte or decades out expiration options, no options are giving any corporate exec 100x leverage.

That doesn't sound right. Can you explain in more detail? The only mention of 100x was in regards to a buyback, not a dividend. Options are generally issued with a strike price equal to the current market value, to minimize the tax liability. Following the options grant, a subsequent decision to perform a share buyback would be new information to the market, not expected. Even the execs who received that options incentive package wouldn't have known at the time that they'd be doing a buyback down the road, even though they'd be rewarded for doing it.
Post reply on HN