Live data from Hacker News

Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

sites.lsa.umich.edu

261–270 of 619 posts

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#261
post #45

The more money the banks print, the richer they get, with the side-effect that prices rise (they make the monetary units less scarce and worth less). 2-3% just happens to be the most they can get away with in the long term without the population getting concerned. What the general population don't realise is that the value of goods and services are going down over time, due to efficiency increases, at a rate of aroun…

You've glossed over so many things.

The banks are not just in the business of lending out money. They also take deposits and pay interest on those deposits. It's a fraction of what they make on loan interest payments, but it's still a significant expense.

Borrowers can go bankrupt and default on debt. That's also effectively a huge expense.

Banks are competing to offer the best interest rates to their customers. If a bank could still make a lot of money while offering a lower interest rate than their competitors, they would.

> The more money the banks print

The only way they can print more money, is to issue more debt. But issuing debt is an expense for a bank. Either you do due diligence, which takes a lot of work. Or you accept the risk of issuing risky loans that may be defaulted on, which again, will be an expense. And then there's a mountain of regulations on top of that to try to prevent the banks from taking the second option, which also takes work.

It's not the free money machine you make it out to be. (Edit: Not that I'm saying it's not at all lucrative. But it's a risky and difficult high-skill job, which is extremely important to every aspect of society so that in itself isn't remotely surprising)

> they printed them out of thin air as loans and have to destroy them when the loans are repaid, but total debt only increases every year...

Sure.. that's how the economy has worked since the dawn of time.

Money is just an abstraction over credit in general, and credit is always how most of the economy has worked, even before money was invented.

You need a barn built? You ask your neighbors to help you build it, and promise them some grains or something in return. Boom. Credit (i.e. money) created from thin air. And the more the economy grows, the more this kind of debt is created.

Some of the earliest texts we've discovered was records of this kind of debt. That's exactly what paper (and digital) money is.. a record of debt distilled to its purest essence and made easily tradable.

The difference now is that instead of credit being created through these informal arrangements, you go to the bank, which does the work of ensuring that you're good for the debt. You get some numbers in an account which then lets you go to the neighbors and pay them to help. Whether you repay them by doing work for them directly, or work for someone else in the community, doesn't matter anymore. Which makes the whole system much more efficient.

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I think CPI numbers are all hogwash All the younger people I know in less than stellar jobs are really hurting. These people were never well off but were comfortable before the pandemic. But now they’re making hard decisions for basic necessities and grinding down the quality of their lives.

The lowest income workers have seen the largest wage gains over the course of the pandemic.

I suspect the person you’re responding to is not really talking about truly low paying jobs - more likely entry level out of college jobs. (Not that I expect those are in aggregate underwater either.)

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#263
post #5

Yellen supposedly told Greenspan & co in the mid 90s that 2% was a good way for companies to be able to adjust labor costs down if needed (if you don't give someone a raise when inflation is 2%, you're effectively lowering their salary). It was the only way to have some flexibility there. If you admit that this is a desirable thing, this is defeated by wage negotiations (or say, benefits) than tend to be indexed to i…

>2% was a good way for companies to be able to adjust labor costs down if needed (if you don't give someone a raise when inflation is 2%, you're effectively lowering their salary) This is EXACTLY the issue. The economy is rigged such that in the absence of any positive action, workers' purchasing power goes down over time by default. This obviously isn't a problem for the rich, whose money is stored almost entirely i…

>"This obviously isn't a problem for the rich, whose money is stored almost entirely in assets which by definition rise in value with inflation."

This isn't true (at least not by definition); no common measure of inflation uses the assets of the rich as a primary input. The closest thing you will find is OER, but that's unrelated to the stock market or other common assets used by the rich to park wealth.

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#264
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a (possibly) intentional (not by you) abuse of language in order to to rip people off. Inflation/deflation is decrease/increase in the value of money, separate from technological progress or supply and demand of real products. It's impossible to measure this directly, so dishonest people pushed to simply measure price increases/decreased, ignoring technologocal progress, so that powerful interests good steal…

> Inflation/deflation is decrease/increase in the value of money, separate from technological progress or supply and demand of real products. If $1 gets you X capabilities, but the same $1 gets you X-1 capabilities later, is that not inflation? The same $1 gets you less. Whereas getting X+1 for $1 is deflation: the $1 gets you more. The capability is how many calories you can get (Food), how much space you have to li…

I'm not sure it's a meaningful question... for $1600 I can get an iPhone which is more capable than anything you could buy for any price in 1991. Is the argument that this means there's been deflation? To me its a category difference and you can't compare because prices aren't set entirely by capability conferred but also by cost of production and demand.

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if this is satire, either way I had a good laugh.

So no debate on the merits? We agree! :) Feel free to laugh, if that's what makes you happy.

I have a feeling that such a debate will not be productive and have decided to abstain.

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#267
post #67
post #45

The more money the banks print, the richer they get, with the side-effect that prices rise (they make the monetary units less scarce and worth less). 2-3% just happens to be the most they can get away with in the long term without the population getting concerned. What the general population don't realise is that the value of goods and services are going down over time, due to efficiency increases, at a rate of aroun…

> They are roughly the same price in gold as they were in the 1970s So you're implying that there was no inflation between 2011 and 2022 (gold prices were basically the same) or that prices increasing 8 times or so between 2000 and 2011 because gold got a lot more expensive? Gold is just a random commodity affected by market supply/demand just like every other commodities (or bitcoin). Implying it's some sort of a "h…

super cherry picking and definitions bending:

> no inflation between 2011 and 2022

iPhone 4S, iPhone 14

> increasing 8 times or so between 2000 and 2011

Pentium III @ ~1GHz 1C/1T, Sandy Bridge @ ~3.7GHz 4C/4T

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#268
post #261
post #45

The more money the banks print, the richer they get, with the side-effect that prices rise (they make the monetary units less scarce and worth less). 2-3% just happens to be the most they can get away with in the long term without the population getting concerned. What the general population don't realise is that the value of goods and services are going down over time, due to efficiency increases, at a rate of aroun…

You've glossed over so many things. The banks are not just in the business of lending out money. They also take deposits and pay interest on those deposits. It's a fraction of what they make on loan interest payments, but it's still a significant expense. Borrowers can go bankrupt and default on debt. That's also effectively a huge expense. Banks are competing to offer the best interest rates to their customers. If a…

> You need a barn built? You ask your neighbors to help you build it, and promise them some grains or something in return. Boom. Credit (i.e. money) created from thin air. And the more the economy grows, the more this kind of debt is created.

You're missing the bigger picture. The difference is that banks are handing out unlimited credit notes for something they don't have, and are charging interest on them.

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#269
post #5

Yellen supposedly told Greenspan & co in the mid 90s that 2% was a good way for companies to be able to adjust labor costs down if needed (if you don't give someone a raise when inflation is 2%, you're effectively lowering their salary). It was the only way to have some flexibility there. If you admit that this is a desirable thing, this is defeated by wage negotiations (or say, benefits) than tend to be indexed to i…

Why are inflation truthers so resistant to spending even the tiniest amount of time learning how inflation is computed instead of repeating nonsensical conspiracy theories that match their ideological priors? Replacing porterhouse with hanger steaks in the basket simply means giving the change in price of hanger steaks a higher weight than the change in price of porterhouse steaks in the basket. It does not mean reco…

They must be the 7% of the population not covered by BLS stats when working out the CPI, assuming they're from US, or living in a remote area. Agree that overall, the population has been growing richer for several decades. But what about us folks who subsisted off of GPUs and used cars in 2021-2022? The reality for us is way different.

Re: Why the 2% inflation target? (2023)

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are inflation truthers so resistant to spending even the tiniest amount of time learning how inflation is computed instead of repeating nonsensical conspiracy theories that match their ideological priors? Replacing porterhouse with hanger steaks in the basket simply means giving the change in price of hanger steaks a higher weight than the change in price of porterhouse steaks in the basket. It does not mean reco…

> nonsensical conspiracy theories that match their ideological priors People's lived experiences in many parts of the country don't match what they're being told. If macro trends go one way but microtrends all over the country go the other way, then the macrotrend analysis is functionally meaningless for millions of people. That's not a conspiracy theory, and hand-waving so many people's lived experiences away becaus…

I think people get too hung up on the aggregate numbers which can hide large populations experiencing things differently. Wage growth may have been higher than inflation for some quintiles overall, but for literally millions of people in those quintiles who didn’t job hop and got typical raises or got laid off or whatever, the average experience wasn’t their experience. And when prices are obviously going up, most people will feel like they are falling behind even if they objectively are treading water.
Post reply on HN