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

'Is monetary policy even working?'

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#41

Post by Temporary_31337 »

ASinclair wrote: post #18
alecsm wrote: post #5

What bothers me is that in Europe it was expected to affect the real estate prices. The higher the interest, the lower the prices, which sounds logical but...the prices kept increasing. So what's going to happen when Lagarde decides to lower them? The demand is way to high and the offer is almost non existent. And it seems that it didn't affect the inflation either. Bad years for everybody who's not getting a 10% rai…

One problem is that housing is supply constrained in many places. Homebuilders need loans too. So high rates increase homebuilders costs as well.

Homebuilders are hesitant to set up new projects as the new builds will be more expensive than the already elevated house prices- higher labour and materials costs higher interest payments for the home builders And finally More expensive mortgages for the end clients. This kills supply and it will send prices into the stratosphere.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

alienicecream wrote: post #37
dragonwriter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would have been really cheaper is if when Russia told NATO not to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, claiming that doing so would lead to regional instability while refraining would support peace, NATO had thanked them for their input and done the opposite, rather than complying. Over a decade of unchecked Russian aggression before the 2022 Russian escalation in Ukraine made constraining that aggression…

Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't re…

> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians?

For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member.

The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing.

> Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO?

Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future.

[0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#43

Post by Temporary_31337 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #7
alephnerd wrote: post #3

The core point from the article (because no one will actually read it): "Higher interest rates have proved a lot less destructive than investors feared in 2022, when the world’s central banks embarked on one of the most aggressive episodes of monetary tightening in history. Nothing has “broken”, contrary to the prevailing view two years ago; and this has even sparked a lively debate about why mainstream macro exagger…

This wasn't "one of the most aggressive episodes". This was nothing compared to Volcker in 1979-1981. And the fact that nothing has broken indicates that they didn't go overly aggressive. They stopped inflation from getting worse without driving the country into a recession. That's a pretty decent balancing act.

Too early to tell IMO. The fact that inflation is going up again tells me they may have played too safe with the only blunt instrument that they have

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#44

Post by bequanna »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #40
bequanna wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, you’re off by an order of magnitude. We could run several states for a year with what we’ve sent them. $75 billion: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...

We didn't send $75B to Ukraine. Sending an almost expired 155mm artillery shell is counted as sending $8000 to Ukraine, but in reality we're saving ourselves the cost of destroying the shell once it expires. Yes, we'll have to spend $8000 to replace the shell, but we would have to replace it anyways since it has a limited shelf life.

Do you have some hard numbers to back this up? What percentage of that aid is just things we were going to “throw away”?

I’d be willing to bet 5% or less of total aid falls in the category you mention.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#45

Post by alienicecream »

dragonwriter wrote: post #42
alienicecream wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't re…

> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the pur…

Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. When they're strong enough to contest it, you're going to be over there fighting for Ukranian soil, and if you care that much, you should just volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#46

Post by nradov »

alienicecream wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the pur…

Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're…

We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat.

Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long run.

The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. They're just asking for weapons, logistics, and intelligence. The more Russian soldiers that they can kill, the less threat that Russia will pose in other areas. It's sad the situation has come to this point and I take no delight in those deaths but there is no realistic alternative.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#47

Post by dctoedt »

alienicecream wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the pur…

Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're…

> This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on.

Containment worked with the Soviet Union — it can work again with Putin's Russia.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#48

Post by alienicecream »

nradov wrote: post #46
alienicecream wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're…

We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat. Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long ru…

How the heck is putting Ukraine or Georgia in NATO going to protect us from Russia's nucleus weapons?? If anything it will make the threat more immediate.

> The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant.

This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know what you're arguing against, but it seems you didn't read the thread.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#49

Post by orwin »

nostromo wrote: post #36
alephnerd wrote: post #3

The core point from the article (because no one will actually read it): "Higher interest rates have proved a lot less destructive than investors feared in 2022, when the world’s central banks embarked on one of the most aggressive episodes of monetary tightening in history. Nothing has “broken”, contrary to the prevailing view two years ago; and this has even sparked a lively debate about why mainstream macro exagger…

They can't stay this high for long without a federal debt crisis, which is a key reason the Fed is hoping to get interest rates back down. If we weren't so indebted, interest rates could indeed stay high for a long time without much concern. But there's a point in the not-so-distant future where our government will need to print even more money to pay the debt (which will spark more inflation) or we'll need to cut al…

If so, there is a way to destroy inflation, its raising taxes. Put taxes on wealth and on secondary homes and non-commercial renting, destroy the money, less inflation. Easy.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#50

Post by alienicecream »

dctoedt wrote: post #47
alienicecream wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're…

> This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. Containment worked with the Soviet Union — it can work again with Putin's Russia.

It can work, or it might not, in which case you or your children will be dying for some town in Eastern Ukraine you've never heard of and you can't pronounce.
Post reply on HN