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

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#61

Post by jajko »

orwin wrote: post #49
nostromo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No politician is ever going to do that, not with that reasoning, not so much it would actually matter. Way too many people's wealth would be burned to the ground. We talk avout tens of percents of every populatiin in literally every country.

It may be a reasonable advice when isolated from complexity of reality, but at the end its a bit like saying for example: solve all evil by separating / killing all evil people.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#62

Post by jajko »

bequanna wrote: post #35
alephnerd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current argument against US Aid to Ukraine is over the current foreign aid package of $5B, which has turned into a culture war issue. I never heard similar arguments in 2016, 2019, or 2021.

The total amount that we’ve already gifted Ukraine is absolutely relevant when we discuss sending even more. Since we are running historic Federal deficits, every dollar we agree to send them comes at the expense of decreasing the purchasing power of Americans. Government spending at these levels contributes to inflation and makes Americans worse off. Enough is enough.

If US loses half a billion in European countries that are by far the most aligned with US view on how to run world and who should do it, suddenly it will be just US, Australia, New Zealand and... maybe few small states against russia and China. Nobody else, some 6?% of global population. Also its extremely rich continent when compared to the rest.

Ie most of Africa already currently is anti-US (and anti-european) if you didnt notice and welcoming China and russia like long lost brothers, and its progressing.

If US will give us big FU, we will manage russian expansionism on our own, with heavy losses, eventually, despite mostly pathetic leadership (ie germans really know how to put clueless folks sabotaging their own countries into leadership). But we wont ever be friends like we are now.

Magas or similar fringe folks need to put together way more coherent arguments than these, since they dont make any sense from any rational point of view, even if completely US-centric and selfish.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

alienicecream wrote: post #48
nradov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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

Strictly speaking, it obligates the US (like any other NATO member), in the event of an attack on any other member, to “individually and in concert with the other [NATO members], such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

It’s quite plausible the US could do that without deciding to “fight on the ground”.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#64

Post by alienicecream »

dragonwriter wrote: post #58
alienicecream wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, and the one lesson we should certainly take from the past is that taking a pass on containment to appease powerful, aggressive states never leads to those doing so (including, but limited to, Americans) paying a very high, avoidable price in blood and treasure overseas as a consequence when not trying to contain aggression surprisingly does not contain the aggression.

I can see this conversation is leading to Hitler. But sometimes containment leads to a stupid quagmire which you should never have been in in the first place, like Vietnam, and security guarantees to backwards unstable countries leads to larger, more all consuming wars like WW1. Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's back yard, we have no business there.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#65

Post by jajko »

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…

This explains what I am seeing in various parts of Europe too. Bad properties (mostly by location) experienced some swings (as they always do when some troubles come like in 2008), but better ones didnt even flinch and just continue rising (maybe only moderately when adjusted by inflation but still).

Maybe a bit harder to sell but still they seem to sell. And everybody seems to expect interest rates to decrease soon, which will lead into even higher rise.

But what do you expect - people in Europe generally dont use / trust / understand stock market, and real estate at least in past 5-6 decades was by far the best investment for common folks. Stuff they understand, can use, can physically see and hold.

Plus in at least a bit touristy locations airbnb is helping massively with mortgage payments, and before 'communists' here come again with 'eat the greedy rich because we want our own houses too' - the demand from travellers is there, in past few years massive (and often hotels are simply not good enough for ie families with small kids while being 2-3x more expensive).

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#67

Post by mopsi »

alienicecream wrote: post #59
nradov wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it, but you apparently don't understand what's actually happening. While NATO had some preliminary discussions with Ukraine they are not actively moving through the accession process. Every major NATO leader has been clear that the territorial dispute with Russia will have to be settled one way or another before Ukraine can officially join. So, you're being ignorant or disingenuous by bringing up an obligation…

> How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard? Basically there's isn't a difference, Finland shouldn't be in NATO either. Americans have no business defending Finland of all places. Georgia is even less of a concern, it might as well be on the moon for all the national interest we have in Georgia. > When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have les…

> Americans have no business defending Finland of all places.

A very shortsighted view. Norway, Sweden and Finland are currently setting up a joint air force command so that in case of war, they could deliver a fatal blow to the Russian Northern Fleet at Murmansk. The Northern Fleet operates in the Atlantic and is the largest threat to shipping between North America and Europe. They represent the U-boats of the 21st century. Americans get incredible value from closer cooperation with Finland and Sweden.

> The alternative is that countries negotiate with regional powers and try to maintain friendly relations.

And what if it doesn't work out and instead a fascist regime first rolls over the entire Europe again and then starts to threaten rest of the world?

You are not proposing anything new.[1] This line of thought had wide support between the two world wars. The current system of international organizations and alliances is a "lesson learned" from that period.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

Post reply on HN