Live data from Hacker News

Why are interest rates so low?

brookings.edu

171–180 of 238 posts

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#171

The comments I see in this thread make me so upset. HN has always been about making the world a better place. Doing things that matter. Making lives better. We look forward to self driving cars, solving heathcare, etc etc et. Yet I read these comments and apparently HN isn't as concerned about progress anymore. "Why do we need growth", "I'll take peace over growth at this point." Are you crazy? When did we stop carin…

Growth!=Technological progress. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Do you realise you made this logical jump? Does it not need expanding upon or justifying? Do you not think it might be the source of the difference other people have?

Exactly. Not just that but using GDP to measure growth is foolish.

Want to increase GDP (and thus your proxy for growth?) Take a baseball bat and go smash every window and car you can find.

Bam! GDP increases from all those new car sales.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#172

The comments I see in this thread make me so upset. HN has always been about making the world a better place. Doing things that matter. Making lives better. We look forward to self driving cars, solving heathcare, etc etc et. Yet I read these comments and apparently HN isn't as concerned about progress anymore. "Why do we need growth", "I'll take peace over growth at this point." Are you crazy? When did we stop carin…

Growth!=Technological progress. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Do you realise you made this logical jump? Does it not need expanding upon or justifying? Do you not think it might be the source of the difference other people have?

To address growth != tech progress. You're right. per capita growth comes from a few things. 1, operating at max utilization. Full employment. Going from 50% to 90% will grow the GDP. 2, saving. Building on what we already have to improve. Building bridges, long lasting homes, etc to that we can be more efficient in the future. 3, technological progress (also finding oil deposits, etc)

Tech progresss -> growth. That much is certain. It's certain that you cannot continue to have technological growth without economic growth. Name the 10 most important technological advancements of the 1900s and try to explain to me a scenario where those invention wouldn't cause growth. And its also certain that growing the economy by #1 and #2 above will allow more room for #3. So in a sense, you can, but it would be incredibly difficult to grow the economy without encouraging and making technological growth.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#173

The comments I see in this thread make me so upset. HN has always been about making the world a better place. Doing things that matter. Making lives better. We look forward to self driving cars, solving heathcare, etc etc et. Yet I read these comments and apparently HN isn't as concerned about progress anymore. "Why do we need growth", "I'll take peace over growth at this point." Are you crazy? When did we stop carin…

People are afraid of future technology they don't understand and many people really don't understand how the world works. But the good thing is they have never been able to stop the few who make actual advancement. Progress shoves us through the door, luddites and all.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#174

The comments I see in this thread make me so upset. HN has always been about making the world a better place. Doing things that matter. Making lives better. We look forward to self driving cars, solving heathcare, etc etc et. Yet I read these comments and apparently HN isn't as concerned about progress anymore. "Why do we need growth", "I'll take peace over growth at this point." Are you crazy? When did we stop carin…

Growth!=Technological progress. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Do you realise you made this logical jump? Does it not need expanding upon or justifying? Do you not think it might be the source of the difference other people have?

But it does mean that people have access to that technological progress.

And, to be clear, I don't mean in some kind of fuzzy way where if you have access to the technological progress, you will go out and be more economically productive.

I mean: If ten years from now, your country's nominal GDP is exactly the same as it is today, but you have access to cool new technology that makes your life materially better, then economic metrics will attempt to capture that improvement and will say that you are now richer, ie, the economy has grown.

So, for example, when we try to figure out the value of inflation, we take into account the fact that your smartphone today is "worth" more than the featurephone that you had ten years ago, and we say that if hypothetically the smartphone and the featurephone cost the same amount, then your money has deflated (ie, your money is worth more, ie you're richer at the same nominal amount of money).

The metrics may or may not do a good job of putting a precise dollar figure on that, but they're trying, and if the technological progress is significant enough, and reaches a large enough population, then they'll put some dollar figure to it.

Technological progress that does not improve the lives of significant numbers of people, of course, does not translate to technological growth. But I assume that is not what you're arguing for?

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have nonnegative gains in efficiency and we have population growth. If those are not reflected in the monetary base, then the result is a trend in the direction of deflation. That presents a set of problems, challenges to very deeply established assumptions about things like government, business and personal debt. Deflation leads to in stability, as people who want to work cannot - and not for a good reason, but b…

You might enjoy reading the Austrian Economics take on this at the mises.org web site. Their front page has a few articles on how (sometimes) deflation is just fine.

This ( plus nearly all of Rothbard ) is where I disagree with the Austrians. I don't think specie-fever is particularly an Austrian .. opinion but they're also highly correlated - Austrians tend to be fond of gold. If I win my bet, specie is pretty dramatically a bad idea, as the interwar stories show well enough for me. Austrians in general don't seem to grasp that flows matter as much.

When I want to be hyperbolic, I will accuse deflation of being a big contributor to WWII.

I just don't like the idea of the level of currency in circulation being a drag on transactions. Throw in that how debt can be a real problem for people, and I just can't go there. I rather giggle at the "Hayek and the suit" story, although I admire Hayek greatly.

I'm closest to Friedman/Fisher/(these days)Sumner. Mainly because the story is one of poor instrumentation leading to policy that doesn't do what we want, which suits my biases.

"Interfluidity" did an ( I think ) brilliant piece titled "Depression Is A Choice" in which they mused that deflation may well reflect our revealed preferences.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#176
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have discussed this with friends recently. Why do we need growth? I don't need a faster iPhone, or more tech. I honestly don't see my life being any better for the last ten years worth of "growth" (much of which seems to have been pumping up asset prices). I would quite like to relax and coast a bit in life, but with the constant chasing of growth by everyone else, standing still means you will get left behind (i.e…

If you want to freeze on ten years back, there's nothing stopping you from getting an old flip phone. Or if you want to freeze on 8 years back, nobody will prevent you from buying a iPhone 2G. It sounds like you are saying you won't do that because you don't want to be "left behind", so you'd like everyone else to stop moving forward to accommodate you. But that's their choice, just like using an iPhone 2G is your ch…

There was actually no iPhone 2g, although there were iPhone and iPhone 3G.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growth!=Technological progress. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Do you realise you made this logical jump? Does it not need expanding upon or justifying? Do you not think it might be the source of the difference other people have?

But it does mean that people have access to that technological progress. And, to be clear, I don't mean in some kind of fuzzy way where if you have access to the technological progress, you will go out and be more economically productive. I mean: If ten years from now, your country's nominal GDP is exactly the same as it is today, but you have access to cool new technology that makes your life materially better, then…

If I was arguing for anything it was better argument!

I think what I am looking for is not an explanation how technology results in growth, and how this gets measured, but rather acknowledgement of ways in which this is not the case. Especially in the marginal sense when discussing growth in the context of various policies e.g. interest rates.

Still you are right in the sense that I am to an extent a growth skeptic. Off the top of my head, nominal growth can also be achieved through

  - population growth
  - increase in unsustainable resource extraction
  - destructive activity (war ...etc.)
To address your other point, if people shared technology better, or upgraded every other cycle would they be significantly worse off?

There are many other ways to improve our well being that are in part impeded by pursuit of growth.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#178
post #114
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? It's reckless to guide economic policy by economic theory? How else do you propose the Fed sets interest rates, a Ouija board?

I meant by a single economic theory / equation...

You needn't worry that Fed policy is too simplistic. Bernanke is a distinguished economist (as is Yellen) and this blog post doesn't even scratch the surface of the depth of his economic knowledge and background. That's not to say that the Fed is perfect, of course, but the people in charge have serious expertise; this isn't Ted Cruz heading up an environmental committee.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things that you can do today that you couldn't do in 1990: * Survive much longer with many types of cancer. * Live a pretty normal life, more or less indefinitely, despite being HIV+ * See your grandkids that live in a different state via a high-quality video connection. * Enjoy television shows that offer multi-month and multi-year arcs and are designed to be consumed by dedicated fans in order, rather than principa…

While all those points are true, they are mainly because of advancing science, rather than economic growth. Those are partly interconnected, but there are also important differences. The Internet as you know it is also a direct product of its academic background. That's why we have had network neutrality so inherent in its culture. That's why there are only peers, not producers and consumers. If it had been designed…

The "academic internet" wasn't nearly as impressive as today's internet.

I am (un?)fortunate to have my first memories around the time of the first private networks being connected to the internet (late 80s).

Back then, the internet was run by academics.

It wasn't until the 2nd or 3rd round of commercialization efforts that it really became compelling.

So the structure of the internet is because of the academic beginnings, but the actual content (data, apps, etc.) are IMO b/c of desire to acquire wealth.

Re: Why are interest rates so low?

#180
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growth and technology are actually reducing the difference between rich and poor in almost every aspect of life. Between 1920 and 1960 the only people who could travel quickly around the world were the super-rich. With the advent of the turbofan engine, and the widebody jet, quick and comfortable travel became accessible to the general public. Cell phones and the internet are another paradigmatic case of this. It use…

>>Growth and technology are actually reducing the difference between rich and poor in almost every aspect of life. It seriously annoys me when people say this, because it's so incredibly short-sighted. It's only in terms of physical, tangible standard of living factors. Travel, as you noted, is one of those. And yeah, everyone has refrigerators in their homes nowadays. Yay! But being ultra-rich gives a tremendous amo…

I think you're the one being short sighted here. You pull out the very few area where the rich still have an edge, but the fact is that in the vast majority of areas, the rich have lost insane ground.

First, these physical, tangible standard of living factors you so arrogantly dismiss. Cheap, ubiquitous travel means freedom to live where you want, even if that's more than a few hundred miles away, without sacrificing your family and friends. That was rare 20 years ago and almost unheard of 50 years ago. Except if you were rich, of course. Today, the rich can buy somewhat more comfortable and convenient flights, at extreme expense, but not faster ones.

As for refrigerators in every home? The alternative is shopping for fresh ingredients daily, or doing without them. You can't save leftovers for very long, so you need to cook daily. And speaking of cooling? 100 years ago, the king of England couldn't get an A/C unit at any cost, today they're perfectly ubiquitous.

Education? Yeah, there is some real differences here, but the bottom has gone up tremendously: in living memory, kids were pulled from school to help in the fields. Poor kids, obviously, the rich didn't go in the fields. Today, thanks to the mechanisation of agriculture, all kids can stay in school uninterrupted. And even the poorest kids can read by almost free electrical lights. Even 100 years ago, the rich would have to read by candlelight.

The rich can buy marginally better cars than you and I, but not by a lot. Fancier, but not really better clothes. Their houses might be bigger and fancier, but not more capable at keeping you and your family warm (or cool) and dry. Certainly, the rich have more luxurious options, but not really a lot better.

The richest man on earth can't buy a better smartphone than me or get a better signal than me - that's why those ghastly diamond-encrusted phones exist. But their text messages don't arrive faster than mine and they like the exact same cat videos as me on the exact same Facebook.

Still too vulgar and consumerist? How about the environment? Once, the rich enjoyed clean air, clean water and safe disposal of sewage by living in the country. But do you know why they dusted all the time in old books? Indoor coalfires are messy affairs. If you lived in the city (rich or poor), there would be no clean water, smoggy, dirty air and literally shit flowing in the streets. Today, even the worst tenements in the densest cities have clean, running water, flushing toilets and smogless radiators. The air might not be quite as clean as it could be, but it's a far cry from the smog-hell it once was - and a lot cleaner than just a few decades ago, thanks to better cars.

The perks you list were always perks of the nobility, they are not recent gains - but you're making the perfect an enemy of the extremely good. The much more interesting point is all the perks they've lost and are losing, and those are extremely numerous.

Post reply on HN