Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

m1chart.com

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#111
post #6

A lot of people say there’s no such thing as asset inflation [1] and I find that very confusing. Hypothetically, if we add $1T to the economy and everyone invests it into stocks, is that not inflation? I guess economists say it’s not, but it feels like a pedantic argument about assets being “overpriced” not “inflated”. I think our current method of measuring inflation against the CPI is nonsense, the basic premise th…

Mainstream economists know that CPI isn't accurate because of changes in demand. So they created other indicators (like chained CPI [0]) to account for changes in the basket of goods. Normalizing against the M1 is an not very meaningful because ignores the fact that the price of a dollar is subject to demand as well. In times of high demand for dollars (like right now), the supply of money (the M1) needs to increase…

>>>Sidenote: When the price of a dollar rises, that's deflation; when it falls, that's inflation. That's also why "asset price inflation" isn't precise — inflation measures the change in price of a currency, not an asset.

The argument is that the textbook definition of the way inflation is described has become detached from reality. people are undoubtly affected and suffering by the price increases in the asset markets.

look at the currency markets where the dollar has dropped 10% against a basket of the largest foreign currencies. Using your definition, would you call this inflation then? Because 10% is much higher than the 2.1 or whatever the fed had just declared.

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#113
post #6

A lot of people say there’s no such thing as asset inflation [1] and I find that very confusing. Hypothetically, if we add $1T to the economy and everyone invests it into stocks, is that not inflation? I guess economists say it’s not, but it feels like a pedantic argument about assets being “overpriced” not “inflated”. I think our current method of measuring inflation against the CPI is nonsense, the basic premise th…

The standard definition of inflation is the general increase of prices. If only a subset of items increase in price, it's not really inflation. It is tempting to say that you can have asset inflation while other assets deflate, but it's not consistent with the general topic of inflation that implies the currency gets devalued. If the government said that it would collect a special tax to all goods but stocks of 1$, i…

But then we would never have inflation because not all goods will increase in price at the same time. It takes time until money trickles down through the system doesn’t it ?

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#114
I showed this to a prominent Dutch economist and he dismissed this as “meaningless” https://twitter.com/mathijsbouman/status/1360495717727485956...

I’m super sure why tho. Can’t we expect that printing dollars has an effect on its value? Aren’t stocks measured in dollars? If the value go down and I sell, aren’t I getting less purchasing power than I would have otherwise?

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#115
post #6

A lot of people say there’s no such thing as asset inflation [1] and I find that very confusing. Hypothetically, if we add $1T to the economy and everyone invests it into stocks, is that not inflation? I guess economists say it’s not, but it feels like a pedantic argument about assets being “overpriced” not “inflated”. I think our current method of measuring inflation against the CPI is nonsense, the basic premise th…

Mainstream economists know that CPI isn't accurate because of changes in demand. So they created other indicators (like chained CPI [0]) to account for changes in the basket of goods. Normalizing against the M1 is an not very meaningful because ignores the fact that the price of a dollar is subject to demand as well. In times of high demand for dollars (like right now), the supply of money (the M1) needs to increase…

What makes you think there is high demand for the dollar? I don’t see anything that indicates that.

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#116
post #114

I showed this to a prominent Dutch economist and he dismissed this as “meaningless” https://twitter.com/mathijsbouman/status/1360495717727485956... I’m super sure why tho. Can’t we expect that printing dollars has an effect on its value? Aren’t stocks measured in dollars? If the value go down and I sell, aren’t I getting less purchasing power than I would have otherwise?

_not_ super sure, and many more typos, sorry, too late to edit

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#117
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that housing is more like stocks than bread is what's fucked up.

Everyone rich or poor can only eat so much bread, but you can always buy more stock or real estate. Supply is harder to increase as well.

> Everyone rich or poor can only eat so much bread

True, and that's great!

> but you can always buy more stock or real estate.

There is nothing innate about this state of affairs. What is "ownernship"? How many acres of land and I keep to myself with my own shotgun? Surely that's bounded too?

> Supply is harder to increase as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio

Every person deserves some amount of floor space near other people's floor space. They do not so deserve private land area.

Land area is held in common in parks, whose size, beauty, and other factors vary inversely with their accessibility. We can vary the park distribution and the vacation distribution to do nice things with the expected nature rejuvenation.

This is completely separate from housing.

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#118
post #28

So basically, if the Fed wasn’t printing money the rich’s wealth would have far greater intrinsic value, and they could be content with hoarding cash or making less risky investments, because there is little to no inflation to fight against. But because of all the money printing, they have to run in place just to stand still, so they funnel their money into assets like stocks, which the general public also invests in…

Now do housing

I don’t know how

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#119
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money in band account that is not used is just a number. As Fed puts more money into the economy, the velocity of money decreases as the money is used less. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V A couple questions because I don't understand this very well. Do we have an idea how much is actually sitting in a bank account vs being put into the market? And, if people put money into stocks and park it there, wouldn't…

You can't just put it into the market. There are two sides to every transaction. You give money, they give stock, they get money, you get stock. When more money enters the economy than stuff is created, the price that the person willing to sell/price you are willing to buy that stock for goes up.

That's a good point about transactions. But are stock purchases included in the velocity calculation? From what I can find [1,2], money velocity is a ratio of nominal GDP to (either M1 or M2) money supply, and neither of these includes stocks or bonds.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32242 [2] https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html

Re: Show HN: M1 Chart – The stock market adjusted for the US-dollar money supply

#120
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of thinking takes quantity theory of money too seriously (axiomatically). Instead of looking if that has been true, you just assume that it must be true.

Except that fiat money can be analyzed axiomatically, because it is essentially just numbers in a balanced double-entry ledger. The difficult part is in translating theorems into practical knowledge about the economy, but just because this is difficult doesn’t mean that the axiomatic approach is wrong.

> Except that fiat money can be analyzed axiomatically

Not in a meaningful way. (meaningful = related to real economy). If you just look at the numbers in a silly accountant fashion, and population doubles, analysis is meaningless.

You need want to keep money relatively stable (say 2% inflation) you need to keep adding money to match changes in demand or factors of production.

Post reply on HN