Live data from Hacker News

In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

nytimes.com

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an economist get information about a bubble? Magic? Until they burst, anything you could say about them is speculative. Everyone talks about how education is the next big one, but education and real estate are such different markets they might as well be on different planets. It's impossible to know what's going to happen until it happens. The housing bubble caught a lot of really smart people off guard. Ho…

Interesting comment. If I am to understand it correctly, and follow it to its logical conclusion: 1. Economists have no tools for studying the topics that they're supposed to study, such as asset prices. 2. They are unable to make predictions because doing so would be "speculative." 3. Because we can't know what is going to happen until it happens, we might as well do away with professional economists because they ca…

The vast majority of economics is about how to avoid past mistakes, not necessarily how to avoid making new ones. This doesn't mean the science isn't valuable. There are plenty of terrible mistakes I hope we never make again.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#152
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking that loans are evil is where misean ideology really breaks down. If you give me a piece of paper that says you will pay me X dollars a month for Y months, that piece of paper has value depending on how likely you are to honor the obligation.

Counterfeiting money is evil not because it hurts the counterfeiter, but because it takes away wealth from everybody else. Whatever the counterfeiter buys that is in limited supply, the rest of the people have to do without. To the extent that debt resembles counterfeiting, it is evil. Here's an example: suppose you want to buy a prime waterfront property which is offered for auction. You've worked hard, saved your m…

So the seller of the home deserves to sell for a lower a price because you want to ban certain types of private contracts between the seller, the bank, and joe?

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an economist get information about a bubble? Magic? Until they burst, anything you could say about them is speculative. Everyone talks about how education is the next big one, but education and real estate are such different markets they might as well be on different planets. It's impossible to know what's going to happen until it happens. The housing bubble caught a lot of really smart people off guard. Ho…

Interesting comment. If I am to understand it correctly, and follow it to its logical conclusion: 1. Economists have no tools for studying the topics that they're supposed to study, such as asset prices. 2. They are unable to make predictions because doing so would be "speculative." 3. Because we can't know what is going to happen until it happens, we might as well do away with professional economists because they ca…

According to the first article, Shiller said in 1996 that stock prices were at irrationally high levels. In 2005, he predicted a real estate bubble. Noticing that a bubble is developing, I would say, is the relatively easy part; predicting when it will collapse is the difficult part. As Keynes said, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent", so there is limited value in betting against bubbles. Paulson may have made billions, but undoubtedly there have been people that followed similar shortly before he did, but lost it all. The reason we know Paulson is because of the survivorship bias.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#154
post #92
post #53

Absolutely no discussion of inflation is complete without recognition of the fact that inflation and inflation expectations are at historically low levels [1] right now. Economists aren't arguing that we should inflate our way out of debt--they are arguing that we should return to the historical norm. Of course, it's possible that these economists are secretly just pushing inflation as the "hidden tax" we're all up i…

"it does raise questions about why the school's arguments which seem so utterly convincing to so many people, don't manage to gain many converts among people who research the subject professionally." I think it would be easier to convince people with no physics knowledge that a bowling ball falls faster than a golf ball. Intuitively, it seems that bowling ball should fall faster. Austrian economics seems to follow a…

there is no data to validate either model. there are far far too many variables, and you can't test both of them side by side by definition. If one fails in a certain environment, you can't say the other would have succeeded. We've been doing keynes for quite awhile now, and it has mostly been going poorly. There is no way to say that doing the opposite would have gone better though. It might have, it might have gone the same, it might have done worse. We don't know, and we can't know, because we can't go back to 2008 and try it.

We could switch tomorrow, and again it wouldn't matter if it succeeded or failed. You couldn't say that doing the opposite would have a different total outcome.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a question: how many "professional" economists sounded the alarm about the last bubble?

Dean Baker called the housing bubble as early as 2002: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/reports/the-run-up-in-home-pri... By 2004 he even sponsored a $1000 contest for whoever could make a good case that there wasn't a bubble: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/business/personal-business...

That means he was at least partly if not mostly wrong. As far as markets go, you have to be right in both direction and timing. He was 4-5 years early, and frankly 2002 prices weren't that insane. Especially compared to 2006-2007 prices. He was really early, and if bet against housing at that point, he likely went bankrupt before the crash.

That's really neither here nor there though. What's the famous saying, something to the effect of "economists have predicted 10 of the last 3 recessions". Somebody is always calling for a crash, and somebody is always calling for a bull market. After the fact you can always find someone who was right about it, but that doesn't mean they were right about the why, and it doesn't mean they are going to be right about the next thing.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#156
post #53

Absolutely no discussion of inflation is complete without recognition of the fact that inflation and inflation expectations are at historically low levels [1] right now. Economists aren't arguing that we should inflate our way out of debt--they are arguing that we should return to the historical norm. Of course, it's possible that these economists are secretly just pushing inflation as the "hidden tax" we're all up i…

Here's a question: how many "professional" economists sounded the alarm about the last bubble?

Krugman, Schiller, Roubini were the prominent ones.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salaries don't rise along with inflation, it's one of the reasons why inflation is being propounded by the Fed. If the inflation rate is 3%, you give all your employees a 2% raise at the end of the year. You've given them a 2% raise but have effectively cut their salary. Of course unions were wise to this in the 1970s, one of the reasons there was such massive inflation then, because wages were keeping up with inflat…

If salaries don't rise with inflation, then two things will happen: 1. Workers will have less disposable income to spend, so economic growth will slow down. 2. Workers will be more likely to leave their jobs if offered a salary that's just a few percent higher. The companies that are having problems finding and retaining workers now will have even more problems if the total worth of the compensation package they're o…

> Workers will have less disposable income to spend, so economic growth will slow down. Yes, Karl Marx noted this a century and a half ago.

> Workers will be more likely to leave their jobs if offered a salary that's just a few percent higher

The current unemployment rate is 7.2%. From 1987 to 2007, there was a 14 month period circa 1992 where unemployment was 7.2% or higher, otherwise, it was always lower. Unemployment is at historic highs, not really a time when companies have to raise their salaries to attract workers. Also, industrial capacity is at historic lows ( http://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and-... ). Just think of the anecdotal discussion on HN and elsewhere about the VC crunch. Capital is sitting on the sidelines - just look at the industrial utility chart. Companies aren't using the capacity they have, never mind new investment.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dean Baker called the housing bubble as early as 2002: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/reports/the-run-up-in-home-pri... By 2004 he even sponsored a $1000 contest for whoever could make a good case that there wasn't a bubble: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/business/personal-business...

That means he was at least partly if not mostly wrong. As far as markets go, you have to be right in both direction and timing. He was 4-5 years early, and frankly 2002 prices weren't that insane. Especially compared to 2006-2007 prices. He was really early, and if bet against housing at that point, he likely went bankrupt before the crash. That's really neither here nor there though. What's the famous saying, someth…

That means he was at least partly if not mostly wrong.

I don't agree. You'd have to look at his reasons for calling it the way he did.

Your "betting" objection is a red herring. To identify a bubble does not require predicting exactly when it will pop.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#159
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this down-voted? Higher inflation has historically been considered a populist idea. The idea being that the poor had fixed-interest rate debt, and if you have fixed-interest debt, inflation is very good for you (and deflation is brutal) I mean, there are counter arguments, but the idea that inflation favors the poor has been the standard, conventional wisdom for as long as I am aware, and this discussion has b…

It's the standard, conventional wisdom, but it also misses some subtlety that Warren Buffett's tried to bring up a few time in Berkshire Hathaway annual reports: Inflation isn't distributed equally. When the money supply rises, firms in strong bargaining positions with few substitutes are in the best place to raise prices, because their customers can't readily switch to competitors. So basically, Google will come out…

>So it's only partially true that the poor benefit from inflation. They'll benefit from cheaper debt payments and possibly higher employment. But they're unlikely to see much of the added money supply in wages, and they're going to take it in the chin on prices.

The theory is that inflation will decrease wages for anyone making above market wages. That's one of the mechanisms by which economists theorize that inflation stimulates the economy. Downward nominal wage rigidity, and all that.

If you are arguing that minimum wage workers are making above market wages (and that argument is supported by the evidence of the high unemployment rate) well, That's certainly a valid point. But those making $10/hr at mcdonalds? (the California minimum is $8.00 and McDonalds will pay you a little more than that after you've been there for a while.) - are those folks making market-clearing wages? I'd argue that they are.

However, the other side of this is that inflation is generally thought to increase the demand for labor in general. I mean, my personal take on it is that we have vastly more unskilled labor than we have demand for. We need more demand. More demand for labor would mean that companies wouldn't be so picky. That's the thing, companies whine about not having skilled labor, but when the economy gets hot? Companies train. I think I've written before how I got a programming/sysadmin gig when I was 17... in 1997, and how that would have been nearly impossible four years later. Meanwhile, I turned those four years into enough experience to remain employed through the crash. I became a dramatically more valuable employee during those four years, and I don't think that this increase in value is because I'm some extra special super-virtuous worker. I think most people in that situation would have become dramatically more valuable.

So yeah; I think we need to create demand. The private sector could do this by coming up with new industries (like the service sector in the '80s.) or the government could do this directly through WPA style projects. Inflation, I think, can be seen as part of an attempt by the government to stimulate the private sector into doing it. But either way, I think demand is key. Demand is the problem.

Long-term unemployment has brutal long-term consequences that are much worse than simply not earning as much for a while, because not only are you not earning while unemployed, you aren't gaining experience. You aren't becoming more valuable for your future jobs. It's bad on an individual level, but it's also bad on a macro level; there is a real reason why experienced folks get paid more. They are more productive.

Re: In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps

#160
post #53

Absolutely no discussion of inflation is complete without recognition of the fact that inflation and inflation expectations are at historically low levels [1] right now. Economists aren't arguing that we should inflate our way out of debt--they are arguing that we should return to the historical norm. Of course, it's possible that these economists are secretly just pushing inflation as the "hidden tax" we're all up i…

Inflation is fine as long as salaries maintain an appropriate growth ratio. I see too many companies take advantage of the relative uncertainty of the last 5-7 years as an opportunity to continue to eek out profits at the expense of compensating the average worker.

More and more I am convinced that a purely capitalistic model for companies does not work.

Post reply on HN