Live data from Hacker News

Beat the Fed

graphics.wsj.com

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Beat the Fed

#31
This "game" is stupid because it doesn't do anything at all to show the trade offs.

As a gross generalization:

Higher Growth -> Higher Employment -> Higher Inflation

High Inflation -> Negative Income Growth (for those on low wages and fixed incomes) -> Risk of Recession and/or Social Disruption

Lower Growth -> High Unemployment -> Risk of Recession and/or Social Disruption

Put those parameters in and the "game" gets interesting. At the moment it's just pointless.

Re: Beat the Fed

#32
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite that, companies like Apple have hundreds of billions in revenues. Which is to say, the falling prices aren't a real problem. After all, the same person could say they could get the same thing for even cheaper in 2 years, 3 years, 5 years or 10 years.

True. And yet, it still means there is some pushing of demand into the future due to the deflating prices. Which means that your argument in the GGP post is false. The fact that, despite the pushing of some demand into the future, Apple makes tons of revenue does not change the fact that demand is still being pushed into the future. That is, your reply, while true, is irrelevant.

Does the cumulative "push" of "demand" into the "future" not have the systemic effect that in the future, there will be "current" demand?

This is one thing I've never understood about this whole "inflation incentivizes people into spending now rather than later". If we're simply pushing the demand into the future, aren't there already people from the past whose "future time to spend" is the current moment?

From my perspective, all that I see inflation doing is artificially forcing people to put more money into the stock market and investing than they should be.

Re: Beat the Fed

#33
post #6

Perhaps I am economically naive, but why does there need to be any inflation? Why isn't 0 a target?

People with money just sitting on cash (instead of investing) is a nightmare scenario - it's the shape of global economic meltdown. Capitalism requires that people with capital invest it. In theory, capital gets something worth more than what they spent, a business is created, it pays employees who pay other businesses who pay employees, etc. and you get a self-sustaining cycle of prosperity. Everybody is better off…

If deflation encourages hoarding, why don't we see that in items that are well understood to be deflationary? An example is technology. Everyone knows that the value of their smartphone will decrease by ~25-50% a year, but we still purchase them.

Economists discount deflation as being dangerous with just one sentence (it encourages hoarding). Are there any examples of deflation actually being harmful in an economy? There are plenty of examples of inflation being dangerous [0]. Technology is an example where deflation does not encourage hoarding.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

Re: Beat the Fed

#34
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. And yet, it still means there is some pushing of demand into the future due to the deflating prices. Which means that your argument in the GGP post is false. The fact that, despite the pushing of some demand into the future, Apple makes tons of revenue does not change the fact that demand is still being pushed into the future. That is, your reply, while true, is irrelevant.

Does the cumulative "push" of "demand" into the "future" not have the systemic effect that in the future, there will be "current" demand? This is one thing I've never understood about this whole "inflation incentivizes people into spending now rather than later". If we're simply pushing the demand into the future, aren't there already people from the past whose "future time to spend" is the current moment? From my pe…

That is a good point that I didn't address. Deferring spending in perpetuity is worthless unless someone gains some personal satisfaction merely from saving.

Re: Beat the Fed

#35
post #6

Perhaps I am economically naive, but why does there need to be any inflation? Why isn't 0 a target?

While there is agreement that inflation is costly and should therefore be minimized, for a number of reasons policymakers nevertheless aim for an inflation rate above zero. First, available measures of inflation are imperfect and tend to overstate “true” inflation. Second, a little inflation may make it easier for firms to reduce real wages—without cutting nominal wages—when necessary to maintain employment in an economic downturn. Third, a negative inflation rate—deflation— could be even more costly than a similar rate of inflation, suggesting that a low rate of inflation might be desirable to insure against falling prices. Finally, at very low levels of inflation, nominal short-term interest rates may be very close to zero, limiting a central bank’s ability to ease policy in response to economic weakness. Because nominal rates cannot fall below zero, policymakers cannot cut short-term interest rates any further once they have lowered these rates to zero. - George Kahn, VP Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

Basically, it's because people want to see their wages go up, and a central bank loses the power to set short term interest rates when inflation is 0%, as we've witnessed in the US over the past 6 years.

Re: Beat the Fed

#36
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with money just sitting on cash (instead of investing) is a nightmare scenario - it's the shape of global economic meltdown. Capitalism requires that people with capital invest it. In theory, capital gets something worth more than what they spent, a business is created, it pays employees who pay other businesses who pay employees, etc. and you get a self-sustaining cycle of prosperity. Everybody is better off…

If deflation encourages hoarding, why don't we see that in items that are well understood to be deflationary? An example is technology. Everyone knows that the value of their smartphone will decrease by ~25-50% a year, but we still purchase them. Economists discount deflation as being dangerous with just one sentence (it encourages hoarding). Are there any examples of deflation actually being harmful in an economy? T…

Money works differently from technology. You can trade old cash for an amount of new cash with the same face value whenever you want.

If I bought a computer for $600 in 1980, it's not going to be traded for $600 today. But if I got a $600 check in 1980, I could cash it today for $600. Inflation is what makes this a reasonable thing to do. If money deflated, I wouldn't cash my check, I'd want to hold it for as long as possible. Deflation basically means you collect interest on any cash you have.

Re: Beat the Fed

#37
post #36
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If deflation encourages hoarding, why don't we see that in items that are well understood to be deflationary? An example is technology. Everyone knows that the value of their smartphone will decrease by ~25-50% a year, but we still purchase them. Economists discount deflation as being dangerous with just one sentence (it encourages hoarding). Are there any examples of deflation actually being harmful in an economy? T…

Money works differently from technology. You can trade old cash for an amount of new cash with the same face value whenever you want. If I bought a computer for $600 in 1980, it's not going to be traded for $600 today. But if I got a $600 check in 1980, I could cash it today for $600. Inflation is what makes this a reasonable thing to do. If money deflated, I wouldn't cash my check, I'd want to hold it for as long as…

Yes you may not cash it in today if it's going to be worth more tomorrow but you also wouldn't have the money to use for something else you value.

I don't see how that's different from choosing not to spend $600 for a computer today knowing that it'll be only cost $500 a year from now. You buy it today because it has a higher value to you now rather than a year from now (we still prefer things sooner as opposed to later, despite deflation). You would also may choose to cash in the $600 knowing well that it will be worth more if you wait because you want to spend it on something now.

Even with deflation, people would still spend money as we prefer to consume now rather than later. If cash had a positive return, I'd imagine riskier assets would have an even greater return so you wouldn't necessarily be all tied in cash. I know cash has a negative return (due to inflation) but I still hold it.

Re: Beat the Fed

#38
post #17
post #6

Perhaps I am economically naive, but why does there need to be any inflation? Why isn't 0 a target?

A popular modern economic theory is that if prices rise slowly over time, people will tend to purchase today instead of saving money to purchase tomorrow, since they believe the price of what they want will be higher tomorrow. If prices drop slowly over time, people will tend to save as long as possible before purchasing, since they believe the price of what they want will be lower tomorrow. Since simple economic pro…

All of which would be perfectly reasonable if humans were completely rational actors. But we all know we're not. We're semi-rational at best. Yes we try to maximize utility, but we're not Commander Data, calculating equations in our heads down the the 999999 points of precision, and coldly make decisions based on purely financial measures.

This is even more true for some things than others... few people are going to say "Hey, deflation is on, let me wait until next week to eat" when they're hungry today.

I'm not saying deflation is good or anything, but an awful lot of economic theory is rooted in some pretty shaky foundations.

Re: Beat the Fed

#39
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with money just sitting on cash (instead of investing) is a nightmare scenario - it's the shape of global economic meltdown. Capitalism requires that people with capital invest it. In theory, capital gets something worth more than what they spent, a business is created, it pays employees who pay other businesses who pay employees, etc. and you get a self-sustaining cycle of prosperity. Everybody is better off…

If deflation encourages hoarding, why don't we see that in items that are well understood to be deflationary? An example is technology. Everyone knows that the value of their smartphone will decrease by ~25-50% a year, but we still purchase them. Economists discount deflation as being dangerous with just one sentence (it encourages hoarding). Are there any examples of deflation actually being harmful in an economy? T…

[deleted]

Re: Beat the Fed

#40
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with money just sitting on cash (instead of investing) is a nightmare scenario - it's the shape of global economic meltdown. Capitalism requires that people with capital invest it. In theory, capital gets something worth more than what they spent, a business is created, it pays employees who pay other businesses who pay employees, etc. and you get a self-sustaining cycle of prosperity. Everybody is better off…

If deflation encourages hoarding, why don't we see that in items that are well understood to be deflationary? An example is technology. Everyone knows that the value of their smartphone will decrease by ~25-50% a year, but we still purchase them. Economists discount deflation as being dangerous with just one sentence (it encourages hoarding). Are there any examples of deflation actually being harmful in an economy? T…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN