Why is inflation so sticky? It could be corporate profits • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is inflation so sticky? It could be corporate profits

#321

Post by robocat » Sun, May 07, 2023, 11:07 PM UTC

bugglebeetle wrote: post #252

robocat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when you kill a 1,000,000 plus people > resulting labor shortage Alternatively when you kill a bunch of mostly retired and sick people, perhaps you increase unemployment (nurses and rest home workers freed up) and decrease spending (dead people don’t buy services or goods). Besides, the total number affected is a very low percent of the population, which is less significant than other economic changes over the prev…

Okay, but its what the guy jacking up the rates said about the labor shortage himself, so… https://www.axios.com/2022/12/01/jay-powell-explains-america...

Interesting. Thank you heaps for adding that, it better explains what you were saying.

Re: Why is inflation so sticky? It could be corporate profits

#322

Post by digitaltrees » Thu, May 11, 2023, 1:39 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #135

digitaltrees wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you tax low use more heavily than higher density uses and encourage building more housing supply.

> Not if you tax low use more heavily than higher density uses and encourage building more housing supply. If you tax land with higher taxes for lower density, then, yes, you’ll radically increase food costs.

Why would you want farms in urban settings? We have plenty of farm land as is, in fact if many cities were more densely structured rather than suburban there would be even more farm land.

Re: Why is inflation so sticky? It could be corporate profits

#323

Post by digitaltrees » Thu, May 11, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #255

pydry wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax wouldnt tax density it would just tax the value of the land. This would encourage property density in high value locations like inner cities but wouldn't enforce it. In terms of farmland it would just mean that farmers rent the land from the government rather than, say, blackrock or bill gates (two of the biggest owners of farmland right now). This would not affect food prices by much it would just m…

> A land value tax wouldnt tax density it would just tax the value of the land. I wasn’t responding to an LVT suggestion, but a suggestion of taxes that would be based on density of use and go up for lower density. I quoted the suggestion in my response. LVT is a whole different thing.

The value in LTV would be influenced by density. If every parcel around a plot of land is dense the total value would be higher. So tax the land at the average density of surrounding parcels and allow for unlimited density. That would incentivize density and development where it is needed and prevent a single hold out from inefficiently blocking development.

Re: Why is inflation so sticky? It could be corporate profits

#324

Post by dclowd9901 » Thu, May 11, 2023, 4:43 AM UTC

silisili wrote: post #3

It's a likely theory. But economics teaches us when a player overcharges, others will step in to undercut and take all the market share. So, we're at a point where we need to admit that mantra isn't true in the modern age, or admit that we've done a terrible job at preventing effective monopolies/duopolies from forming.

Bare economics theory doesn’t account for the myriad irrational inputs that the actual world sees. For that, you go to behavioral economics, which tells us that choice isn’t just price, it’s also:

- convenience - availability - familiarity - self-image - etc etc

People buy a thing for a million different reasons that have nothing to do with price.