It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#361

Post by mhalle » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

danjayh wrote: post #159

mhalle wrote: post #71

It would be great if we could somehow turn the growth in discretionary income made possible by these economic policies into greater giving to public serving institutions (libraries, parks, etc) and other charitable contributions. COVID's impacts have not been proportional across the socio-economic spectrum, nor has the benefit of the economic stimulus.

Very true. A family of 5 with 3 toddlers making $50k/yr got $19,300 in stimulus and expanded child tax credit, whereas that same family would have gotten considerably less if they had a $200k/yr income. It would seem that the benefit of the economic stimulus was rather intentionally concentrated at the bottom and middle of the income curve, obviating the need for private charitable contributions. Let's also not forge…

A family of 5 making $50k per year is one lost job away from poverty in much of the US, which was much more likely during the pandemic without assistance. They remain economically vulnerable, probably chronically. A family of the same side making $200k per year is not on the border of poverty anywhere in the US.

Meanwhile, the public facilities used by both families such as parks were underfunded with the loss of tax revenue during the pandemic (and often before). Charitable giving is an opportunity to improve them without raising taxes. Without those inclusive civic institutions, those with means can go to private or for profit recreation and cultural options. Those who don't have nothing.

It is disheartening to hear that emergency public assistance would be used as a rationale to "obviate the need charitable contributions".

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#362

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #266

throwaway210222 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why in the hell would you believe climate experts? a) because we don't have a spare planet, and b) we kind of like our children. Like Russian roulette, its the risk of being wrong that changes the decision making paradigm from the one you use for 'should I buy bitcoin'.

Your mistake is weighing superstition vs tangible harm. Eliminating fossil fuels will condemn large swathes of the living population to true poverty and kill many more. How do you think things like hospitals in the developing world run? And the infrastructure that lets them be created to begin with? The idea that we should eliminate fossil fuels is truly a privileged take.

Climate change is indeed a justice problem and we should optimize for justice rather than just raw temperature management. There are "solutions" that cause more injustice by denying efficient energy to the global poor.

But the wealthy people who make this argument tend to argue for total inaction rather than a justice-focused approach where they sacrifice greatly in order to permit the global poor to have access to efficient energy for as long as possible.

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#363

Post by MrMan » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #274

fallingknife wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMT does sound like those radio commercials they had back in the 90s saying they would teach you how to "borrow your way out of debt" though.

Only because you haven't taken the time to understand what is being said - just the twisted version that isn't actually the case. Every financial debt has a corresponding financial asset. Why follow the 'debt' and not the 'asset'? Because you have a psychological anchor on the word 'debt' that causes an emotional reaction? All money is somebody's debt. That's how the accounting works. Rather than looking at the books…

I dont agree with the previous poster but I think you should recognize that the bank and the government in your example are not playing symmetric games. The incentives for each are different, even though at a point in time accounting principles can describe their respective balance sheets.

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#364

Post by slv77 » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #194

EEMac wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1920s have something to say about markets that climb without reference to underlying production.

If anything the great depression supported this thesis of stocks always going up, and you can safely forget sweating the actual underlying economics. If you held through the crash or bought at the bottom you'd obviously be doing fine. Look at this chart (1). Seem familiar? Looks a lot like the great recession or March 2020 to me: a big plunge that took headlines followed by an unstoppable bull trend, in this case one…

Japans stock market would like to have a word with you. (https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Datawatch/30-years-since-J...)

Yes, the US stock market has had a wonderful hundred year run during a time the market went from a backwater developing market to a global hedgemon and through a one-time demographic dividend where it halved its non-working population (children) and doubled its workforce (women) and had an extremely open immigration policy for working age adults.

Of course past performance is no indication of future concerns.

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#365

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

nuerow wrote: post #224

rsj_hn wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the one ranting here. Biden has 1) put a moratorium on oil and gas leases in Federal lands and waters 2) cancelled one pipeline already and is about to cancel another (which means prices go up as trucks need to ship in the fuel) The above makes oil and gas more costly to extract and to ship, which raises the price. Moreover he is lobbying to remove all investment tax deductions for Oil and Gas (even though ot…

> The above makes oil and gas more costly to extract and to ship, which raises the price. I'm not sure if you're just expressing your personal concerns over what you believe can hypothetically happen, or whether you're grossly misinformed. Meanwhile, even though gas prices are breaking records all over the world, in the US they are still below the prices from 2010, back in the days no one in the US was concerned abou…

[deleted]

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#366

Post by wiz21c » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

e-master wrote: post #314

watwut wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can confirm that lockdowns made our family save a lot more money then usual - despite us buying quite a lot of new stuff do to lifestyle changes.

My experience supports that - on public transit alone our family saved more than 5k USD last year, it would’ve more than made up for any equipment I would’ve had to buy (turned out though that I already had everything needed to work from home).

because of remote work, I have to heat the house 7 days per week, instead of about 0.25*5+2=3.25 => that's about twice as much. Given the rise in energy cost, this will have a huge impact.

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#367

Post by baking » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #273

bezalmighty wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the macro economic sense, fiat money isn't 'used up' or 'locked away' when you buy something like crypto, it's transferred from your account to someone else's bank account. Worse, it goes through the process of fractional reserve banking and multiplies about ~10x after changing hands repeatedly.

There's no such thing as fractional reserve banking. It's an urban myth that has been debunked by QE for over a decade. Lord only knows why people still believe it. Banks create money on demand by discounting collateral. Government creates money on demand by discounting the power to tax. Fiat money disappears by the drain to taxation, to repaying loans and to 'rainy day funds'.

Queen Elizabeth?

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#368

Post by washadjeffmad » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

throaway46546 wrote: post #340

dagw wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48-72 hours after the initial panic my local large food store had literally more toilet paper on the shelves than I have ever seen in there before. However it was all super low quality and from brands I've never seen before or since.

John Wayne toilet paper... it’s rough, tough and doesn't take shit off anybody.

Nothing captured my imagination and horror more than an advertisement I once saw for "splinter-free" toilet paper.

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#369

Post by QuarterReptile » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

arthur5005 wrote: post #68

What this doesn’t really address is the why? Yeah there’s more money floating around, so perhaps more people want to spend it, but why? Most people aren’t getting materially more stuff or even need that much more stuff, consumption’s already god damn conspicuous. Maybe everyone can afford a jet ski all of a sudden? No, the stims didn’t really do /that/ kind of wealth expansion. To me, this still looks like the bullwh…

I didn't see this yet, so I'll throw in my own experience: with prices inflating in a widespread way, I want to lock in my losses now. Yes, you could point out that investments will probably continue to outpace inflation, but I have never in my life triggered a taxable cap gains event, so for all intents and purposes investment is a one way street to me (money never comes out.) So while my two central air systems continue to work, I'd rather pay 10K to replace them now than 15k in a year when they finally do break. And while I feel it's silly to be driving around a minivan for just the one kid and one dog, it was better to have bought at the end of 2020 and feel silly until kid #2 comes along, rather than be sitting on the wrong end of the enormous swing in car prices.

Re: It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

#370

Post by JamisonM » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #183

JamisonM wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I rather listen to the hedge fund guys, at least they have skin in the game, don't they?" Not really, right? They make a lot of money even after they get it wrong? "Right now, it feels like the supply issue cannot be remedied or solved because of heavy regulations and a stagnant productivity." This supply issue has existed for, what, a few months? We can literally see the containers piled up on the coasts, is there…

>Not really, right? They make a lot of money even after they get it wrong? If they get it wrong clients may move their money elsewhere

Heavily lopsided upside risk means they are never in danger of personal financial calamity. Nicholas M. Maounis looks like he is doing just fine even though he seems to have lost enough money for a hundred lifetimes.

All the incentives are aligned to go big on a theory and talk it up, and then if you are wrong just dust yourself off and try again- all the while cashing your paycheques.