Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bridgewater.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 478 posts

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

#461

Post by MisterMower »

adrianN wrote: post #349
speeder wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you eat grass? I know I can't... Yes, producing meat requires animals eating a ton of plants and they also need a lot of water. Except that can be mostly grass (that humans don't eat), and the water is just rainwater (that the animals in question will piss later, so it will end on the ground anyway). The reason why animal-based farming exists is because it is the only way we have to get any food in certain parts…

There is a certain level of meat production that uses only waste as fodder, land that has no other agricultural value, and doesn't require destroying areas of high biodiversity to make room for our animals. The current global levels of meat productions are extremely far away from this. We cut down vast swathes of forests to get cheap farmland, both for grazing as well as for producing grain and soy as fodder.

The Great Plains in the US are huge. Lots of cattle grazing out there in an environmentally sensitive way. Most of the feed is hay cut from fallow farmland. Maybe what you’re describing happens in South America, but it’s not at all what happens in the US.

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

#462

Post by adrianN »

MisterMower wrote: post #459
adrianN wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The working class in America is part of the richest people in the world.

How many of them have a private jet? Your working class American might make 5 times as much as a person living in the third world, but the clowns at this climate conference are easily 1,000 times as rich. Your comparison is meaningless.

The actions of a few thousand extremely rich people have little influence on global emissions. The actions of 300 million Americans do.

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

#463

Post by leereeves »

adrianN wrote: post #462
MisterMower wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of them have a private jet? Your working class American might make 5 times as much as a person living in the third world, but the clowns at this climate conference are easily 1,000 times as rich. Your comparison is meaningless.

The actions of a few thousand extremely rich people have little influence on global emissions. The actions of 300 million Americans do.

Anyone could use that excuse: "I'm just one person, it doesn't matter what I do."

It's even less credible when the one person is putting 10x as much carbon in the atmosphere as the average person.

And until the rich start making personal sacrifices, they lack any moral authority to demand sacrifices from others.

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

#464

Post by shapefrog »

ODILON_SATER wrote: post #405
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claudia Sahm? Krugman? I rather listen to the hedge fund guys, at least they have skin in the game, don't they? Claudia Sahm is extremely partisan, and so is Krugman. "Hedge funds guy" are extremely partisan, in that they will fight hard to prevent any kind of legislative or other systemic change that would threaten their rent-seeking. They invariably favor the status quo and/or anything that increases their abilit…

You are correct. To be honest, I am not a huge fan of hedge funds either. But in this specific case, I'd rather take their advice. In my opinion, for this specific case --discussing inflation trends--, I don't see a lot of room for hedge funds to be partisan? No new legislation, no wrinkles in the system, etc. And they may be wrong, and Krugman may be right after all. Economics, especially Macroeconomics forecasting…

> I don't see a lot of room for hedge funds to be partisan

They have billions of dollars of bets on where interest rates go. Inflation trends and how they are interpereted are what drives interest rates.

If the fed took on board this particular interpretation at the next meeting Bridgewater would make low double digit billions on those trades.

Doesnt make them right or wrong, but anytime you see a talking head on cnbc or putting out a research note - they are talking up their positions.

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

#465

Post by nostrebored »

adrianN wrote: post #456
nostrebored wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands of researchers making predictions with ever shifting probabilities is what you call unfalsifiable. The predictions we’re talking about play out over decades. The sources cite other predictions. It’s a feedback loop of assumptions and peer review from people who you know already share the same assumptions. Climate science is much more akin to sociology than a hard science.

Except climate science has tons and tons of hard data that the models need to agree with to be publishable, whereas sociology has questionnaires administered to a group of 20 sociology students.

Making a model that agrees with historical data is literally the base case for modeling. Like it is a feature of all forecasting solutions

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

#467

Post by mensetmanusman »

evergrande wrote: post #29
arthurcolle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank god we have crypto & NFTs to help people use all this free cash

Actually, that's a good point. Inflation would be even worse if that cash was going into physical goods and services. The government now has an incentive to leave crypto alone aside from providing clarity.

That is an interesting justification for leaving crypto alone.

“Well if those poor people weren’t gambling on that ponzi scheme for a new dog coin they would actually be materially improving their living conditions and prices for everyone else would go up”

It’s interesting to see the wealth transfer of all these people that usually buy weekly lotto tickets get crypto instead and send their 10s of millions to programmers making an ICO and a fancy website.

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

#468

Post by mensetmanusman »

garmaine wrote: post #141
nine_zeros wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not even a joke. Crypto has absolutely helped absorb the inflation.

For every person buying crypto there is someone selling.

No, there are new ICOs with trillions of coins minted every month. It’s the FED injecting cash into newly minted monthly ‘stable coin’ wallets. Can’t wait to see the documentaries on the overnight millionaires who set up fancy ICO websites during the pandemic :D

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

#469

Post by mensetmanusman »

asdff wrote: post #449
300bps wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picture two scenarios: Scenario 1: Fed buys $20 billion of corporate bonds per month from Microsoft. Scenario 2: Fed does not buy $20 billion of corporate bonds per month from Microsoft. Consider all other things being equal, in the first scenario Microsoft's borrowing costs are drastically reduced. This means that Microsoft has more money. This means that Microsoft is able to hire more people, that the people that w…

But do we see this trend, that companies are using these corporate bonds to hire more staff or raise wages vs just buying more of their own stock?

Mostly stock buy-backs to reward the capital holders (the top 0.1%) at inflated stock prices before they crash 20%.

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

#470

Post by tsol »

bubbadoo81 wrote: post #455
Maarten88 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no-one actually believes that is going to happen That is the problem exactly. We do not listen to scientists, because it's more convenient to ignore it. And when their models become reality, we'll just blame them for it, as they "knew" and did not prevent it.

All I'm going to say is always look at where these 'scientists' are getting their funding from. I'm not a climate denier, but realize much of the NGD is really a redistribution of funds. Driving EV machines will still require electricity, most of which is still generated by fossil fuels. Then there's the quagmire of what to do with spent batteries. The Earth has heated and cooled over millions of years, so I really d…

>Driving EV machines will still require electricity, most of which is still generated by fossil fuels.

Most, compared to all. And power plants are much more efficient at capturing energy than internal combustible engines. I see no real issues with the technology, just small kinks to be worked out, which is expected

Post reply on HN