Live data from Hacker News

What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

imgracehuang.medium.com

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is about causing capital investment to be less lucrative than tying the money up in treasuries Money isn't tied up in treasuries, money (loosely bank deposits and cash) and treasuries are two distinct concepts. You can trade money in exchange for treasuries, but then the previous holder of the treasuries has the money, and you have the treasuries, it doesn't tie the money up. The amount of value captured in trea…

In addition, here's one big difference: the Biden Administration printed 1.7T worth of handouts, which was mostly spraying helicopter money directly to the people. During the financial crisis of 2008-2009, TARP was not mostly helicopter money given directly to the people. It was given to institutions, so it was much more indirect. With the Biden Administration's money spraying, a good amount of that taxpayer money we…

I'll try to give you the most charitable read, but even if I do, the simple fact that inflation is happening world wide seems like there's no way the cause can simply be what you said.

It also ignores the flip side. COVID relief packages have also helped in many ways, it's unclear what outcome is worse, current inflation or what else would have happened without that assistance.

Finally, I tried to do some fact checking, and what I found is that Trump actually provided even more handouts, 2.2 trillion in COVID handouts through the Cares ACT under Trump, while Biden only provided 1.9 trillion as part of the American Rescue Plan.

And if you look at the direct payments of those plan, Trump totalled 459 billion in direct handouts, and Biden totaled 402 billion.

So Trump actually gave more Covid handouts than Biden did.

Now the argument that COVID handouts might play a role in the inflation is okay, maybe it does a little, but your singling out of Biden seems biased partisanry, and it makes it even harder for me to take you in good faith.

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a stock problem; it's a flow problem. It's arguably both a stock problem and a flow problem (MV = PQ). If the stock is constant and the flow increases, you get inflation. If the flow is constant and the stock increases, you get inflation. > Inflation is always, everywhere, a lack of effective competition. In situations of excess supply you have very little to no inflation. Excess supply at a given price le…

>> If the flow is constant and the stock increases, you get inflation That seems like it’s missing a variable to describe when increased supply is spent vs when it is saved. If stock increases but is not channeled through flow, i.e. i take a loan at 2% to save in my bank’s savings offer of 5.25% then flow stays the same (i still spend on the same things each month) but money supply went up and inflation remained unin…

I think you can decompose stock into 'money that is in circulation', and 'money that is not'. In some sense, the only relevant partition is the quantity of money that is actually in circulation. If I take $100bn of cash and bury it and hide the map, I haven't actually decreased the quantity of money (the total amount that exists), but I have effectively decreased the quantity of money (the amount that is in circulation).

> i take a loan at 2% to save in my bank’s savings offer of 5.25% then flow stays the same (i still spend on the same things each month) but money supply went up

Arguably the quantity of money the bank has created for you depends on the bank's net lending to you, so if you borrow money but hold it at the same institution, you haven't really increased the money supply at all.

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#53
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, here's one big difference: the Biden Administration printed 1.7T worth of handouts, which was mostly spraying helicopter money directly to the people. During the financial crisis of 2008-2009, TARP was not mostly helicopter money given directly to the people. It was given to institutions, so it was much more indirect. With the Biden Administration's money spraying, a good amount of that taxpayer money we…

I'll try to give you the most charitable read, but even if I do, the simple fact that inflation is happening world wide seems like there's no way the cause can simply be what you said. It also ignores the flip side. COVID relief packages have also helped in many ways, it's unclear what outcome is worse, current inflation or what else would have happened without that assistance. Finally, I tried to do some fact checki…

While you're right that this was bipartisan, worldwide inflation could well have been least partly the result of the US government handing out too much money. Here's how: the US actually had the highest inflation in the G7 until earlier this year. In order to get that under control, the Fed has been hiking interest rates more aggressively than the rest of the developed world. This has caused other currencies to lose value against the dollar, increasing the cost of imported goods priced in dollars like oil and gas and driving up inflation elsewhere: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/07/investing/strong-dollar/i...

The US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency has strange and counterintuitive effects like this which make their screw-ups everyone else's problem.

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your individual consumption preferences. Just because the CPI is 7%/year does not mean you are losing 7%. If you have $1 million in cash and your expenses are $40k/year and CPI goes up 10%, then all you need is to invest the $960,000 in fixed income to negate the increase of $4k due to inflation, which is easily doable. If you are taking that $1 million and buying only energy or only food with it, then…

Another perspective, we have 83.45 %/year CPI inflation in Turkey. This is the official number an independent research group of academics claim it is nearing 200%. The official interest rate is 10.5%/year. You get maximum 20-25%/year interest on savings accounts. Real estate market and rents go up 220%/year (by the official numbers). Before doing FIRE purchase your own home or sign a really long term lease with upfro…

I've watched the numbers in Turkey over the past year, and it's mind-boggling. What I don't understand is: how do people get by?

Lots of Germans have little savings, don't own their home, and have relatively small margins with their income. The ~10% (or maybe 15, if you exclude some of the wonky things that keep them down) are being felt. I cannot imagine how lots of people would get by with 80% or 100% inflation in a year.

How do Turks do it? Are young people moving back in with their parents or getting more room mates? Are they taking on debt, or selling valuables to pay for rent and food? From afar, it looks surprisingly stable. Germans are said (and correctly so, imo) to submit to authority, but I'd expect a lot more action here with the level of inflation Turkey is seeing. Am I just not hearing about the instability it causes, or are Turks just weathering it but aren't rising up yet?

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#55
The big inflation spikes are always extremely multi-variate and difficult to turn into simple stories. Whereas ordinary inflation tends to be a somewhat simple story of demand running excess of supply, both of the big inflation spikes had large elements of supply side limitations. Indeed, possibly great inflation becomes "great" because it is the supply side problems riding on top of the normal demand pressures, and the two sometimes multiply each other in complex ways.

The Great Inflation of 1965 to 1982 came in the second half of the era when the great European empires were coming to an end (1947-1986). The most obvious event of the Great Inflation is the OPEC crisis, which obviously would not have been possible if the MidEast had still been owned by Britain. The independence of the Third World was a necessary pre-condition for the Great Inflation. One possible angle to explore is the extent to which independence allowed the nations of the Third World to demand better prices for their goods -- obviously in the case of oil, but possibly in the case of many other commodities -- and then possibly the way to break the power of the Third World nations wanting better prices for their commodities was for the developed nations to inflict a brutal period of austerity on themselves, cheating themselves so as to cheat the commodity-supplying nations.

This was an era in which the number of nations increased, dramatically, as the world transformed from a few big empires to 212 independent nations. Therefore, there was also a dramatic increase in the number of currencies that existed in the world. And so, there is another avenue of research that needs more exploration: whether the increase in the number of currencies that existed in the world lead to a kind of chaotic interference in the markets for currencies -- a world with just 11 currencies is a world where one can almost model the interactions in one's head, whereas a world with 212 currencies is far too complex for anyone to model it in their head. Did the sudden increase in the total number of independent currencies make it difficult, even temporarily, for the markets to send a rational signal about the value of those currencies?

Given such a complex situation, it is almost impossible to develop a properly multi-variate model, unless one is willing to devote one's life to the study of the subject, but as a method of getting traction on such complex subjects, it can be instructive, and even fun, to go through a single-variable account of the history, to see what impact a single variable might have had, for instance, in this case, the currency valuations of the various nations:

https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-did-the-west-deindustri...

Such single-variable explanations always need to be taken with a grain of salt, but they do provide a way into a subject, without demanding 10 years of study.

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#56
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People will then have even less money after paying the grocery and gas-bills. Precisely. The less money people have the lower prices have to go for sales to be possible so increased unemployment is a downward force on prices but isn’t all that successful right now when there’s also a massive skilled labor shortage in the vicinity of record expansions of the money supply.

Instead of forcing some people into unemployment wouldn't raising taxes a little bit on everyone have the same effect?

Yes, but the people who raise taxes are not the people who understand economics.

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#57

If inflation is caused by people having too much money then it is a self-correcting problem because as prices go up people will no longer have as much money. Soon enough they will not have too much money at all. So what is the real problem with inflation? Is it the economic inequality it brings to those who have to live on fixed income? I've been following the discussion on US TV and it seems they are saying we need…

Inflation isn’t caused by too much money. It is caused by too much money velocity. That’s why the last huge injection of money in 2008 didn’t cause inflation. Folks sat on their money and didn’t spend it. Raising interest rates isn’t about causing unemployment (directly at least). It is about causing capital investment to be less lucrative than tying the money up in treasuries, reducing money velocity.

Inflation is mostly caused by two things. The first and most obvious are external commodity supply price shocks which crash demand because essential inputs and their dependent outputs become unaffordable. (The demand is still there of course, but it becomes too expensive to satisfy it.)

The second is misdirected money supply which steers money towards sweatable assets like property and stock ownership, and away from productive investment, original invention and research, and small business creation.

Effectively this causes an internal supply shock which raises the prices of the sweatable assets for the ownership class and impoverishes everyone else, to the point where essentials like housing become unaffordable and demand starts to seize up. Small businesses are forced to close rather than being encouraged to open.

Inflation has very little to do with money velocity, interest rates, unemployment, wage rises, or any of that other supply side nonsense.

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#58
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, here's one big difference: the Biden Administration printed 1.7T worth of handouts, which was mostly spraying helicopter money directly to the people. During the financial crisis of 2008-2009, TARP was not mostly helicopter money given directly to the people. It was given to institutions, so it was much more indirect. With the Biden Administration's money spraying, a good amount of that taxpayer money we…

I'll try to give you the most charitable read, but even if I do, the simple fact that inflation is happening world wide seems like there's no way the cause can simply be what you said. It also ignores the flip side. COVID relief packages have also helped in many ways, it's unclear what outcome is worse, current inflation or what else would have happened without that assistance. Finally, I tried to do some fact checki…

[deleted]

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#59
post #53
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to give you the most charitable read, but even if I do, the simple fact that inflation is happening world wide seems like there's no way the cause can simply be what you said. It also ignores the flip side. COVID relief packages have also helped in many ways, it's unclear what outcome is worse, current inflation or what else would have happened without that assistance. Finally, I tried to do some fact checki…

While you're right that this was bipartisan, worldwide inflation could well have been least partly the result of the US government handing out too much money. Here's how: the US actually had the highest inflation in the G7 until earlier this year. In order to get that under control, the Fed has been hiking interest rates more aggressively than the rest of the developed world. This has caused other currencies to lose…

> This has caused other currencies to lose value against the dollar, increasing the cost of imported goods priced in dollars like oil and gas and driving up inflation elsewhere

If I have Pounds (GBP) and I need to buy Oil and settle in Dollars (USD), I exchange my Pounds for Dollars, and then I exchange my Dollars for Oil. The price of the Oil in Dollars doesn't matter to me, only the overall price of the Oil in Pounds. It has no effect on how many Pounds I spend if the GBP:USD is weaker now than it was 1, 2 or 5 years ago, it only matters what the net GBP:Oil exchange rate is.

The only time strengthening/weakening of the Dollar can have an effect is if the price moves between the two exchanges, but given how short settlement windows are, this is somewhat irrelevant.

In a system of free-floating exchange rates and absent of supply side shocks, inflation is entirely a domestic phenomenon. The reason why the entire G7 have the same problem is because they all experienced the same pandemic, and their respective Central Banks all took the same action (to increase the money supply).

Foot notes:

[1] We have since layered a supply-side shock on top of this, which has pushed up energy prices in many currencies, but this is not because of the strengthening of the Dollar, it is because many nations wish to minimise the amount of Oil & Gas they buy from one of the largest exporters of said Oil & Gas, effectively reducing supply.

[2] A strong Dollar can cause problems when foreign nations borrow in Dollars (i.e. they borrow Dollars rather than their domestic currency). As the Dollar strengthens, this means they have to sacrifice much more of their local currency to repay the debt, which can cause significant problems. (Editors note: try not to borrow in someone else's currency if you can avoid it.)

Re: What the Great Inflation (1965-1982) taught us

#60

If inflation is caused by people having too much money then it is a self-correcting problem because as prices go up people will no longer have as much money. Soon enough they will not have too much money at all. So what is the real problem with inflation? Is it the economic inequality it brings to those who have to live on fixed income? I've been following the discussion on US TV and it seems they are saying we need…

Inflation isn’t caused by too much money. It is caused by too much money velocity. That’s why the last huge injection of money in 2008 didn’t cause inflation. Folks sat on their money and didn’t spend it. Raising interest rates isn’t about causing unemployment (directly at least). It is about causing capital investment to be less lucrative than tying the money up in treasuries, reducing money velocity.

So inflation is caused by having too much crap available to buy?
Post reply on HN