Live data from Hacker News

The Demoralization is just Beginning

geohot.github.io

681–690 of 812 posts

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulators caught on since early 2010s, they were just soft because hard messing with wealth. Before 3RL, RE bubble was being addressed since 2010s, TLDR is policies led to domestic construction slump in 2012-2017 - where indicators like floor space completion and construction employment peaked. ~2017 crack down on shadow banking which drove developers + local gov to increase presales, turning it into a financial ins…

Western coverage on this is just terrible. I think a lot of folks who were dismayed by the 2008 bailouts during the GFC would have a lot of sympathy and respect for whats going on. China didn't bail out, they let them burn. The deflationary conditions are the next challenge and I'm very interested to see how they are combatted. It's interesting that Xi has come out strongly against Abenomics, and direct cash transfer…

Trend recentlyis producer price index PPI has been falling (i.e. inputs cheaper). Core CPI rising (i.e. minus food+energy volatility, really deflating pork prices from overproduction recovering from african swine fever). IMO proxy indicator that cheap power is driving efficiency divident. Western reporting last couple years fixated on porkflation than deflation due to pork deflation (big part of CPI basket) because... well western media.

My intuition is also that PRC deflation = PRC producer simply better at cheaper inputs and value engineering products. A 10K USD domestic EV today is significantly better than a 10k USD domestic IC from 5 years ago. PRC manufacturing very good at Model T-ing everything. And it's the "correct" model since PRC is large income disparity society. Common prosperity means driving quality/costs down so the 5000k USD per capita in tier 3_ cities have something reasonable to buy. And also makes migrating/sustaining to those cities viable because T1s/T2s are full. It's why we see stats like aggregate sales during major events (11/11) or travel going up, but per capita spend down. Market is creating products forbottom quantiles who are price sensitive to consume. Common prosperity is giving T3+ cities a taste of T1/T2. Get's obfuscated by western reporting because their source in T1 cities are buying less Prada handbags because they have to shut down one of their 3 hotpot restaurants. Also just general PRC branding improving in popularity and domestic blends tend to be cost-concious, this gets labelled as consumption downgrading (and some of it is), but a lot of it is also PRC value-driven products are increasingly competitive with imports. Enough to drive patriotic purchasing. Bonus this means very cost-competitive goods for exports and displacing (western) incumbants on increasingly higher value sectors.

Then add government driven consumption, i.e. vouchers for cars, appliances, tourism, industrial upgrades. Underdeveloped safety net = people will have propensity to save. So more prudent for gov to pull targetted consumption lever, IIRC accounting for gov social transfers on top of household consumption, PRC consumption around OECD average. They can consume more, but not as prolific as Americans unless CCP gets more sectors to extract service rent. Which I don't think they want to, at least not as much as US - crippling education debt not good if you want to maximize broad talent development. The other generic suggestion is improve investment market / financialization, and there's some efforts to. But to be blunt, too much of PRC poor are undereducated and vunerable to... not sound investment. IMO recipe for social disaster when grandma gambles away nest egg on stocks because mass speculation / herd mentality / scams / superstition . AKA shenanigans. So really just leaves household saving what they need, buying what they can afford, and gov boosting consumption via levers, and indy policy stretching more consumption per rmb by making goods better/cheaper.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#682

Going back to a gold standard will limit the money supply. This means that there will be less capital for building $thing. A gold standard means that when the economy gets overheated it pops, then contracts and you get deflation. This makes crashes last longer and harder. It requires greater fiscal discipline to overcome. The problem with the USA "empire" is that for a trading empire to work you need a plan, and stic…

>a gold standard will limit the money supply. I think there's some truth to this. And if you're willing to accept it for what it is, ask yourself about your own supply of money, what it is and where it comes from. What are the current limitations if not gold any more? And it hasn't been gold in quite some time, not just theoretically for a while. How has that "unlimited" money supply worked out ever since? Is there a…

> How has that "unlimited" money supply worked out ever since?

Judging that it's been 100 years since the last depression, pretty well.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#683
post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This makes crashes last longer and harder. It requires greater fiscal discipline to overcome. Isn't this a good thing? Otherwise, what incentive is there for financial discipline? > The problem with the USA "empire" is that for a trading empire to work you need a plan, and stick to it. Have stuck with it for over 75 years. Not too shabby. Also why is empire in quotes? > China has been quietly debt trapping a whole…

> what incentive is there for financial discipline? Getting reelected because you managed to not tank the currency and economy.

> Getting reelected because you managed to not tank the currency and economy.

That clearly that hasn't worked has it? Also, are you arguing against term limits?

Having to get elected is reason not to enforce financial discipline because people don't vote for those who promise financial discipline. People vote for those who promise more stuff.

What a naive comment.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#684
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration is core to American identity and America's success. It's one of our core defining values The American that was originally convinced was imperfect and much worse then the America we have today. We literally had slavery and most adults couldn't vote.

Find my anywhere in the federalist papers (or the anti-federalist papers) that says anything about immigration. What you’re talking about is a 20th century creation. We never tried to be an “immigrant nation”—we were a big open country with no welfare state, and it was favorable for us to allow extensive immigration to populate the continent and displace the native americans. In the 20th century we accidentally found…

It doesn't matter what the federalist papers say, as no one is going to argue that your deep-nativist view aren't also espoused by Publius.

You're being informed as to actually, as messy as it might be, what the US is and was. This isn't going to be neatly described in any papers or appeal to core enduring features, however much that might suit your ends

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy is still booming and busting, we just paper over it with debt like good Keynesians. The macro world is extremely nuanced. I’m someone who likes experiments. If we could give every American instant access to convert savings to gold (or bitcoin), directly in their savings accounts, it would certainly be an interesting experiment. If you have significant assets, inflation isn’t a big deal. If you are like mo…

The boom and bust cycle has required things like 2008, COVID, major wars, Brexit to create these booms and busts.

2008 and 2000 were caused by our own bubbles and not outside forces.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#686
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a debate if you reject the very principals of science. I realize we're getting there for a lot of people, but merely disbelieving in science is not a refutal of it. This ignores so called Austrian economists however, who are just flat out lying to either themselves or everyone else depending on the person.

Is there a fundamental repudiation to Austrian economics? All I know about them is that they don't like funny money, which to me as a systems thinker is perfectly reasonable. At worst you would expect it to be harmful, at best to obscure what is really going on.

Not a valid one at least.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#688
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a debate if you reject the very principals of science. I realize we're getting there for a lot of people, but merely disbelieving in science is not a refutal of it. This ignores so called Austrian economists however, who are just flat out lying to either themselves or everyone else depending on the person.

Is there a fundamental repudiation to Austrian economics? All I know about them is that they don't like funny money, which to me as a systems thinker is perfectly reasonable. At worst you would expect it to be harmful, at best to obscure what is really going on.

Austrian economics is openly an ideological movement and not a system of empirical predictive theory, and thus is inherently unfalsifiable in the broad sense.

Individual Austrian-school economists sometimes make falsifiable predictions, and they are often (either knowably at the time or determined later) false, but that's a different issue, because, again, those predictions are not grounded (in the predictive sense; while they are in an emotive sense) in the fundamentals of the school in a way which would make falsifying them a “repudiation” for anyone at risk of adhering to the school in the first place.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>democracy was protected by codes of conduct, honor, and most importantly, strong content moderation in the form of monopolistic legacy media. 50 years ago? Perhaps some of what you describe applied, in very limited form and only if you view a small segment of the media/political landscape with extremely rose-tinted glasses, but go read more of U.S media history to see how completely off base you really are. Media in…

50 years ago someone like Trump wouldn't have a way to obtain a platform from which he can amass a big enough public following. Anyone that wanted to play had to play nice with the establishment. 50 years ago, editorials mattered. Any messaging of a politician or candidate would be followed with context, analysis or discussion by journalists.

The establishment gave us the bay of pigs and then when that fiasco got them snubbed it killed the executive (or at least had something to do with it, I don't believe they literally did it). More recent examples include our adventures in the sandbox in the 20yr following 9/11. Or if you want to go further back you can look at the Catholic church in the 1500s.

I get that the establishment also sometimes does good things like create the EPA but it seems like those good things only ever happen after there's a huge amount of public screeching and that the default behavior is for the establishment to wage war and enrich itself.

The establishment should not be in bed with the media IMO. While the current fragmented media landscape is causing turbulence in the short term it is a good thing in the long term IMO.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can truly come up with an objective measure of wealth, I believe there might be a (quasi) Nobel Prize in economics for you. The reason economics is hard, in part, is that there isn't some core firmament you can rest on; there is no fundamental, provable truth. And yet, with fancy statistics and clever experimental design, you can still make intelligent statements and understand the world better. To me, economi…

> If you can truly come up with an objective measure of wealth, I believe there might be a (quasi) Nobel Prize in economics for you. Is it actually that hard? The material worth of something is what someone will pay you for it, i.e. the value it would sell for at auction. Your material wealth is the sum of the worth of what you have. That means if you own something and the market price of it changes, i.e. someone cha…

> The material worth of something is what someone will pay you for it, i.e. the value it would sell for at auction.

The problem is that this i.e. isn't right, because the vast majority of market transactions are not auctions. The value a pallet of rice would auction for is very different than the value a rice farmer would accept to load it onto a truck, which is very different than the value a supermarket would pay to get one a month deposited in its loading dock, which is very different than the sum of values individual consumers would pay for the bags on that pallet.

Post reply on HN