The people who continue to jumble up inflation by its consumer defenition with the huge expanding of the amount of us dollars are only shooting their own wealth and anyone who listens to them's wealth in the foot.
All you have to look at is stocks and home real estate to see that assets are ballooning no matter how cheap a dozen of eggs stays.
Right, I've posted this before, but long term wealth building is becoming too expensive for the average person.
The only reason food hasn't become too expensive is wealthy people don't have a reason to go out and buy up all the food. They do, on the other hand, have reason to go out and invest.
This is, however, starting to fall apart for goods that don't normally have reason to be bought up. In other words, folks with capital now realize they can hoard those resources as well in order to price gouge. This is most evident in consumer electronics as of late.
Usually, these aren't super wealthy individuals, but instead folks who have been priced out of traditional wealth building like stocks / housing. They may not be able to afford a down payment on a house, but they can sure as heck spend a few thousand buying up consumer goods hoping to gouge others.
> The only reason food hasn't become too expensive is wealthy people don't have a reason to go out and buy up all the food
sometimes i get the idle premonition that if they started trying to do this tomorrow they could do a shockingly good job, to the point that you could almost claim that the only thing holding together social order at this point is that they are not. not saying i believe this-- i don't even really lean this way ideologically-- but it is kind of a sobering thought because it seems plausible (well, to me at least). maybe this has been true at other points in history as well and things have gone fine...
and i don't mean in the "hire people with guns" sense, but literally just people following the letter of the law
On the one hand, it's a bit of a cyclical argument - The only thing holding together social order is social order. On the other, the same is true of anything which is relied upon on for life and dependent on ongoing financial exchange - Food, water, housing (if you rent). If a lot of excess capital suddenly flooded into those markets and gobbled up stock/pushed up demand, joe average could be priced out.
All kinds of chaos manifests when that happens. Look at nations that experienced hyperinflation for examples of how it might go.
What's not so clear is what might prompt it to happen.
yeah that's the kind of reasoning that makes me feel better about it-- it's not really clear what kind of shock i would really be expecting to happen in the course of ordinary civilization that would cause this sort of run on life support / life-essential stuff that would also not itself be a bigger cause for concern than the system imploding (e.g. a proletariat uprising or world war would do the trick, but would be a bigger deal than the resultant economic shock alone)
I lived through collapse and dissolution of one state, civil war, disintegration, and (belated) birth of a new state, with its own currency. The monetary aspect (hyperinflation in the old, change of currency in the new) is only a small part of that. You are correct - in that scenario, there are other things to tend to, more urgent.
I also witnessed that gold did not replace the collapsing currency. Other, non-collapsing currencies took on that role.
USD is safe and sound for as long US is safe and sound. The fiat currency is creation of the state. In collapse, I'd say causality goes 99% state->fiat. Only a small (2nd or 3rd order) effect in the opposite direction.
For the parent - "Hyperinflation – It’s More Than Just a Monetary Phenomenon" by pragcap.com
reads right for me. Even general inflation (= increase in P/y) does not necessarily follow from the exchange equation (M V = P y) and money growth (M). There are other possibilities too, examples discussed in https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-gr....
To end on a more upbeat note: I also witnessed the hyperinflation tamed, the economy booming, without seemingly much effort and in short period of time. Looking back, I think the most important part is the right diagnosis: where is it coming from. Otherwise the cures end up worsening the disease.
We got very near this with the ethanol fashion at the end of the last decade. People with money got an extra reason to buy food and it did completely disrupt the social order all over the world.
If they can hoard goods and sell them all at higher prices, then does that imply that the goods are priced too low to begin with? What's keeping the sellers from recognizing this and raising the prices themselves?
It's zero sum. The people who desperately needed hand sanitizer or toilet paper today had less money left to spend elsewhere, but overall averaged demand wasn't all that different. Traditional suppliers probably know that jacking the price of one item can lead to losses elsewhere.
Hoarders/scalpers are not aiding price discovery, they are manipulating the price by artificially changing supply or demand. They don't have to do so sustainably either.
And all of that is leaving aside that the goal of a society is to maintain the society over time and in aggregate, not to maximize value extracted from every individual transaction.
> Hoarders/scalpers are not aiding price discovery, they are manipulating the price by artificially changing supply or demand. They don't have to do so sustainably either.
one could reasonably argue otherwise. let's take the example of toilet paper in the early weeks of quarantine. with or without the action of scalpers, such a massive shift in demand was going to cause toilet paper to go out of stock regardless. without scalpers, you are shit out of luck when this happens (perhaps literally). with scalpers, you at least have the ability to buy it at an eye-watering price. even before you run out, knowing that you have to pay $20/roll is a strong signal that you ought to use one or two squares per wipe instead of 3+.
Hinges on what you believe would have happened to stock that scalpers bought, had they not done so. It may have left enough on the shelf for the would-be customers of scalpers to meet their needs. On the other hand, that leftover stock may have been obtained by panic buyers.
On a hunch I'd say a scalper would purchase more off the shelf than a panic buyer, because with the goal they have in mind they a) want a large quantity to resell to a large number of people and b) want to drain shelf stock to increase their odds of success.
that's why I used the toilet paper example. I don't think scalpers have enough storage space to clear an entire region's stockpile of tp. I did read a story of a guy who did exactly that with hand sanitizer, literally bought the entire supply from every store within 100 miles. that does change the analysis.
I'm definitely not advocating for hoarding or scalping, I'm just curious about what specifically the systemic inefficiencies are that prevent sellers from undercutting the hoarders and scalpers by raising prices on their own.
rightfully or not, raising prices in these situations is considered distasteful by most people. the long-term damage to the brand is probably not worth the short-term profits. retailers would rather just run out of stuff or limit customers to two boxes of pasta to maintain their image.
It happens in minor monopolies, which are exploitable best at small scale, like location or temporality. I can flip the latest Nintendo mini on eBay pretty easily.
However, I can’t imagine the trouble that Nintendo would get into if they sold the same device at different prices based on zip code.
Not to say that doesn’t happen, because that’s half the point behind custom phone contracts, where the price you pay for the device over time varies widely from person to person. Though, because it’s individualized, it’s very hard for consumers to compare one another’s prices and identify minor monopolies or price discrimination when it does occur.
I think GP is describing scalpers in the latter part of their comment. the fact that it can be profitable for some guy to buy up a hundred GPUs and sell them at a 50% markup until the fabs catch up does not necessarily make it a good idea for nvidia to do the same thing. it would likely create a lot of ill will for a comparatively small bump to their bottom line.
on the other hand, one could argue that this did happen in the aftermath of the crypto craze. in that time, gpus sold for well over MSRP (even second-hand) for a year or two. I don't think it's a coincidence that gpu pricing tiers jumped by a couple hundred dollars in the next generation (and again with the RTX 3090, although you could instead argue that's a price cut to the outgoing titan sku).
If wealthy people suddenly bought up all the food then we would see inflation again. It would be very good because it shifts the balance away from capital to labor.
Imagine you are a billionaire and suddenly the minimum wage shoots up to $100k per year. Suddenly that billionaire's wealth has a lower purchasing power.
Can you expand the example with consumer electronics - because it's not clear: who's gouging whom? You mean Big Tech selling expensive smartphones to people who can't buy a house so will buy an iPhone instead?
As someone who tried buying Nintendo Switch, I can confirm that there were scalpers who bought up every Switch stock available during the COVID lock down and resold it for ~1.5x to 2x more than the MSRP price. This seems to have happened with the latest Nvidia graphic cards as well.
You're close here, but I think you're missing the point. Things that haven't been seen as "scarce" in the past are becoming more and more likely to be forced into scarcity. We're not worried about superfluous goods (concerts), but goods like housing / food are not superfluous (one could even argue the same thing about certain electronics).
Other commenters have gone into it, but this is about forced scarcity vs need. Incidentally, it's also similar to why workers have trouble negotiating individually vs as a group.
The gist of it is that those in power / wealth have the ability to outlast any single poor individual. You don't want to buy a house, toilet paper, or a nintendo switch right now? That's fine, I'll keep buying them till you or some other chump gives up. I have so much money that it doesn't really matter how long you decide to be frugal and wait. You want to strike? That's fine, you'll be back soon enough when you need to pay for something or keep your family alive. I have enough to outlast you.
Had we pumped this money into the actual working class economy I wouldn't be worried. But instead we siphoned off more working class dollars under the guise that inflation isn't real. It is, and future generations are going to pay dearly for our naivety.
Consumer inflation actually is inflation, by definition. This isn't being confused, this is understanding how inflation is defined and using terms correctly.
Inflation is about the prices people actually pay, on average. Your neighbor's house getting sold for a lot of money isn't a real cost to you like rent. Someone paid that price, but they are not necessarily typical.
Inflation does include rent (or "imputed rent") to the extent that people actually pay those prices on average. Some people really do pay higher rents, but many others have lower housing costs locked in via home ownership or rent control, and they count too, so this is going to drag down the average. That's just the nature of averages.
BTW, stock market indexes are an average too, and it's heavily weighted towards tech firms due to market capitalization. Only about half of the stocks in the S&P 500 are up for the year.
It was once thought that the money supply was directly related to inflation, but they were never the same thing. The classic equation was MV = PY, and M (the money supply) and P (the price level) are different. They are only proportional (according to this equation) if everything else remains the same.
In any case, the "money supply" is an abstract macroeconomic variable with multiple possible definitions. Why do we care about it? Because it might have a real-world effect on us via price changes.
Gathering data about prices directly is a better way of understanding price levels (and inflation) than mucking around with less measurable quantities.
To the extent that the money supply matters, it's because it might result in higher prices in the future. But this doesn't seem to happen in any mechanical way. Just because people have money doesn't mean they want to spend it. In the classic equation, V (the velocity of money) can slow down.
This is particularly true when we are talking about institutions and rich people who already have savings. Higher numbers in their bank accounts doesn't automatically result in more spending, either by them, by the banks, or by companies whose stock prices get bid up.
It would matter more if the money went to people who actually need to spend it.
People being priced out of productive investments has consequences too. Those are not the same "the sky is falling, everybody is poor now!" consequences of consumer products inflation¹, but they exist and are important for a healthy society.
1 - What an incredible new definition of monetary inflation we have now, that can be split over real markets without any loss of meaning.
I think we agree on the point, but disagree in the definitions.
Money supply inflation might not directly influence price inflation, though we see price inflation in asset prices, such as stocks and properties.
My point is more on the government saying it needs inflation, when even without price increases inflation might be happening.
We have increasing productivity, cost has been falling, so if prices stay fixed, therefore no price inflation, the people are still paying more than they should.
The value of things have been falling, but prices haven't.
When the Federal Reserve said that a little more inflation is acceptable, they were talking about the Consumer Price Index.
It’s not that price increases are good in themselves, but that it would be good if people spent more, and if it results in prices being a little higher, this is okay.
You can; whether that's useful or not depends on the definition and context of use.
> Inflation is an government official indicator with a very clear meaning.
No, its not. Inflation is a broad concept (well, actually, a set of different and interrelated broad concepts) with a number of different official government measures. The most common US government measure of price inflation, the most common kind people talk about, is the all items CPI-U (Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.) But there are lots of other inflation measures, including official government ones used for important purposes, like the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) which is used as the basis for Social Security COLAs. And also frequently cited is the CPI-U for all items excluding food and energy. There are also CPIs for other populations, CPIs for other categories of goods and services, PPIs (Producer Price Indexes), ECI (Employment Cost Index), and others. All of these are official government price inflation measures.
There are also official government measures of money supply, which equivalently are measures of monetary inflation. And there are a whole bunch of those, not just one.
I didn't define as I want to, I pointed to the fact that the meaning in old dictionaries used to be increase in money supply.
My point doesn't depend on this tho, measuring inflation by rising prices isn't ideal, because you will be measuring multiple things at once, and only the people lose in that case.
Prices can rise and fall for multiple reasons, and knowing why helps to fix it.
If the price goes up because of a shortage, the increase in price helps stimulate more production.
Governments get the advantage of being able to inflate the money supply to the point were it prevents prices from falling, ensuring easier reelection at the price of the people paying more for things and effectively taxing savers.
> I pointed to the fact that the meaning in old dictionaries used to be increase in money supply.
Monetary inflation is one thing denoted by the word "inflation", and perhaps it used to be the more common use in general conversation. Its not anymore, price inflation, particularly consumer price inflation is the most common general use.
> measuring inflation by rising prices isn't ideal
It certainly is if you are doing for a purpose to which price levels are most directly relevant, which is quite commonly the case. There's nothing mystical about the word "inflation" that creates an all-purpose best measure (and, in fact, "inflation" is a name for lots of different things, which have complex interrelationships.)
>>"Governments get the advantage of being able to inflate the money supply to the point were it prevents prices from falling, ensuring easier reelection at the price of the people paying more for things and effectively taxing savers. "
Governments have the fiscal capacity to keep the economy going. Is your theory that, for instance, the USA economy would be better without the government stimulus?
When the economy goes bananas, if it's not sustained by the government, not only will be suffering of a big part of the population but the destruction of physical capacity and knowledge in the economy.
This is not the 19th century, that idea that the economy on its own works perfectly should be debunked by now.
That's not my point. My point is that if we don't agree in a definition of inflation, how can we have a rational discussion? And there is a clear textbook definition of inflation.
Right but that definition has drifted. That's not necessarily a problem in and of itself but in the process of drifting in this case it has obscured the original definition, which now is orphaned without a label. The problem therein is that it's left the discourse; since the subject of the old definition is more likely to precede and be a cause of the subject of the new definition, it seriously muddies the discourse and arguably the modes of thinking about the solution.
> Consumer inflation actually is inflation, by definition. This isn't being confused, this is understanding how inflation is defined and using terms correctly.
They fail to make a distinction between monetary inflation and price inflation which is the reason for the (intended) confusion around the term 'inflation'.
I mean, to some degree I'm not sure how much it matters. If there's some delayed response to the asset inflation then it'll be concerning, but why are inflated asset prices an issues in and of themselves?
Inflated asset prices means most folks are never going to be able to purchase a home, and equities (which generates wealth with no further effort besides the capital invested, for the most part) will continue to be owned by the wealthiest. Inequality worsens when asset prices increase faster than wages.
This doesn't check out to me (well, the home part does, but I'm not sure we've seen significantly above normal growth there compared to historical norms, outside of hot coastal markets), but for other assets the price doesn't matter, as you can just get a fraction of them or they're split.
Hey, this checks out with the very thing that the younger generation complains about, correlates with social injustice in the grandest scale (homelessness), that is one influencing factor in major social unrest in the country (racial disparity in access to real estate). But let's ignore that.
Have you considered that the deflection in the economy caused by the inflation happened to manifest itself unevenly across various market segments, and the primary direction that the deflection moved into is the very one you're ignoring?
You can literally buy a house by making a YouTube video now a days. It kinda is easy-peasy. Go look at all those TikTok stars. Your ancestors lived in caves be thankful you can even live in a house. It would be much harder to do that without Banks like the FED.
The problem is that you think you need to solve a grand problem instead of inventing something simple like a post-it note or a makeup tutorial. You seem to somehow believe that incumbents ALWAYS win. That is not true. Ingenuity with a superior product is what upends the market, shifts and creates new wealth.
The argument wasn't that they had to invent something to buy a house, it was that it's not a hopeless situation where there is no class mobility. Someone substituted ASSETS for HOUSES for some reason but its not the same thing. ASSETS are what allow some people to have an advantage over others in business.
So many babies on these forums whine about their inadequacies instead of bettering themselves. Making my imaginary number go down does change the fact that YOU AND ONLY YOU have the most power to change your life not some "system". If you can't afford to buy a house, get a better job. Sorry that's harsh. Who said life was easy?
I think you do have some interesting things to say and could convey them better without the negativity of the last paragraph.
I'm coming from the perspective of someone whose extended-extended family ranges from dirt poor laborers to set-for-life landlords.
I'm also drawing on my own experiences. I'm a software engineer, currently on hiatus to work on a YouTube series. I lost a good chunk of change from non-housing assets in 2008 from the meager 401k my internship paid into. I lost the rest when I had to cash in the 401k and sell furniture to have enough cash to wrap up my startup when the market I was in dried up (more like soaked up and polluted by the giant 800lb sponges, plus numerous other factors nobody cares about) and Apple took Primesense out.
So here's what I am saying and relates to what I think everyone else is saying: at every point in my life where I've felt like "now is the time to buy a house," I've just been a few percent short on the down payment. So I keep working and getting promotions and raises and saving, and wouldn't you know, now I'm several more percent short on the down payment despite having more saved, because the treadmill keeps getting longer and spinning faster. And as for other assets, yeah, my stocks are up, but houses are still up more than my risk-tolerable gains.
Meanwhile the people who would have been able to buy reasonable houses in reasonable neighborhoods with reasonable jobs don't have stocks to begin with, and are priced out by migrants with portfolios from even higher cost areas and the massive investors I'm currently having to rent from.
I think you don't understand the difference between "anyone can" and "everyone can". For every hit YouTube makeup tutorial there are a thousand failures.
> You seem to somehow believe that incumbents ALWAYS win
Did you mean to respond to someone else? Where did I say that?
Food, shelter and transportation aren't included in the CPI. Yet those things are essential for quality of life. Inflation is the reason you can't own a house and support a family on a single income anymore.
There are a couple other indexes out there that track total cost of living that are pushing ~10% per year inflation right now.
> Food, shelter and transportation aren't included in the CPI.
This is wrong. Food, shelter, and transportation are all included in the basket used to compute CPI. [0]
> The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W). BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services).
> 9. Is the CPI a cost-of-living index?
...
> Both the CPI and a cost-of-living index would reflect changes in the prices of goods and services, such as food and clothing that are directly purchased in the marketplace; but a complete cost-of-living index would go beyond this role to also take into account changes in other governmental or environmental factors that affect consumers' well-being. It is very difficult to determine the proper treatment of public goods, such as safety and education, and other broad concerns, such as health, water quality, and crime, that would constitute a complete cost-of-living framework. Since the CPI does not attempt to quantify all the factors that affect the cost-of-living, it is sometimes termed a conditional cost-of-living index.
Public services are being gutted in the US. I think this explains why cost of living indexes can be north of 10% while the CPI is < 2%.
It doesn’t explain how groceries, rent, medical care and education costs have all skyrocketed without raising the CPI. My guess is that people are spending less than they used to on things like recreation and apparel, due to lack of money.
I think he refers to the fact that those categories have their inflation higher than CPI.
CPI weights changed in 1980, and seemly when using old weights the CPI is 10% instead.
I've read (I didn't checked with all details, I don't live in US so it is not that relevant to me) that a major change is that the cost of having a shelter had its weights greatly reduced. (I don't mean the "housing" category in general)
I should have been more specific. Certain rents are included, but house prices are not. Gasoline and bus fairs are included, but the cost of buying a car is not. And, various food items are seasonally adjusted in a favorable manner.
Over time, the index has changed in a manner that grossly underestimates the inflation the average person experiences.
If you did include houses and cars, how would you account for their general improvement over the years? My grandpa used to get rid of his vehicles as the approached $50k miles. They were just too unreliable and costly repairs were right around the corner. Today even junky cars can make it to $150k. They use less fuel, they have better comfort, and they can just do more in general with tech inside them. So if the value the car provides goes up 4x but it's price goes up 2x, what is its contribution to inflation?
Your grandpa could buy a new car for $1500. More like price went up 20x. Incomes have not kept up with this even if you can argue that a new car today is 10x as "valuable" as one built in the 60's. And, the people making the call on those gray areas have an incentive to adjust reported inflation downward.
Well, for stocks, the P/E ratio is also extraordinarily high, so it's not inflation there. At least not mostly. The stock market is just overvalued and there will be a correction at some point in the future.
I think a big part of the runup of stocks has been the low interest rates.
That is: I've got some money to invest. As far as rate of return goes, a stock at a P/E of 10 is about the same as a bond paying 10% interest. (Yes, the stock can go up in price. It can also go down. And so can the bond - when interest rates change, bond prices change. But stock prices factor in expectations of future earnings changes, which bond prices usually don't.)
Now bonds are only paying 4%. That stock P/E of 10 looks really good - so good that people keep buying it, and the price keeps going up, until the P/E is more like 25, which puts it back at approximately the same yield as bonds.
I am just wondering if the PE ratio became extraordinarily high because high growth tech companies now are a major part of all of the large indices. Did you ever think about that?
That's definitely the cause of it, but it doesn't make sense to me. Once you're on S&P 500, how much growth can you realistically do? I don't see why investors don't make Google & Apple pay dividends.
Regarding dividends, in theory when company spends $1 per share on a dividend, its stock price should go down by $1 to compensate for this.
So receiving a dividend is kind of like forced selling a small portion of your stock (except that you don't pay the transaction fee).
Apple does pay dividends, has for years. Is also buying back a lot of stock which is another form of investor return. Google does buybacks too but on a less systematic basis afaik.
I'm not gonna bet against the fed. Im not going to bet against politicians protecting retirement accounts and personal homes. I've got 30 more years until I get out of the market, might as well hedge against the dollar, only take out a bit to get a down payment on a home in a nice area, and try to catch the capitalist wave.
If you stayed in through 2008 till now, you'd be doing perfectly fine. If you had to take out money right after the collapse, ouch.
Ultimately your portfolio risk should reflect the cash needs of your age/health/lifestyle in the context of the economics of the time. However, we are in uncharted waters.
> I'm not gonna bet against the fed. Im not going to bet against politicians protecting retirement accounts and personal homes.
I'll take a punt. At some point inflation will take root, and when it does the fed will be in a bind.
Hell, the fed has already been digging away at pensions with their 40 year long put. Pensions funds struggle now to find a positive yield that meets their liabilities.
And homes will at some point come under attack. Perhaps only when everything else is gone, perhaps not. They're a sitting target.
From my viewpoint in history, the homes will be the last thing to get attacked, politicians can't stomach another 08 and we know how to print our way out. If the dollar manages to fend off devaluation due to entended printing(crosses fingers and hopes the world trusts us more than any other currency to pay back our debt) the US may get out of this, ahead of other economies. The people really holding bag havent even entered the workforce, many havent even been born yet.
All you have to look at is stocks and home real estate to see that assets are ballooning no matter how cheap a dozen of eggs stays.