Well, this is just the difference in worldview between two camps, based on their differences in experiences and research.
See, the anti-inflation types among us have been trying to live responsible lives, saving for the future. We thought that the economy rewards those that defer their consumption until later and who invest for the future. But at every turn, those in charge of managing the money supply have stymied us. They’ve jacked up the money supply, making our purchases more expensive, all while denying the severity of it. (In the case of technological improvements that imply a lower effective price, they’ve made them more expensive than they would otherwise be.)
This debasement of the currency has amounted to a subtly-hidden transfer of wealth to privileged classes. The government has granted financial intermediaries privileged positions and, through the central bank, funded new spending with printed money that will never be paid back, murdering our ability to earn a fair inflation-beating return on our savings, when the market is supposed to reward those who defer consumption. And then it takes even more to bail out failing business, making it impossible to decouple ourselves from the rot in the economy, all while telling us to lock up our money in IRAs invested in government approved dinosaur businesses .
Folks that have actually had to live through this economic insanity “get it”. Those who go ever deeper into debt to double-down on economy’s increasingly lost production structures don’t see the problem—they want their debts inflated away. They want that new money to slosh around and get the dumb rubes back spending spending, spending—on anything, it doesn’t matter how short-sighted, how wasteful, how ill-considered: an arbitrary economic metric needs to act like it did in the glory days of 2005 (when the financial sector was busy defrauding pensions), and, well, that’s that. That’s the key to economic prosperity.
Well, the responsible class is fed up with this. That’s what drives these people to alternative currencies that can potentially protect them from Fed asininity, reasoning that an appreciating currency doesn’t quite sound so bad. They like the idea of a currency with a predictable supply so a tiny committee can’t arbitrarily decide to give a big f***-you to the savings of the only folks actually driving the real production these days. And, when a bank wants to make irresponsible loans with the currency, they want to be able to decouple themselves from the shenanigans by holding onto real, uncopiable units that will keep their value when the house of cards comes tumbling down.
But unless you’ve tried to actually save for the future, none of this makes a lick of sense to you, and I can understand that. But maybe now you can see why an un-debasable currency might appeal to some folks that we should care about quite a bit. [/rant]
See, the anti-inflation types among us have been trying to live responsible lives, saving for the future. We thought that the economy rewards those that defer their consumption until later and who invest for the future. …
I know that this is labeled as a [rant] but it really is a terrible argument. Inflation rates do not affect investment returns in the long run. High inflation only hurts those who directly hold currency. High surprise rises in inflation only affect those who have fixed-income investments, or those who are exposed to nominal fluctuations due to e.g. long-term contracts.
The secular fall in real returns to investment has nothing to do with monetary inflation: it’s due to emerging countries and oil-financed sovereign funds flooding Western nations with large amounts of capital, and to sharply falling transaction costs for access to the stock market, which encourage more domestic investment as well.
In theory, yes, interest rates are bid up to be high enough to compensate for inflation and then some. In practice, that is not happening right now, because the market for interest-rate-determining instruments (like Treasury bonds) is saturated by people who by and large don’t care about making up for inflation in the return: the Federal Reserve, exchange-rate-manipulating foreign central banks (like China), and insurance companies.
When even stock holdings won’t cover inflation over the long term (like stock indexes have failed at for 10+ years), there is a serious problem.
In practice, that is not happening right now, because the market for interest-rate-determining instruments (like Treasury bonds) is saturated by people who by and large don’t care about making up for inflation in the return: the Federal Reserve, exchange-rate-manipulating foreign central banks (like China), and insurance companies.
You’re missing my point. What you’re saying translates to: “In theory, real interest rates are positive, but in reality they’ve been driven to negative levels because savings are so high.” But nothing in theory stops real rates from being negative at any point in time.
By the way, your list of actors seems misguided: (1) The Fed buys Treasury bills when they issue cash, which is basically exchanging one government liability for another: it doesn’t change aggregate saving. (2) Insurance companies invest money on behalf of people who buy long-term instruments such as life policies and annuities. (3) China does manipulate exchange rates, but the only reason they are able to buy so many Treasuries is Chinese workers saving large portions of their income and depositing them in the local bank. AFAICT, there is no case for giving any less consideration to Chinese workers than to US-based savers.
Let’s hear your economic system design where anyone can gain real wealth by simply putting their cash under mattresses (as would be true if deflation were the norm). Who needs to invest in the actual productive economy?
Your argument seems to imply that the existence of even one deflationary good is sufficient to destroy an entire economy. Surely if this were the case then the law of large numbers would have killed us by now.
My understanding is that one good wouldn’t do it, but persistent, overall deflation would in fact devastate the economy.
Sure, right now you can stick money under a mattress for 6 months and buy more Core 2 laptops than you could today. But that doesn’t seem the same as “getting richer”.
Where’s the line? Good question. Obviously if you could buy more of anything that would be getting richer without investing the money. Or if you could buy more (houses or food or cars or Internet access or electricity or sex or drugs or rock n’ roll).
If you consider only cash and laptops, then it looks reasonable to call cash deflationary, but if you consider the economy as a whole, then it’s more accurate to say that laptops are inflationary.
What makes the deflation of bitcoins an “overall” deflation, as opposed to the deflation of one good?
The implied context of all this is: what if Bitcoin (or something similar) became a/the dominant currency, that paychecks, debts, etc. are denominated in?
If it doesn’t then it doesn’t really matter, societally, if it inflates, deflates, mutates, or defenestrates (other than to the people who invest in it...) It’d just be another good, as you say.
You seem, then, to be arguing that the behavior of our currency has an importantly different kind of effect on the overall economy than the behavior of any other asset.
...on reflection, I think that’s actually right. Under hyperinflation, people tend to run around with wheelbarrows of banknotes rather than reverting to barter. I’ll have to think about it some more.
Nevertheless, I would expect the effects of currency deflation to be limited or mitigated by the fact that you eventually have to buy food.
Under hyperinflation, people tend to run around with wheelbarrows of banknotes rather than reverting to barter. I’ll have to think about it some more.
Hyperinflation only happens precisely because people have less and less interest in wheelbarrows full of bank notes. The reason it feeds on itself is that people desperately want to turn their notes into real goods or exchange for more stable currencies. That lowers the value of the notes even further since there are more notes chasing the same amount of desirable goods.
I’m not sure a hyper-deflation can really happen. What would that look like, merchants lining up outside my house trying to sell me another Blueray player for increasingly small fractions of a coin?
If no one wants to spend this money, can it really retain value for very long? I’m genuinely perplexed.
I think a key factor is that humans don’t actually behave as rational utility-maximizing agents. Most people will treat the value of an asset as being approximately its current market spot price, and only slightly adjust in the direction of what they expect its long-term value to be.
I wouldn’t expect merchants to line up outside your house, but their websites might list prices like “Blueray player -- 3.89 millicoins”.
The price itself doesn’t indicate hyper-deflation. That price could be the product of years of single digit deflation. Hyper-deflation I think can only happen if there is a run on most real goods—where people are literally in a panic to exchange their goods for rapidly decreasing numbers of bitcoins. Otherwise how would it feed on itself the way hyper-inflation does?
Unfortunately I don’t know enough economics to sustain this discussion past this point, so I’m going to refrain from further making things up. I assume you have a good question, and I recommend you put it to someone who can answer it.
After a deep breath and an attempt to come up with something nice and/or constructive:
You are probably attempting to apply too much “common sense” and household finance to macroeconomics—this is very common. Lots of smart people get sucked in by those fallacies.
An economy needs both savers and consumers to function at full capacity: someone’s got to supply the capital that funds businesses to create goods and services, and someone’s got to buy those goods and services. There’s already a global savings glut—see Planet Money’s “global pool of money” series for details.
Emotional resentment of the seeming payoffs to the “undeserving” cloud the issues. I’ve always found wealth and “deserving-ness” mildly correlated at best (contrary theories have always smacked of just-world bias to me). [] Keep in mind that in many white conservative circles, deserving-ness is mentally (usually subconsciously but sometimes not) highly correlated with skin color. (Citation: growing up white, rural and poor) Living in Texas, your social circle may be inadvertently coloring your thinking this way (I saw plenty of that in rural Ohio).[]
In conclusion, make some models of international trading and see what effect “dollar debasement” has. Example: Take three countries that trade exclusively with one another, halve the values of all their currencies, you’ll find that nothing has changed (in real terms) at all. Another example: The USA generates the most manufactured goods in the world (by value). Pretty much every country out there does a lot of trade with the USA and/or processes a buttload of US dollars. Given that, attempt to construct a model where the US dollar loses a significant portion of its value relative to every other world currency, and it does not spring back given capital flows, trade flows, etc.
EDIT: Portion within [*] withdrawn as overly mind-killing, offensive and (worst of all) orthogonal to the topic. Apology issued downthread.
Investing in the productive economy hasn’t yielded a positive return for the last ten years, and yes, it’s fair to expect the market to compensate you for deferring consumption because society is decidedly not indifferent between whether you consume resources now or later. It would be one thing if investment opportunities did this while cash could not, but that is not where we are today.
(It’s fine if you want to toss out the concept of deservingness [though less so if you want to paint me as a racist], but you can’t get around how rewarded behavior will tend to happen more and less rewarded behavior, less. So unless you want all behavior to shift toward consuming all real resources immediately, including “seed corn”, you have just as much an interest in seeing an economy strike a balance between present an future consumption, no matter how much you hate rich people or deem them racist.)
And getting people to invest in productive enterprises under threat of their money withering away is pure Machiavellianism, not a system you’d come up with after careful consideration of how to best reach a Pareto optimum. It would be one thing if the market did compensate people for deferral of consumption (through positive real after-tax interest rates), in a magnitude that reflects society’s current willingness to move their purchases forward, but “noble” (and very non-secret, conspiracy-theory-not-required) manipulations of financial markets have prevented this from happening.
It is not an obviously superior economic system when people have to make haphazard, ill-considered loans just to have a chance at preserving purchasing power.
And finally, an inflationary currency doesn’t solve the problem of investors requiring positive real expected return; it just rearranges the problem. Nor is it some kind of boon to have exporters that are advantaged by cheap local currency. If that’s so great, why not debase the currency to nothing? We have a name for working for others for nothing, and it’s not something we generally aim for.
Investing in the productive economy hasn’t yielded a positive return for the last ten years
Given stock price trends I can’t see how this is true. Can you elaborate? Even Treasuries are yielding 3-odd percent in the face of 2-odd percent inflation.
unless you want all behavior to shift toward consuming all real resources immediately, including “seed corn”, you have just as much an interest in seeing an economy strike a balance between present an future consumption
The wealth of a nation is not some fixed quantity; it’s its aggregate production of goods and services. There’s not anything we can “run out of” that’s required for people to trade, barter, etc. Am I missing something?
Sure, there are finite resources we could run out of, like oil. But attempting to restrict the total size of the economy in an effort to conserve those particular resources seems awfully suboptimal. (It also seems doomed to fail in an economy consisting of humans). Better to attack those particular resource usages through taxation, policy, subsidizing alternatives, etc.
Try to bear with me; and I will try to remember where I am. This is the first time I’ve met a hard-money advocate on the Internet who also [presumably, given our venue] cares about map-territory correspondence.
Investing in the productive economy hasn’t yielded a positive return for the last ten years,
It depends on what you measure. Risk-free returns, maybe. Risky investments tend to do very well in expectation.
and yes, it’s fair to expect the market to compensate you for deferring consumption because society is decidedly not indifferent between whether you consume resources now or later.
It would be nice to see an argument for this.
([U]nless you want all behavior to shift toward consuming all real resources immediately, including “seed corn”, you have just as much an interest in seeing an economy strike a balance between present an future consumptio[n])
It seems that the economy is striking a sensible balance right now, with risk-free assets yielding about zero return and risky assets possibly yielding more. You’ll not see any consumption/depreciation of capital, because if willingness to save falls then rates of returns will rise.
And getting people to invest in productive enterprises under threat of their money withering away is pure Machiavellianism
It’s not. Currency “withers away” because it is effectively a risk-free asset which can be exchanged on demand for real resources (i.e. it has zero maturity) and its returns are standardized over large time-spans, including episodes of distress such as financial crises (whereas other assets are priced by the market and their returns might fall in such circumstances). This is pretty much the highest possible quality you could ask of any asset, and returns are adjusted accordingly. Bank accounts and money-market funds also have some of these qualities, but they have countervailing issues, and the interest they pay is meagre anyway.
I apologize; that was not my intent. Even here one must be very careful about any statements involving race, and I was not nearly careful enough.
The entire concept I was trying to get at is one I think worthy of discussion. Let’s see if I can unpack it non-offensively:
1) [Economic] conservatives generally consider poor people an out-group (often even when accountancy would consider said person poor)
2) Said conservatives are almost universally white
3) Everybody on Earth considers people of other races an out-group
4) Everyone on Earth wishes to help their in-group before their out-group, if they wish to help out-groups at all
5) In the USA, poverty is highly correlated with being black and/or Hispanic, for a variety of reasons, including failure to choose the proper parents
As far as I can tell none of those statements are controversial, or paint you (or any other) individual person in a negative light. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.
It seems to me that #2-5 could have a large influence on the apparent paradox in #1 (the “why do poor white folks often favor upwards redistribution?” problem).
Edit: Upon reflection, I’ll withdraw the entire sub-topic as “too mind-killing”. Besides that property, it’s orthogonal to the question under discussion: “Is a hard quantity limit on a medium of exchange a feature or a bug?”
1) [Economic] conservatives generally consider poor people an out-group (often even when accountancy would consider said person poor) 2) Said conservatives are almost universally white 3) Everybody on Earth considers people of other races an out-group 4) Everyone on Earth wishes to help their in-group before their out-group, if they wish to help out-groups at all 5) In the USA, poverty is highly correlated with being black and/or Hispanic, for a variety of reasons, including failure to choose the proper parents
7) Well off White Liberals consider Poor Whites an out-group. They do not consider well off Blacks an out-group.
(the “why do poor white folks often favor upwards redistribution?” problem).
Poor working class White Males don’t really have much to gain from the modern mainstream left. They don’t have much to gain from the modern mainstream right either to be honest, but the left is blatantly enough hostile to them that its easier to figure out. It is easy to dislike those who look down on you. It is much harder to see through displays of religion and false patriotism.
To expand, whenever you think of “dollar debasement”, ask yourself “relative to what?”
Gold: Exactly how important is gold to everyday commerce and life?
Oil: Check the oil price in other currencies to get an idea of how much of the change is because of the value of the dollar vs. the supply of and demand for oil.
Other commodities: see “oil”. If the commodities are produced in the USA (or China, as long as they peg their currency, the RMB, to the USD), then fluctuations in the value of the dollar can’t affect their prices. (Edit: Yes, everything needs oil, and almost everything has at least some “foreign” component, so there can be second-order effects).
Other currencies: If capital flows in and out of the subject countries are relatively free, then exchange rate changes mean something real about the respective economies. (China restricts capital flows and buys a shitload of USD, that’s how they can keep the exchange rate constant. It also means domestically they have ugly inflation they can’t do anything about).
[] Keep in mind that in many white conservative circles, deserving-ness is mentally (usually subconsciously but sometimes not) highly correlated with skin color. (Citation: growing up white, rural and poor) Living in Texas, your social circle may be inadvertently coloring your thinking this way (I saw plenty of that in rural Ohio).[]
Couldn’t help rolling my eyes. Obvious status signalling is obvious.
Note: I am not disputing humans are basically ethnocentric and this biases their thinking.
Inflation only really affects dollar-denominated accounts that don’t bear (enough) interest. Everyone needs to have some money in such accounts (checking accounts, cash) for short-term spending purposes. For poor people, this is usually the majority of their holdings; for wealthy people, it will only be a tiny fraction. Thus, inflation has a larger impact, percentage-wise, on the poor. Inflation also produces downward pressure on effective wages, since workers have to keep getting raises just to maintain parity.
I think that inflation is dramatically higher than is commonly realized; increased production efficiency should be causing the prices of most things to plummet, but other than electronics, that isn’t happening.
Saying something is retarded does not fall into some inherently different reference class with respect to “being about”. The significant feature here is that it is easier to sneer at than sentences that use politically incorrect language.
Not necessarily (though I’m no doubt being too snarky).
It’s common for goldbugs to compare stashing gold under a mattress with stashing green pieces of paper under a mattress, and note that the former has better investment return. When there’s no economic reason that simply sitting on wealth (without loaning it out to some productive use) should make one wealthier.
The expectation that money should be a long-term store of value is, in fact, misguided.
Do you also believe inflation is higher than the BLS stated numbers? Da Gubmint be lyin’ to placate us? Or that inflation is particularly high these days? Or that the price of oil is under the control of the Fed? Or the Jews?
This is also a good example of why you’re getting downvoted so much. Passive agressive and snide. The only one of the trifecta you’re missing this time is insulting. If you want to make productive communication more likely you would be well advised to modify your tone, and to avoid insults, denotationally as in the comment I replied to above, and conotationally, as in the comment you thought better of in your conversation with SilasBarta.
It’s deserved—I wasn’t being productive, or constructive, or even particularly coherent.
It surprised me too.
I think various Issues of mine that nobody cares about all came together yesterday, and so I’d be better off to just avoid discussing economics altogether. At least until I can be unemotional about it (if ever).
Sorry for polluting the thread, back to public-key encryption...
Well, this is just the difference in worldview between two camps, based on their differences in experiences and research.
See, the anti-inflation types among us have been trying to live responsible lives, saving for the future. We thought that the economy rewards those that defer their consumption until later and who invest for the future. But at every turn, those in charge of managing the money supply have stymied us. They’ve jacked up the money supply, making our purchases more expensive, all while denying the severity of it. (In the case of technological improvements that imply a lower effective price, they’ve made them more expensive than they would otherwise be.)
This debasement of the currency has amounted to a subtly-hidden transfer of wealth to privileged classes. The government has granted financial intermediaries privileged positions and, through the central bank, funded new spending with printed money that will never be paid back, murdering our ability to earn a fair inflation-beating return on our savings, when the market is supposed to reward those who defer consumption. And then it takes even more to bail out failing business, making it impossible to decouple ourselves from the rot in the economy, all while telling us to lock up our money in IRAs invested in government approved dinosaur businesses .
Folks that have actually had to live through this economic insanity “get it”. Those who go ever deeper into debt to double-down on economy’s increasingly lost production structures don’t see the problem—they want their debts inflated away. They want that new money to slosh around and get the dumb rubes back spending spending, spending—on anything, it doesn’t matter how short-sighted, how wasteful, how ill-considered: an arbitrary economic metric needs to act like it did in the glory days of 2005 (when the financial sector was busy defrauding pensions), and, well, that’s that. That’s the key to economic prosperity.
Well, the responsible class is fed up with this. That’s what drives these people to alternative currencies that can potentially protect them from Fed asininity, reasoning that an appreciating currency doesn’t quite sound so bad. They like the idea of a currency with a predictable supply so a tiny committee can’t arbitrarily decide to give a big f***-you to the savings of the only folks actually driving the real production these days. And, when a bank wants to make irresponsible loans with the currency, they want to be able to decouple themselves from the shenanigans by holding onto real, uncopiable units that will keep their value when the house of cards comes tumbling down.
But unless you’ve tried to actually save for the future, none of this makes a lick of sense to you, and I can understand that. But maybe now you can see why an un-debasable currency might appeal to some folks that we should care about quite a bit. [/rant]
I know that this is labeled as a [rant] but it really is a terrible argument. Inflation rates do not affect investment returns in the long run. High inflation only hurts those who directly hold currency. High surprise rises in inflation only affect those who have fixed-income investments, or those who are exposed to nominal fluctuations due to e.g. long-term contracts.
The secular fall in real returns to investment has nothing to do with monetary inflation: it’s due to emerging countries and oil-financed sovereign funds flooding Western nations with large amounts of capital, and to sharply falling transaction costs for access to the stock market, which encourage more domestic investment as well.
In theory, yes, interest rates are bid up to be high enough to compensate for inflation and then some. In practice, that is not happening right now, because the market for interest-rate-determining instruments (like Treasury bonds) is saturated by people who by and large don’t care about making up for inflation in the return: the Federal Reserve, exchange-rate-manipulating foreign central banks (like China), and insurance companies.
When even stock holdings won’t cover inflation over the long term (like stock indexes have failed at for 10+ years), there is a serious problem.
You’re missing my point. What you’re saying translates to: “In theory, real interest rates are positive, but in reality they’ve been driven to negative levels because savings are so high.” But nothing in theory stops real rates from being negative at any point in time.
By the way, your list of actors seems misguided: (1) The Fed buys Treasury bills when they issue cash, which is basically exchanging one government liability for another: it doesn’t change aggregate saving. (2) Insurance companies invest money on behalf of people who buy long-term instruments such as life policies and annuities. (3) China does manipulate exchange rates, but the only reason they are able to buy so many Treasuries is Chinese workers saving large portions of their income and depositing them in the local bank. AFAICT, there is no case for giving any less consideration to Chinese workers than to US-based savers.
Let’s hear your economic system design where anyone can gain real wealth by simply putting their cash under mattresses (as would be true if deflation were the norm). Who needs to invest in the actual productive economy?
Your argument seems to imply that the existence of even one deflationary good is sufficient to destroy an entire economy. Surely if this were the case then the law of large numbers would have killed us by now.
My understanding is that one good wouldn’t do it, but persistent, overall deflation would in fact devastate the economy.
Sure, right now you can stick money under a mattress for 6 months and buy more Core 2 laptops than you could today. But that doesn’t seem the same as “getting richer”.
Where’s the line? Good question. Obviously if you could buy more of anything that would be getting richer without investing the money. Or if you could buy more (houses or food or cars or Internet access or electricity or sex or drugs or rock n’ roll).
There was persistent overall deflation in various periods in the 19th century, and it didn’t devastate the economy.
If you consider only cash and laptops, then it looks reasonable to call cash deflationary, but if you consider the economy as a whole, then it’s more accurate to say that laptops are inflationary.
What makes the deflation of bitcoins an “overall” deflation, as opposed to the deflation of one good?
The implied context of all this is: what if Bitcoin (or something similar) became a/the dominant currency, that paychecks, debts, etc. are denominated in?
If it doesn’t then it doesn’t really matter, societally, if it inflates, deflates, mutates, or defenestrates (other than to the people who invest in it...) It’d just be another good, as you say.
You seem, then, to be arguing that the behavior of our currency has an importantly different kind of effect on the overall economy than the behavior of any other asset.
...on reflection, I think that’s actually right. Under hyperinflation, people tend to run around with wheelbarrows of banknotes rather than reverting to barter. I’ll have to think about it some more.
Nevertheless, I would expect the effects of currency deflation to be limited or mitigated by the fact that you eventually have to buy food.
Hyperinflation only happens precisely because people have less and less interest in wheelbarrows full of bank notes. The reason it feeds on itself is that people desperately want to turn their notes into real goods or exchange for more stable currencies. That lowers the value of the notes even further since there are more notes chasing the same amount of desirable goods.
I’m not sure a hyper-deflation can really happen. What would that look like, merchants lining up outside my house trying to sell me another Blueray player for increasingly small fractions of a coin?
If no one wants to spend this money, can it really retain value for very long? I’m genuinely perplexed.
I think a key factor is that humans don’t actually behave as rational utility-maximizing agents. Most people will treat the value of an asset as being approximately its current market spot price, and only slightly adjust in the direction of what they expect its long-term value to be.
I wouldn’t expect merchants to line up outside your house, but their websites might list prices like “Blueray player -- 3.89 millicoins”.
The price itself doesn’t indicate hyper-deflation. That price could be the product of years of single digit deflation. Hyper-deflation I think can only happen if there is a run on most real goods—where people are literally in a panic to exchange their goods for rapidly decreasing numbers of bitcoins. Otherwise how would it feed on itself the way hyper-inflation does?
Unfortunately I don’t know enough economics to sustain this discussion past this point, so I’m going to refrain from further making things up. I assume you have a good question, and I recommend you put it to someone who can answer it.
After a deep breath and an attempt to come up with something nice and/or constructive:
You are probably attempting to apply too much “common sense” and household finance to macroeconomics—this is very common. Lots of smart people get sucked in by those fallacies.
An economy needs both savers and consumers to function at full capacity: someone’s got to supply the capital that funds businesses to create goods and services, and someone’s got to buy those goods and services. There’s already a global savings glut—see Planet Money’s “global pool of money” series for details.
Emotional resentment of the seeming payoffs to the “undeserving” cloud the issues. I’ve always found wealth and “deserving-ness” mildly correlated at best (contrary theories have always smacked of just-world bias to me). [] Keep in mind that in many white conservative circles, deserving-ness is mentally (usually subconsciously but sometimes not) highly correlated with skin color. (Citation: growing up white, rural and poor) Living in Texas, your social circle may be inadvertently coloring your thinking this way (I saw plenty of that in rural Ohio).[]
In conclusion, make some models of international trading and see what effect “dollar debasement” has. Example: Take three countries that trade exclusively with one another, halve the values of all their currencies, you’ll find that nothing has changed (in real terms) at all. Another example: The USA generates the most manufactured goods in the world (by value). Pretty much every country out there does a lot of trade with the USA and/or processes a buttload of US dollars. Given that, attempt to construct a model where the US dollar loses a significant portion of its value relative to every other world currency, and it does not spring back given capital flows, trade flows, etc.
EDIT: Portion within [*] withdrawn as overly mind-killing, offensive and (worst of all) orthogonal to the topic. Apology issued downthread.
Investing in the productive economy hasn’t yielded a positive return for the last ten years, and yes, it’s fair to expect the market to compensate you for deferring consumption because society is decidedly not indifferent between whether you consume resources now or later. It would be one thing if investment opportunities did this while cash could not, but that is not where we are today.
(It’s fine if you want to toss out the concept of deservingness [though less so if you want to paint me as a racist], but you can’t get around how rewarded behavior will tend to happen more and less rewarded behavior, less. So unless you want all behavior to shift toward consuming all real resources immediately, including “seed corn”, you have just as much an interest in seeing an economy strike a balance between present an future consumption, no matter how much you hate rich people or deem them racist.)
And getting people to invest in productive enterprises under threat of their money withering away is pure Machiavellianism, not a system you’d come up with after careful consideration of how to best reach a Pareto optimum. It would be one thing if the market did compensate people for deferral of consumption (through positive real after-tax interest rates), in a magnitude that reflects society’s current willingness to move their purchases forward, but “noble” (and very non-secret, conspiracy-theory-not-required) manipulations of financial markets have prevented this from happening.
It is not an obviously superior economic system when people have to make haphazard, ill-considered loans just to have a chance at preserving purchasing power.
And finally, an inflationary currency doesn’t solve the problem of investors requiring positive real expected return; it just rearranges the problem. Nor is it some kind of boon to have exporters that are advantaged by cheap local currency. If that’s so great, why not debase the currency to nothing? We have a name for working for others for nothing, and it’s not something we generally aim for.
I do, and this probably clouds my judgement.
Now to get to the actual economics:
Given stock price trends I can’t see how this is true. Can you elaborate? Even Treasuries are yielding 3-odd percent in the face of 2-odd percent inflation.
The wealth of a nation is not some fixed quantity; it’s its aggregate production of goods and services. There’s not anything we can “run out of” that’s required for people to trade, barter, etc. Am I missing something?
Sure, there are finite resources we could run out of, like oil. But attempting to restrict the total size of the economy in an effort to conserve those particular resources seems awfully suboptimal. (It also seems doomed to fail in an economy consisting of humans). Better to attack those particular resource usages through taxation, policy, subsidizing alternatives, etc.
Try to bear with me; and I will try to remember where I am. This is the first time I’ve met a hard-money advocate on the Internet who also [presumably, given our venue] cares about map-territory correspondence.
It depends on what you measure. Risk-free returns, maybe. Risky investments tend to do very well in expectation.
It would be nice to see an argument for this.
It seems that the economy is striking a sensible balance right now, with risk-free assets yielding about zero return and risky assets possibly yielding more. You’ll not see any consumption/depreciation of capital, because if willingness to save falls then rates of returns will rise.
It’s not. Currency “withers away” because it is effectively a risk-free asset which can be exchanged on demand for real resources (i.e. it has zero maturity) and its returns are standardized over large time-spans, including episodes of distress such as financial crises (whereas other assets are priced by the market and their returns might fall in such circumstances). This is pretty much the highest possible quality you could ask of any asset, and returns are adjusted accordingly. Bank accounts and money-market funds also have some of these qualities, but they have countervailing issues, and the interest they pay is meagre anyway.
I apologize; that was not my intent. Even here one must be very careful about any statements involving race, and I was not nearly careful enough.
The entire concept I was trying to get at is one I think worthy of discussion. Let’s see if I can unpack it non-offensively:
1) [Economic] conservatives generally consider poor people an out-group (often even when accountancy would consider said person poor) 2) Said conservatives are almost universally white 3) Everybody on Earth considers people of other races an out-group 4) Everyone on Earth wishes to help their in-group before their out-group, if they wish to help out-groups at all 5) In the USA, poverty is highly correlated with being black and/or Hispanic, for a variety of reasons, including failure to choose the proper parents
As far as I can tell none of those statements are controversial, or paint you (or any other) individual person in a negative light. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.
It seems to me that #2-5 could have a large influence on the apparent paradox in #1 (the “why do poor white folks often favor upwards redistribution?” problem).
Edit: Upon reflection, I’ll withdraw the entire sub-topic as “too mind-killing”. Besides that property, it’s orthogonal to the question under discussion: “Is a hard quantity limit on a medium of exchange a feature or a bug?”
7) Well off White Liberals consider Poor Whites an out-group. They do not consider well off Blacks an out-group.
Poor working class White Males don’t really have much to gain from the modern mainstream left. They don’t have much to gain from the modern mainstream right either to be honest, but the left is blatantly enough hostile to them that its easier to figure out. It is easy to dislike those who look down on you. It is much harder to see through displays of religion and false patriotism.
To expand, whenever you think of “dollar debasement”, ask yourself “relative to what?”
Gold: Exactly how important is gold to everyday commerce and life?
Oil: Check the oil price in other currencies to get an idea of how much of the change is because of the value of the dollar vs. the supply of and demand for oil.
Other commodities: see “oil”. If the commodities are produced in the USA (or China, as long as they peg their currency, the RMB, to the USD), then fluctuations in the value of the dollar can’t affect their prices. (Edit: Yes, everything needs oil, and almost everything has at least some “foreign” component, so there can be second-order effects).
Other currencies: If capital flows in and out of the subject countries are relatively free, then exchange rate changes mean something real about the respective economies. (China restricts capital flows and buys a shitload of USD, that’s how they can keep the exchange rate constant. It also means domestically they have ugly inflation they can’t do anything about).
Couldn’t help rolling my eyes. Obvious status signalling is obvious.
Note: I am not disputing humans are basically ethnocentric and this biases their thinking.
Edit: Obviously this post is also signaling.
So inflation benefits the rich and deflation benefits the poor? Krugman has it backwards, then? Thanks for the tip.
You have savings under a mattress, or in some other vehicle that doesn’t pay interest? Sounds retarded.
Inflation only really affects dollar-denominated accounts that don’t bear (enough) interest. Everyone needs to have some money in such accounts (checking accounts, cash) for short-term spending purposes. For poor people, this is usually the majority of their holdings; for wealthy people, it will only be a tiny fraction. Thus, inflation has a larger impact, percentage-wise, on the poor. Inflation also produces downward pressure on effective wages, since workers have to keep getting raises just to maintain parity.
I think that inflation is dramatically higher than is commonly realized; increased production efficiency should be causing the prices of most things to plummet, but other than electronics, that isn’t happening.
Something sounding retarded to you is primarily a statement about you, not about that something.
Saying something is retarded does not fall into some inherently different reference class with respect to “being about”. The significant feature here is that it is easier to sneer at than sentences that use politically incorrect language.
(What he said was still stupid.)
Not necessarily (though I’m no doubt being too snarky).
It’s common for goldbugs to compare stashing gold under a mattress with stashing green pieces of paper under a mattress, and note that the former has better investment return. When there’s no economic reason that simply sitting on wealth (without loaning it out to some productive use) should make one wealthier.
The expectation that money should be a long-term store of value is, in fact, misguided.
Do you also believe inflation is higher than the BLS stated numbers? Da Gubmint be lyin’ to placate us? Or that inflation is particularly high these days? Or that the price of oil is under the control of the Fed? Or the Jews?
Feed us some more mockable “economics”!
I regret I could only downvote this once.
Here’s another, hop to it...
This is also a good example of why you’re getting downvoted so much. Passive agressive and snide. The only one of the trifecta you’re missing this time is insulting. If you want to make productive communication more likely you would be well advised to modify your tone, and to avoid insults, denotationally as in the comment I replied to above, and conotationally, as in the comment you thought better of in your conversation with SilasBarta.
It’s deserved—I wasn’t being productive, or constructive, or even particularly coherent. It surprised me too. I think various Issues of mine that nobody cares about all came together yesterday, and so I’d be better off to just avoid discussing economics altogether. At least until I can be unemotional about it (if ever). Sorry for polluting the thread, back to public-key encryption...
No worries. If you feel like discussing macroeconomics start a discussion thread.
Downvoted. For quite obvious reasons.