Hacker News Reader

Comment by adflux | Hacker News Reader

Sure, almost all central banks over the world have printed an astronomical amount of money. Even though they may state there is no significant inflation, I dont buy it and neither do many other economists. Stock prices, house prices and now, at last, commodity prices have gone through the roof... But you're probably earning about as much as you were a year ago, or less, if your industry was affected...

It's not just food. Lumber, Steel and Oil aswell. https://www.ft.com/content/6a7c232e-9c63-420c-ac05-40aea84a9...

EDIT: noticed link is paywalled (but not when you access via google) alternative article here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKBN2AM... "World shares slide on inflation fears, commodities surge"

View on HN

Inflation can be created, basically, by two things, an excess of demand respect to what the economy can produce or problems of supply.

Personally, I'm surprise at how robust are the global supply chains that have been able to keep things more or less normal despise what we have been through the last year.

The quantity of reserves created by the Central Banks are irrelevant if they are not spend in the economy. There are two effects to this "printing money": one is that the interest rate goes down facilitating borrowing from the private sector. The second is that governments have the ammunition to spend in stimulus. If the two things happen we could see inflation, but, notice that this the desired effect: compensate for a fall in the normal demand in the economy.

>" [..] central banks over the world have printed an astronomical amount of money. Even though they may state there is no significant inflation, I dont buy it [..]"

It seems to me that, in your model of the world, this should be leading to hyperinflation. If this is the case, my model of the world is wrong and I will make an effort to change it. I wish all the people has been predicting hyperinflation the last 30 years did the same if it doesn't happen. Somehow, I doubt it.

By now, the quantity theory of money based in the fractional reserve banking model should be discredited.

The examples given above seem like a textbook definition of inflation inside of a closed loop economic system. That is not what the U.S. has and it’s definitely not the situation if a country has a reserve currency. The Triffin dilemma may hold the answer in that as you supply your currency to the rest of the world, you are creating local deflationary effects while essentially exporting inflation.

When the rest of the world begins using other systems than the reserve currency to conduct trade, the end result is that the inflation returns home as demand for your currency drops.

The grandparent says explicitly in the comment "all the central banks". We are not talking specifically about the USA.

Anyway, the "reserve currency" excuse doesn't explain Japan in the last 20 years or the Euro in the last ten. The theory is just wrong. I don't know what more have to happen for people changing their minds.

It's spending what can generate inflation, specifically, spending above what the economy can produce. If Biden tomorrow created a trillion dollar coin and keep it under their bed, there will not be inflation. If the Central Banks create reserves, the interest rate will fall to zero (but not more), and if, despise the low interest rates, nobody is borrowing, there will not be inflation.

I was referring more to your comment that inflation can be caused by only two things. It's much more complicated than that. In fact, if you were able to predict such things with an accuracy matching the confidence of your position, you would be a very wealthy person indeed.

Inflation is caused by somebody asking for more money and somebody else paying it.

That's a failure of competition keeping prices in check, and little else.

The wealthy person you are looking for is Warren Mosler. He retired to the US Virgin Islands many years ago having made a fortune off the back of people who believed in the Quantity Theory of Money

You can read his conclusions in the book "Soft Currency Economics".

Interest rates are at zero. When official inflation starts ticking up they'll raise interest rates which will deflate the stock & house price bubble and cut inflation off at the knees.

We have lots of things to worry about -- inflation isn't one of them.

> We have lots of things to worry about -- inflation isn't one of them.

I really hate this comment. I am worried about not being able to ever being afford a house for my family. Avg income in my neighborhood is ~49k but a 2 bed condo here are selling for 450K and getting outbid by 75k over the asking price. Its insane.

Maybe you already own a house and are happy that prices are up. But its really weird to tell other ppl what they should be worried about.

> Avg income in my neighborhood is ~49k but a 2 bed condo here are selling for 450K and getting outbid by 75k over the asking price. Its insane.

Sure, and your point about housing prices mattering is a good one (see my other comment on this story). But, this describes maybe a few dozen housing markets. Probably only a couple dozen if you cut out resort/ski towns. It's a regional problem, not systemic problem with the national economy.

> But, this describes maybe a few dozen housing markets. Probably only a couple dozen if you cut out resort/ski towns. It's a regional problem

It, uh, describes all of Canada actually.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-economy-housing-an...

That's totally fair; sorry for assuming the thread was US-centric.

It also describes the most populous US state. The median housing price is now over $700k in California, while the median household income is around $80k.

California is an outlier. Even within California, the $700K number is caused by a few outlier markets.

$700k is the median. The average is even higher, and especially so in “outlier markets” (where outlier here means the cities and surrounding suburbs where most people live).

Also, more Americans live in California than any other state. So if it’s an outlier, it’s an especially impactful one.

> But, this describes maybe a few dozen housing markets.

Its a national problem

https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market

'few dozen' is what like 3 dozens? Assuming its a problem only in 36 markets. Wouldn't that be a 'national problem' ? 36 markets should covers a majority of population in the country.

Because relatively few regional housing markets have non-luxury 2 bed condos going for $525,000 (75K over 450K, per your original post).

E.g., in the Midwest you'd have to be in a nice part of Chicago or choosing the most expensive city neighborhood of a mid-sized city to find a meaningful number of $525K 2 bed condos. And even then, spending that much on a condo is 100% an unnecessary luxury. 10 minutes in any direction prices will crater, and by the time you get to the suburbs starter homes are from the $200s and $525K is a mansion. For the entirety of the midwest and most parts of the south.

Even on the coasts $525K for a 2 bed condo is a Big City thing. E.g., $500-$700K is the going rate for 2 bed condos in most of Boston, but drive an hour away from Boston in any direction? Not so much. Hell, even Wakefield has a 2 bed condo below $300K and that's only a 25 minute drive. And that's one of the more expensive housing markets in the US.

Living 20 minutes from major city centers via public transit has become a luxury, sure. But it's just not accurate to say that $525K for a 2 bed condo is "normal" in the US. It's not. It's quite specific to a very high CoL markets.

Ah yea i see what you mean. that might be an exception to suburbs of altanta. It was just an example of insanity of housing market in USA. I was not implying that the going price of condo.

Our old apartment in Chicago, which was in a nice neighborhood had its rent prices drop by at least $500/month. It might be more now.

When I look at real estate in general in Chicago, it's been dropping a little, not a ton, but it's not like how other are describing the huge increase in housing costs in other parts of the country.

It seems like there are big regional differences going on with housing costs in the US. Supply/demand and policy I'm guessing are making the difference.

Popping the bubble will be worse than the inflation.

How and for whom?

This attitude that the market must always go up has never worked out historically, just makes the eventual reckoning that much worse.

Fortunately that mentality means that renters like my wife and I who want our future kids to grow up in a good house in a quality school district can just keep saving money, waiting to capitalize on the inevitable normalization when all the speculators and eggs-in-one-basket people fail to learn from history... again.

For rich people.

Also for people that put their life savings as downpayment on an overpriced house.

But at least the bubble popping would make it easier for the middle class newcommers enter the market.

Just inflating the bubble further, as every European bank and government is doing, to make existing property owners richer on paper and get their votes, is not a viable long term solution.

IMHO, it can't pop sooner. Houses should be for living, not for speculation and hoarding wealth. The younger generations have been screwed enough by the old established wealth hoarders.

I was around during 2008, that's exactly the opposite of what will happen. Financing will dry up and the newcomers will find themselves in a highly competitive rental environment with inflated prices, while the banks and wealthy snap up SFH's for pennies on the dollar.

Maybe the government can raise rates and offer some kind of refund to people who bought their first house in the last year?

Otherwise, the number of people in that "put their life savings as a downpayment on an overpriced house" category is only going to grow, making the problem worse when the collapse eventually happens.

>offer some kind of refund to people who bought their first house in the last year

I think we run into real problems in America trying to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decision making. In addition to being deeply patronising, it eliminates so many of the normal incentives to be responsible and pushes up risk appetite across the board.

If individuals make poor investments (whether on a house or gamestop otm call options) they'll learn their lesson and move on. There's enough of a safety net in America to ensure no one truly goes hungry from bad luck (and before you point to homelessness- that's a complicated issue intertwined with drug addiction, mental illness and in some cases a free lifestyle choice)

I agree, but at the moment, it seems that same desire to protect them results in preferring a policy that drives prices ever upward. This would be a less destructive compromise.

It will also cut cheap corporate debt off at the knees, and likely begin a domino effect where people are laid off, home prices are depressed, and inflation continues in spite of all that as a result of supply shock.

Inflation due to monetary policy is a hot topic right now, but it’s getting too much blame for current events.

Prices are up for multiple reasons, including more pressure on shipping channels due to increased demand for goods across the board.

Also, this article is largely about inflation in developing nations like Indonesia. The inflation noted in countries like the United States is more pedestrian:

> In the U.S., prices rose close to 3% in the year ending Jan. 2, according to NielsenIQ, roughly double the overall rate of inflation.

We were going to build a house about 6 months ago. Plywood sheets that we were looking at were $8. They're now $30.

May I ask what region you're in? Thanks.

Whoops, meant to include: southern United States.

Asking for investment advice in a forum is probably not the best idea, but does anyone have any advice for someone who's been sitting almost entirely in cash for over 2 years (including missing the covid rebound)? I have a fair amount of experience in the market but from an intuition perspective, I feel like I have alzheimer's or something, I haven't a clue what a person should do in this situation.

Don’t try to time the market. Just put the money in a diversified portfolio at a roboadvisor.

The market is up 2% YTD, but down 4% from peak. It’s a reasonable time to buy (better than peak, at least).

If you must try to time the market, use time cost averaging to reduce volatility from getting a peak (or trough) price when you enter the market, but know that doing so reduces expected returns. The basic idea is to put 1/n of your money in over the next n weeks.

Stock market is always the best available long term bet on average, because that's where you can disguise your assets to mix in with wealthy people assets that gets government bailouts.

There are other things like real estate and government contacts, but those are less available to the casual investor, except through stock market funds.

Same. I think market bubble is going to keep going atleast in near future because of the new stimulus money that is going to start flowing to the market soon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/how-the-young-plan-to-spend-...

The market != The Economy. The market trades on multiples that represent asset prices in the future, and the stimulus was priced in months ago. The recent movement in the market was a reaction to the possibility that inflation shows up 6-12 months in the future, and the Fed doesn't raise rates. Subsequently high inflation will erode the value of bonds (Corporate debt). Who is holding them? Banks. If the banks fail lending tightens and the whole thing implodes. People can't get mortgages, corporations can't pay employees, home prices crash, etc.

It's possible something could set off the market today that accelerates the whole process, like the upcoming supplementary leverage ratio change. Or, the bubble could continue inflating until doesn't. But either way the whole thing is incredibly fragile and much more complicated than the "Stimulus is good for the economy" talk politicians are peddling.

If you don't have a clue, then staying in cash is probably your best option.

John Hussman has a nice article on the option value of cash. https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc201201/

tldr: Suppose I offer you a security that will pay $100 two days from today. You can buy as much of it as you like today at $50, or you can wait until tomorrow. Tomorrow, I’ll flip a coin. If it’s heads, I’ll sell you the security at $99. If it’s tails, I’ll sell you the security at $25. What should you do?

Clearly, if you buy the security today, you’ll double your money two days from now. That’s a 100% expected return for each dollar you invest, over that 2-day period. If you wait, you’ll earn nothing on the first day, but you’ll then have two possibilities. If heads, you’ll get just 1% on your invested money. If tails, you’ll get a 300% return, quadrupling your money. With a 50/50 chance at each, your expected return for every dollar you invest is 0.51% + 0.5300% = 150.5%. So waiting adds 50.5% to your expected return over that 2-day period.

This. Let's take back the power (but don't be like this guy)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM4gNVme5a0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com