Hacker News Reader

Comment by jklein11 | Hacker News Reader

I think you might be conflating the interest rate's that the federal reserve sets and the inflation rate.

The federal reserve rate is essentially how much the US pay's their debtors. Bank's use this as a benchmark for how much they lend to their own borrowers.

The inflation rate is a calculation done based on a basket of goods. if the price of that basket of goods goes up, inflation is up. if it goes down, inflation is down.

When the federal reserve lowers their rates, it makes it easier to get money, and therefore the price of the basket of goods goes up.

When they make their rates higher, money is harder to get, and the price of the basket of goods goes down. The only problem with this is that there is also less money for labor, which means that unemployment goes up. The Feds job is to balance these two things.

View on HN

To nit pick I would assert that the price basket is more dependent on the actually supply demand constraints but when there is free floating supply to be utilized but demand cannot catch. Than lowering interest doesn't necessary cause an increase in costs i.e inflation but can actually ruin the other way for some goods. That's why despite inflation being rough the actual cost in value of TV is so far down the economy grew and can now cheaply satisfy that demand. I don't think this was a great argument because I didn't link fed actions to that growth.

A better negative example is though in the US a large issue in the 1970s we had Regan Stagflation was austerity weakened demand and the feds levers simply couldn't deal with that type of inflation. The fed cannot directly influence solving supply issues only direct investment does that

You're right that stagflation shows the Fed can’t fix supply shocks with interest rates alone, but calling it “Reagan stagflation” and blaming austerity doesn't quite pass muster to me. The 1970s mess was mostly caused by oil shocks and entrenched inflation. The Volcker rate hikes (and Reagan’s early years) were the painful cleanup, not the cause.

I don't know Stagflation persists into the 1980s and well into it thanks to austerity even after the oil crisis is settle its a classic there is a crash the supply shock is over lets not spend money approach that lead to another recession in 1982. Iran's war ends in 1979. And most of the 1980s see a massive glut of oil[1] yet the US entered the Reagan Recession from 1982-1985. It is resolved by 1985 but austerity in that time is the opposite response needed and it shows in the GDP growth lagging. It might be poorly timed linked in name calling stagflation in Reagan stagflation since the inflation mostly ends by 1981 but its certainly not a Reagan boom

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut

Calling the early ’80s “Reagan stagflation” isn’t quite right. Stagflation means high inflation and high unemployment at the same time. By 1981–82, inflation was already collapsing — from nearly 14% in 1980 to about 3% by 1983. What remained was a brutal recession with high unemployment, caused by Volcker’s deliberate rate hikes to kill inflation. Painful, yes, but that’s not stagflation anymore. The stagflation era ended with the oil shocks of the ’70s; the early ’80s was the hangover cure, not the disease.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com