3 ms·

> Here's a thought. Supply chain shortages mean people are buying less and obviously some prices are sticky. For instance, I can't buy a new car regardless of p

> Here's a thought. Supply chain shortages mean people are buying less and obviously some prices are sticky. For instance, I can't buy a new car regardless of price. The price takes a while to adjust wand when "supply chain" clears up, I'll just be able to buy my car at a higher price, further driving inflation. I don't expect prices to fall back down meaningfully - especially after a few wage/price cycles. However, I do expect them to stop going up, which is just as good after a few wage/price cycles. There's no reason to think the prices will continue to go up 7% per year. Especially when in your particular example, between January and February, the price of a new car went up 0%, and a used car went up 1.5%, down from last months 3.3%. [1] Gas prices are down 1% and piped gas down 0.5%. There are signs that things are starting to turn around. > While it is true that not every money supply increase has led to inflation, almost all high inflationary periods coincided with the money supply growing. Correlation != causation. > I think you need to check again. We're at 26 S&P. Last time it was this high was 2008. Time before then was briefly in 1890s (not a typo) It's currently 25.86. In 2020, it was 25. In 2018, it was 25. In 2009 it hit 123. In 2003, it was 32. In 2002 it was 46. In 2001 it was 27. In 1999 it was 33. Yeah, it's a little higher than average, but that's likely just due to 0% interest rates and a newfound penchant for margin lending. I don't see that as particularly or inherently unhealthy or at all indicative of "asset inflation." > It's not nothing to the pensioners that saw their wealth evaporate 7.5% in one year and likely more to come. Hopefully social security keeps up... Pensioners like basically everyone else aren't invested in dollar bills under their mattresses. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

bko 5y ago
> Correlation != causation. People misuse correlation/causation expression so much I think its actually detrimental... If something coincides with something else nearly 100% of the time, I think its safe to say there's some relation between the two. And printing money is always prior to inflation. > It's currently 25.86. In 2020, it was 25. In 2018, it was 25. In 2009 it hit 123. In 2003, it was 32. In 2002 it was 46. In 2001 it was 27. In 1999 it was 33. Are you talking about monthly? Maybe... The other thing about those times is we didn't have an unprecedented decline in commercial activity. How could businesses shut down indefinitely and a global pandemic looming over the world and the natural market response be "bullish for business!". Come on... > Pensioners like basically everyone else aren't invested in dollar bills under their mattresses. Yes, they're invested in fixed income who yield < 2% and will likely drop a lot in dollar terms once rates ramp up.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > If something coincides with something else nearly 100% of the time, I think its safe to say there's some relation between the two. And printing money is always prior to inflation. Not really no, which is why we have the whole correlation != causation thing. The number of people who drowned in a swimming pool perfectly correlates with power generated by US nuclear plants over 10 years. [1] There's obviously no causative relationship. The same is true here - you need a model to adequately explain otherwise you're just intuiting, and intuition is frequently wrong. > Are you talking about monthly? Maybe... The other thing about those times is we didn't have an unprecedented decline in commercial activity. How could businesses shut down indefinitely and a global pandemic looming over the world and the natural market response be "bullish for business!". Come on... Again, much of the market performance is in big tech which has done extremely well over the last two years. Google is just one example. Look at the top NASDAQ and S&P holdings and you'll see the same thing. The market isn't the economy. > Yes, they're invested in fixed income who yield < 2% and will likely drop a lot in dollar terms once rates ramp up. Doesn't when they entered the market, and their allocation, mean a whole lot more? [1] https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
  - bko 5y ago
    > Not really no, which is why we have the whole correlation != causation thing. The number of people who drowned in a swimming pool perfectly correlates with power generated by US nuclear plants over 10 years Not every encounter with a body of water results in drowning. But nearly every drowning involves a body of water. It's not about correlation. It's bayesian probability. P(drowning|water) >> P(drowning) P(lung cancer|smoking) >> P(lung cancer) P(inflation|money printing) >> P(inflation) Do you get it yet? > The same is true here - you need a model to adequately explain otherwise you're just intuiting, and intuition is frequently wrong. Pretty much any econ 101 book. Search basic economics in Amazon for sources
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > Pretty much any econ 101 book. Search basic economics in Amazon for sources Only the Austrian ones, which are long since abandoned.

bko 5y ago

> Correlation != causation. People misuse correlation/causation expression so much I think its actually detrimental... If something coincides with something else nearly 100% of the time, I think its safe to say there's some relation between the two. And printing money is always prior to inflation. > It's currently 25.86. In 2020, it was 25. In 2018, it was 25. In 2009 it hit 123. In 2003, it was 32. In 2002 it was 46. In 2001 it was 27. In 1999 it was 33. Are you talking about monthly? Maybe... The other thing about those times is we didn't have an unprecedented decline in commercial activity. How could businesses shut down indefinitely and a global pandemic looming over the world and the natural market response be "bullish for business!". Come on... > Pensioners like basically everyone else aren't invested in dollar bills under their mattresses. Yes, they're invested in fixed income who yield < 2% and will likely drop a lot in dollar terms once rates ramp up.

arcticbull 5y ago
> If something coincides with something else nearly 100% of the time, I think its safe to say there's some relation between the two. And printing money is always prior to inflation. Not really no, which is why we have the whole correlation != causation thing. The number of people who drowned in a swimming pool perfectly correlates with power generated by US nuclear plants over 10 years. [1] There's obviously no causative relationship. The same is true here - you need a model to adequately explain otherwise you're just intuiting, and intuition is frequently wrong. > Are you talking about monthly? Maybe... The other thing about those times is we didn't have an unprecedented decline in commercial activity. How could businesses shut down indefinitely and a global pandemic looming over the world and the natural market response be "bullish for business!". Come on... Again, much of the market performance is in big tech which has done extremely well over the last two years. Google is just one example. Look at the top NASDAQ and S&P holdings and you'll see the same thing. The market isn't the economy. > Yes, they're invested in fixed income who yield < 2% and will likely drop a lot in dollar terms once rates ramp up. Doesn't when they entered the market, and their allocation, mean a whole lot more? [1] https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- bko 5y ago
  > Not really no, which is why we have the whole correlation != causation thing. The number of people who drowned in a swimming pool perfectly correlates with power generated by US nuclear plants over 10 years Not every encounter with a body of water results in drowning. But nearly every drowning involves a body of water. It's not about correlation. It's bayesian probability. P(drowning|water) >> P(drowning) P(lung cancer|smoking) >> P(lung cancer) P(inflation|money printing) >> P(inflation) Do you get it yet? > The same is true here - you need a model to adequately explain otherwise you're just intuiting, and intuition is frequently wrong. Pretty much any econ 101 book. Search basic economics in Amazon for sources
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Pretty much any econ 101 book. Search basic economics in Amazon for sources Only the Austrian ones, which are long since abandoned.