7 ms·

Best case what happened in the 70s if this keeps up. Can't predict really as you said. You can bound expectations though. Best outcome is perhaps interest rat

Best case what happened in the 70s if this keeps up. Can't predict really as you said. You can bound expectations though. Best outcome is perhaps interest rates get lower and things resume as normal assuming there is no other lockdown say.

thephyber 4y ago
> what happened in the 70s Do you mean the early 1970s when the US moved off the gold standard and there was a massive oil shock? Or the late 1970s when inflation made an attempt for a runaway spiral? > get lower and things resume as normal The last few years (2008-present) have been anything but “normal”. The Fed has been full throttle on the lowest interest rate for years and Quantitative Easing / asset purchase programs. Stocks and VCs have been juiced with cheap money causing massive distortions in many markets. Normal would involve checking and savings accounts paying a non-trivial interest rate. It would involve actual due diligence in VC, not rubber stamping FOMO. Your “normal” probably needs some recalibration.
- eftychis 4y ago
  Offering a reply as it seems my comment was perceived incorrectly and I can not unfortunately edit it. My wording was perhaps a bit too nuanced. (Again this is my opinion, and I might be wrong. I appreciate your opinion. (And other readers' opinion.)) a) You assume that me saying "best case" if we continue as is, is a good case scenario -- from my point of view it is not. Which is what I am expressing. We both agree here we are not in a good situation. Even if we "recover" GDP wise the buying power of the middle and lower classes is taking a serious hit. This is one of the results of Volcker's policy (to remind he set the Fed policy in '70s) which we are following or asked to follow by some segment of the banking world today (cf. https://econreview.berkeley.edu/then-and-now-the-crisis-of-the-1970s-and-the-upheaval-of-the-2020s/ https://econreview.berkeley.edu/then-and-now-the-crisis-of-t...) Thus, my '70s reference. b) Already economists do not consider 2008 crisis as over. But we are arguably in a continuation of that crisis. Again, this is how an economist historian is going to treat the 2000s. Normal could be before that and sure I could recalibrate my normal, but do you think we should expect magical times? The view that Fed is using too much QE and too much free money is political and moral. I offer no opinion and definitely did not try to include it in my 3 line opinion. Disclaimer: I do not abide in the market efficiency camp. I think history proves that markets are inefficient. > Normal would involve checking and savings accounts paying a non-trivial interest rate. Even now that the fed fund rate has increased, the savings rate offered is low. Why? Because the business model and flows of banks has changed. They don't need to ask for your money. They are going to get it in the U.S. even indirectly. Perhaps they still care if you are a high value individual that can give them a few millions and give them a few percentages of fees annually. They are also now allowed to treat checking and savings the same, thus able to issue more loans. (U.S. detail.) Namely, Regulation D has changed and thus the definition of M1 money also. [0]https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/int_depos.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/int_d... [1] https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-the-m1-money-supply/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec... Those times are over for the foreseeable future, unless U.S. or E.U. enters an unprecedented recession that stirs the banking world fundamentally.
  - thephyber 4y ago
    Very thorough rollout. Thanks!

thephyber 4y ago

> what happened in the 70s Do you mean the early 1970s when the US moved off the gold standard and there was a massive oil shock? Or the late 1970s when inflation made an attempt for a runaway spiral? > get lower and things resume as normal The last few years (2008-present) have been anything but “normal”. The Fed has been full throttle on the lowest interest rate for years and Quantitative Easing / asset purchase programs. Stocks and VCs have been juiced with cheap money causing massive distortions in many markets. Normal would involve checking and savings accounts paying a non-trivial interest rate. It would involve actual due diligence in VC, not rubber stamping FOMO. Your “normal” probably needs some recalibration.

eftychis 4y ago
Offering a reply as it seems my comment was perceived incorrectly and I can not unfortunately edit it. My wording was perhaps a bit too nuanced. (Again this is my opinion, and I might be wrong. I appreciate your opinion. (And other readers' opinion.)) a) You assume that me saying "best case" if we continue as is, is a good case scenario -- from my point of view it is not. Which is what I am expressing. We both agree here we are not in a good situation. Even if we "recover" GDP wise the buying power of the middle and lower classes is taking a serious hit. This is one of the results of Volcker's policy (to remind he set the Fed policy in '70s) which we are following or asked to follow by some segment of the banking world today (cf. https://econreview.berkeley.edu/then-and-now-the-crisis-of-the-1970s-and-the-upheaval-of-the-2020s/ https://econreview.berkeley.edu/then-and-now-the-crisis-of-t...) Thus, my '70s reference. b) Already economists do not consider 2008 crisis as over. But we are arguably in a continuation of that crisis. Again, this is how an economist historian is going to treat the 2000s. Normal could be before that and sure I could recalibrate my normal, but do you think we should expect magical times? The view that Fed is using too much QE and too much free money is political and moral. I offer no opinion and definitely did not try to include it in my 3 line opinion. Disclaimer: I do not abide in the market efficiency camp. I think history proves that markets are inefficient. > Normal would involve checking and savings accounts paying a non-trivial interest rate. Even now that the fed fund rate has increased, the savings rate offered is low. Why? Because the business model and flows of banks has changed. They don't need to ask for your money. They are going to get it in the U.S. even indirectly. Perhaps they still care if you are a high value individual that can give them a few millions and give them a few percentages of fees annually. They are also now allowed to treat checking and savings the same, thus able to issue more loans. (U.S. detail.) Namely, Regulation D has changed and thus the definition of M1 money also. [0]https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/int_depos.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/int_d... [1] https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-the-m1-money-supply/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec... Those times are over for the foreseeable future, unless U.S. or E.U. enters an unprecedented recession that stirs the banking world fundamentally.
- thephyber 4y ago
  Very thorough rollout. Thanks!