3 ms·

This guy is failing at basic math: Inflationary monetary policy enriches debt holders who are leveraged into assets with said debt. The amount of debt rich pe

This guy is failing at basic math: Inflationary monetary policy enriches debt holders who are leveraged into assets with said debt. The amount of debt rich people have comparable to the rest per capita means the rich will get richer when money is printed. Printing money transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, and exacerbates wealth inequality. This is basic fucking math.

lapcat 3y ago
> This guy is failing at basic math To clarify: by this guy, do you mean the Nobel Prize winner in economics?
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  Macro economics though, so I'd trust his insights about as much as rolling dice, maybe less.
- Natsu 3y ago
  I mean, we've had one Nobel Peace Prize winner bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's better if you disagree in terms of the ideas instead of credentials.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    They probably disagreed on a but more complex topic than basic math. In theory you're correct, in practice, delusional.
    - Natsu 3y ago
      I am not the OP. We kinda did see mass inflation recently, we did see billionaires getting richer by investing in things like farmland while everyone else saw their real wages go down due to lack of sufficient raises and inflation, etc. So if I have to go between someone who can explain things that are happening and point at things that have just been observed in the real world and fancy credentials and unclear ideas, well, the credentials and $5 will buy you less than they did a few years ago.
      - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        Firstly, the rich typically get richer no matter the economic conditions, or at the very least lose less than the regular people. So that angle is not exactly fresh. Secondly, I don't want to engage in a discussion where an internet rando throws around vague but strong statements, leaving it up to me to dig up the details. This is no different from people claiming a proof of the Riemann hypothesis or going against climate science. It would be a different story if it was phrased more humbly or as a question, then maybe a meaningful discussion could take place.
        Natsu 3y ago
        Odd, I thought people would just not reply if they didn't want a conversation. But so often they don't "dig up the details" before commenting, so...
        karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        Well, I have a proof of the Riemann hypothesis for you, here's the outline (...), feel free to spend your time to figure out what I'm trying to say. It'll only take some 30 minutes of your time. Now, imagine if I even worded that in a way of saying how stupid all the Fields medalists are for not figuring this out, since it only uses basic math..
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  Can you dispute my actual substance instead of an appeal to authority?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Can you dispute my actual substance instead of an appeal to authority? Your comment has no substance. It's absurd. You're a random internet commenter claiming that an economics professor and Nobel Prize winner doesn't know basic math. Moreover, the article never mentioned "printing money". You seem to have made that up too. You're misusing the concept of appeal to authority. I'm not claiming that the Nobel Prize proves that all of his theories are correct. However, literally every economics professor in the world knows basic math. It's impossible to become an economics professor, much less a Nobel Prize winner in economics, if you don't know basic math. You're just barking up the wrong tree here.
    - VirusNewbie 3y ago
      >Your comment has no substance. It's absurd It’s absurd to point out that increasing M2 contributes to inequality? This is so simple, surely you could take the time to refute it instead of trying to discredit me. >You’re a random internet commenter Well, one who is employed by one of the most valuable companies in the world to find flaws in systems designed by “experts” with PhDs and way more credentials than I have. I’m likely paid more than 99% of economic professors as well; not sure why I should be impressed by the title of “economist professor” any more than you being impressed by my credentials. > It's impossible to become an economics professor, much less a Nobel Prize winner in economics, if you don't know basic math. I didn't say they didn't know basic math, I said they're 'failing' at it, as in, they're currently making a mistake. It should be quite obvious to everyone that yes, Nobel Prize winning Economics PhDs do make (very public) math errors....
RockyMcNuts 3y ago
easier monetary policy makes the economy run hotter and probably reduces income inequality. easier monetary policy creates bubbly valuations and probably increases wealth inequality. but inflation is complicated. a decent number of not-that-rich people are 80+% levered and see debts evaporate, and not that many really rich people are that levered. on the other hand a decent number of not-that-rich people have fixed-income type assets and receivables, pensions etc., rich people tend to have more equity. unexpected inflation increases the risk premium and term premium and tends to reduce real asset values. things like startups and risk equities and long bonds are a bet on a distant future and people don't like to take those big risks when financial conditions are in turmoil. inflation might increase wealth inequality because there are big winners and losers but it might penalize capital so much that it might reduce overall inequality. in a way inflation negates easy monetary policy by canceling its real boost and making it only illusory nominal growth, and plants the seed for higher interest rates and risk premia. big inflationary surprise years like 73-74 and 78-79 were big interest rate surprise years and pretty catastrophic for stocks. capital kind of hates inflation so it's probably not that great for capital. there's also the taxation issue, a lot of inflation gets recognized as income when it's just nominal and not real gains.
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  >and not that many really rich people are that levered Rich people are levered by proxy through equities.

lapcat 3y ago

> This guy is failing at basic math To clarify: by this guy, do you mean the Nobel Prize winner in economics?

HideousKojima 3y ago
Macro economics though, so I'd trust his insights about as much as rolling dice, maybe less.
Natsu 3y ago
I mean, we've had one Nobel Peace Prize winner bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's better if you disagree in terms of the ideas instead of credentials.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  They probably disagreed on a but more complex topic than basic math. In theory you're correct, in practice, delusional.
  - Natsu 3y ago
    I am not the OP. We kinda did see mass inflation recently, we did see billionaires getting richer by investing in things like farmland while everyone else saw their real wages go down due to lack of sufficient raises and inflation, etc. So if I have to go between someone who can explain things that are happening and point at things that have just been observed in the real world and fancy credentials and unclear ideas, well, the credentials and $5 will buy you less than they did a few years ago.
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      Firstly, the rich typically get richer no matter the economic conditions, or at the very least lose less than the regular people. So that angle is not exactly fresh. Secondly, I don't want to engage in a discussion where an internet rando throws around vague but strong statements, leaving it up to me to dig up the details. This is no different from people claiming a proof of the Riemann hypothesis or going against climate science. It would be a different story if it was phrased more humbly or as a question, then maybe a meaningful discussion could take place.
      - Natsu 3y ago
        Odd, I thought people would just not reply if they didn't want a conversation. But so often they don't "dig up the details" before commenting, so...
        karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        Well, I have a proof of the Riemann hypothesis for you, here's the outline (...), feel free to spend your time to figure out what I'm trying to say. It'll only take some 30 minutes of your time. Now, imagine if I even worded that in a way of saying how stupid all the Fields medalists are for not figuring this out, since it only uses basic math..
VirusNewbie 3y ago
Can you dispute my actual substance instead of an appeal to authority?
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Can you dispute my actual substance instead of an appeal to authority? Your comment has no substance. It's absurd. You're a random internet commenter claiming that an economics professor and Nobel Prize winner doesn't know basic math. Moreover, the article never mentioned "printing money". You seem to have made that up too. You're misusing the concept of appeal to authority. I'm not claiming that the Nobel Prize proves that all of his theories are correct. However, literally every economics professor in the world knows basic math. It's impossible to become an economics professor, much less a Nobel Prize winner in economics, if you don't know basic math. You're just barking up the wrong tree here.
  - VirusNewbie 3y ago
    >Your comment has no substance. It's absurd It’s absurd to point out that increasing M2 contributes to inequality? This is so simple, surely you could take the time to refute it instead of trying to discredit me. >You’re a random internet commenter Well, one who is employed by one of the most valuable companies in the world to find flaws in systems designed by “experts” with PhDs and way more credentials than I have. I’m likely paid more than 99% of economic professors as well; not sure why I should be impressed by the title of “economist professor” any more than you being impressed by my credentials. > It's impossible to become an economics professor, much less a Nobel Prize winner in economics, if you don't know basic math. I didn't say they didn't know basic math, I said they're 'failing' at it, as in, they're currently making a mistake. It should be quite obvious to everyone that yes, Nobel Prize winning Economics PhDs do make (very public) math errors....

RockyMcNuts 3y ago

easier monetary policy makes the economy run hotter and probably reduces income inequality. easier monetary policy creates bubbly valuations and probably increases wealth inequality. but inflation is complicated. a decent number of not-that-rich people are 80+% levered and see debts evaporate, and not that many really rich people are that levered. on the other hand a decent number of not-that-rich people have fixed-income type assets and receivables, pensions etc., rich people tend to have more equity. unexpected inflation increases the risk premium and term premium and tends to reduce real asset values. things like startups and risk equities and long bonds are a bet on a distant future and people don't like to take those big risks when financial conditions are in turmoil. inflation might increase wealth inequality because there are big winners and losers but it might penalize capital so much that it might reduce overall inequality. in a way inflation negates easy monetary policy by canceling its real boost and making it only illusory nominal growth, and plants the seed for higher interest rates and risk premia. big inflationary surprise years like 73-74 and 78-79 were big interest rate surprise years and pretty catastrophic for stocks. capital kind of hates inflation so it's probably not that great for capital. there's also the taxation issue, a lot of inflation gets recognized as income when it's just nominal and not real gains.

VirusNewbie 3y ago
>and not that many really rich people are that levered Rich people are levered by proxy through equities.