Macarthur said:
No doubt there are multiple contributing factors, but I've read numerous articles that claim that the issues w supply chains, transportation, etc from the pandemic are not really a factor anymore.
1) When you are comparing U.S. inflation as almost as good as Brazil inflation, something is amiss, for multiple reasons, including their maturity as an economy, their history of governmental corruption, and their historical inflation rates.Macarthur said:Couple of things:BusterAg said:
If you guys are really arguing that inflation hasn't really been all that bad over the last 4 years, I have nothing else to say.
Yes, inflation has been an issue, but US businesses have recorded record profits quarter after quarter since the pandemic. There has to be a conversation about some level of price gouging going on.
Inflation has been better in the US than many other parts of the world.
https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rates-us-and-the-world-7369986
BusterAg said:
Can you please find me a thread started by Seamaster where he said that legitimizing gay marriage was going to lead to people teaching homosexually is appropriate to grade schoolers, and many posters said that this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument that would never happen.
Trust me when I say dozens of these existed at one time.
You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
So if the S&P and the money in bank accounts are also indicators of inflation, then where do we track wealth creation? Why do people generally view high stock prices as "good" but a higher CPI as "bad" if both are just indicators of inflation? Not trying to come across as critical. I'm just curious. You always hear that high stock prices and high levels of capital investment are signals of a good economy, while a high consumer price index is a signal of a bad economyZobel said:
Absolutely the S&P is an indicator of inflation, though. Inflation calculation is just a benchmark, it's all relative.
Money in the bank is liquid - for the bank! It enables loans, and lowers the cost of capital for borrowers. Money in stocks is liquid - for the company! It is capital, equity for cash, and functions exactly like a loan with an expected return, either in equity value increase or a dividend, which are really the same thing related by net present value and interest rates.
Part of what we're experiencing now is a capital crunch caused by baby boomers removing their capital from the markets en masse. Less capital means higher borrowing costs, more people competing for fewer dollars - higher interest rates.
I'm not an economist by training or trade. But I would chalk it up to 2 things. We single handedly financed the winning side of the most expensive war in history WW2. After we won, we were able to get repayments from both allies and enemies alike. That carried us through the lat 40's to the early 60's. At that point, the Baby Boomers entered the labor force like a titanic wave until about 1980. You can chart a steady downward trend in the purchasing power of a single working individual from about 1975 to the present. The large scale entrance of women into the workforce starting in the 1980s brought a second income to a lot of homes and drove up the numbers of people in the labor force. So it masked the fact that a single working person could no longer support a Simpons lifestyle. We're just now coming to a point where two educated working individuals have trouble supporting a Simpsons lifestyle, and seems like a major stress point and possible breaking point to me.BusterAg said:How do you explain the economic miracle of the U.S. between 1945 and 2008? Super-strong middle class during that time period, especially around the meat of the good years, between 1960 and 2000.ramblin_ag02 said:Quote:
Running with that thought, it seems that most if not all civilizations are only stable when land, wealth, power, etc are all very concentrated. When someone outside the upper class gets enough of these things, you tend to see instability. See France 1790 or Russia 1917. A powerful middle class is a historically destabilizing influence. It's a sad commentary on humanity if true and if you believe in the notion of fairness and equality, but I can't get around the apparent historical trend.
Inflation is not a monolithic thing. Prices are in flux, all the time. Think of it as information - price is just the current value, in one moment, at each transaction. "The Price" of something is just the market aggregation of that.Quote:
So if the S&P and the money in bank accounts are also indicators of inflation, then where do we track wealth creation? Why do people generally view high stock prices as "good" but a higher CPI as "bad" if both are just indicators of inflation? Not trying to come across as critical. I'm just curious. You always hear that high stock prices and high levels of capital investment are signals of a good economy, while a high consumer price index is a signal of a bad economy
fify.Quote:
Here's an article about how artificially low interest rates gives bad faith actors improved purchase power due to being able to more easily borrow money against already leveraged capital.
Quote:
3) Germany just decriminalized child porn this week.
Not really. As with most predictions, they were in the right direction, just a bit off the mark.Aggrad08 said:
To your basic question, yes I think it's good to have these predictions time capsuled. But to turn your point back at you, do you agree that the predictions made by seamaster et al in those threads provided have not come to pass?
Zobel said:You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
Forget what is being purchased - consider them as flat products. Whether we're talking about a bridge, or a new factory, or a pair of socks. There is supply and demand, and each product has second and third and n-th order effects after initial purchase as that money moves through the economy.
I would actually suppose that injecting that money at the lowest possible level is likely to be more efficient in aggregate in the allocation of capital, because you're linking the new supply with demand. The counterpoint to this is that you're also creating marginal demand for otherwise unneeded products (i.e., luxury goods) once baseline demands is met. That would create an inefficiency in the form of a false signal to the market for the demand for those things. But... capital projects do the exact same thing, unless they are actually needed. Or, if there is no immediate needs, that money can be put to use as capital and cause, say, an equities bubble.
The best way to inject money is simply to lower the interest rate. This makes money less expensive in general and leaves the market free to allocate it to where it is needed. But, there is still a moral hazard artificially low interest rates, because projects on the margins of "true" economic viability cross the bar, and you get malinvestment.
Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.Quote:this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
BusterAg said:Zobel said:You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
Forget what is being purchased - consider them as flat products. Whether we're talking about a bridge, or a new factory, or a pair of socks. There is supply and demand, and each product has second and third and n-th order effects after initial purchase as that money moves through the economy.
I would actually suppose that injecting that money at the lowest possible level is likely to be more efficient in aggregate in the allocation of capital, because you're linking the new supply with demand. The counterpoint to this is that you're also creating marginal demand for otherwise unneeded products (i.e., luxury goods) once baseline demands is met. That would create an inefficiency in the form of a false signal to the market for the demand for those things. But... capital projects do the exact same thing, unless they are actually needed. Or, if there is no immediate needs, that money can be put to use as capital and cause, say, an equities bubble.
The best way to inject money is simply to lower the interest rate. This makes money less expensive in general and leaves the market free to allocate it to where it is needed. But, there is still a moral hazard artificially low interest rates, because projects on the margins of "true" economic viability cross the bar, and you get malinvestment.Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.Quote:this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
The payoff is less commuting time, leading to more commerce, leading to higher value real estate, leading to higher property taxes, leading to more civil services, etc. Those are long-term payoffs that happen over time. And, it helps GPD.
In a stimulus check, the money goes to red bully, funyuns, doritos, frozen burritos, manchego, McD's french fries, lobsters, and little league private lessons on curveballs. All of that is consumed immediately. There is no payback to the economy. You are just going to jack up the demand for cheese.
The place where the Austrians sometimes fall down is in practicality. All models are wrong. Some are useful. Those that assume a private company will someday build a bridge are not useful.
It's not that the S&P index is in of itself a good or bad signal for inflation. Some key questions are what is the price / earnings ratio, and what is the real return of the index?ramblin_ag02 said:So if the S&P and the money in bank accounts are also indicators of inflation, then where do we track wealth creation? Why do people generally view high stock prices as "good" but a higher CPI as "bad" if both are just indicators of inflation? Not trying to come across as critical. I'm just curious. You always hear that high stock prices and high levels of capital investment are signals of a good economy, while a high consumer price index is a signal of a bad economyZobel said:
Absolutely the S&P is an indicator of inflation, though. Inflation calculation is just a benchmark, it's all relative.
Money in the bank is liquid - for the bank! It enables loans, and lowers the cost of capital for borrowers. Money in stocks is liquid - for the company! It is capital, equity for cash, and functions exactly like a loan with an expected return, either in equity value increase or a dividend, which are really the same thing related by net present value and interest rates.
Part of what we're experiencing now is a capital crunch caused by baby boomers removing their capital from the markets en masse. Less capital means higher borrowing costs, more people competing for fewer dollars - higher interest rates.
You have a point but there is very little criticism of helping the actual poor.Macarthur said:BusterAg said:Zobel said:You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
Forget what is being purchased - consider them as flat products. Whether we're talking about a bridge, or a new factory, or a pair of socks. There is supply and demand, and each product has second and third and n-th order effects after initial purchase as that money moves through the economy.
I would actually suppose that injecting that money at the lowest possible level is likely to be more efficient in aggregate in the allocation of capital, because you're linking the new supply with demand. The counterpoint to this is that you're also creating marginal demand for otherwise unneeded products (i.e., luxury goods) once baseline demands is met. That would create an inefficiency in the form of a false signal to the market for the demand for those things. But... capital projects do the exact same thing, unless they are actually needed. Or, if there is no immediate needs, that money can be put to use as capital and cause, say, an equities bubble.
The best way to inject money is simply to lower the interest rate. This makes money less expensive in general and leaves the market free to allocate it to where it is needed. But, there is still a moral hazard artificially low interest rates, because projects on the margins of "true" economic viability cross the bar, and you get malinvestment.Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.Quote:this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
The payoff is less commuting time, leading to more commerce, leading to higher value real estate, leading to higher property taxes, leading to more civil services, etc. Those are long-term payoffs that happen over time. And, it helps GPD.
In a stimulus check, the money goes to red bully, funyuns, doritos, frozen burritos, manchego, McD's french fries, lobsters, and little league private lessons on curveballs. All of that is consumed immediately. There is no payback to the economy. You are just going to jack up the demand for cheese.
The place where the Austrians sometimes fall down is in practicality. All models are wrong. Some are useful. Those that assume a private company will someday build a bridge are not useful.
I find this a very cynical take. It strikes me as odd that when we have tough times, any help given out to those at the bottom of the ladder is vilified and talked down to, but bailing out banks and billion dollar companies is seen as vital to our economy. If you have any wonder why these younger generations are more jaded and aren't fallling into line with what have been our 'working norms', look no futher than this type of attitude.
One, you're only considering first order effects. The money spent on steel, concrete, etc doesn't stop there. Those vendors deliver cash to their shareholders and employees, who buy red bull, funyuns, doritos, etc. And in both cases, those companies deliver cash to their shareholders and employees, and so on. So your comment of "There is no payback to the economy" is simply incorrect.Quote:
Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.
The payoff is less commuting time, leading to more commerce, leading to higher value real estate, leading to higher property taxes, leading to more civil services, etc. Those are long-term payoffs that happen over time. And, it helps GPD.
In a stimulus check, the money goes to red bully, funyuns, doritos, frozen burritos, manchego, McD's french fries, lobsters, and little league private lessons on curveballs. All of that is consumed immediately. There is no payback to the economy. You are just going to jack up the demand for cheese.
Macarthur said:BusterAg said:Zobel said:You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
Forget what is being purchased - consider them as flat products. Whether we're talking about a bridge, or a new factory, or a pair of socks. There is supply and demand, and each product has second and third and n-th order effects after initial purchase as that money moves through the economy.
I would actually suppose that injecting that money at the lowest possible level is likely to be more efficient in aggregate in the allocation of capital, because you're linking the new supply with demand. The counterpoint to this is that you're also creating marginal demand for otherwise unneeded products (i.e., luxury goods) once baseline demands is met. That would create an inefficiency in the form of a false signal to the market for the demand for those things. But... capital projects do the exact same thing, unless they are actually needed. Or, if there is no immediate needs, that money can be put to use as capital and cause, say, an equities bubble.
The best way to inject money is simply to lower the interest rate. This makes money less expensive in general and leaves the market free to allocate it to where it is needed. But, there is still a moral hazard artificially low interest rates, because projects on the margins of "true" economic viability cross the bar, and you get malinvestment.Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.Quote:this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
The payoff is less commuting time, leading to more commerce, leading to higher value real estate, leading to higher property taxes, leading to more civil services, etc. Those are long-term payoffs that happen over time. And, it helps GPD.
In a stimulus check, the money goes to red bully, funyuns, doritos, frozen burritos, manchego, McD's french fries, lobsters, and little league private lessons on curveballs. All of that is consumed immediately. There is no payback to the economy. You are just going to jack up the demand for cheese.
The place where the Austrians sometimes fall down is in practicality. All models are wrong. Some are useful. Those that assume a private company will someday build a bridge are not useful.
I find this a very cynical take. It strikes me as odd that when we have tough times, any help given out to those at the bottom of the ladder is vilified and talked down to, but bailing out banks and billion dollar companies is seen as vital to our economy. If you have any wonder why these younger generations are more jaded and aren't fallling into line with what have been our 'working norms', look no futher than this type of attitude.
A bit off the mark? Really? Normalization of pedophilia isn't anywhere close to happing. Polygamy isn't close to happening. A collapse of marriage isn't close to happening.BusterAg said:Not really. As with most predictions, they were in the right direction, just a bit off the mark.Aggrad08 said:
To your basic question, yes I think it's good to have these predictions time capsuled. But to turn your point back at you, do you agree that the predictions made by seamaster et al in those threads provided have not come to pass?
Quote:
I don't think anyone saw the ***** / boob chopping block coming in 2019 for our young adults.
Quote:
Nor the pronoun craze. Nor the amount of normalization of transgenderism in public schools. Pedophilia itself was off the table, so the crazy lefties are just biting around the edges wherever they can.
Quote:
Also, pedophilia is becoming less stigmatized, right? Minor attracted person? What the hell?
I was going to post something stupid, but decided against it after a bit of research. The average GDP growth from 1960 to today has been 3.35% annually, but the annual inflation rate has been 3.8%. So for 64 years we have been losing economic ground by 0.45% annually on average. But the stock market has been growth 10+% per year. So somehow the stock market has been outpacing inflation over that time even though the GDP has not. So why isn't that corporate liquidity driving inflation?Zobel said:
I'm not sure it is relevant - y'all are imposing some kind of desirability onto the spending based on the first order effect of the stimulus. I don't think that's the right way to think about it. I think what matters is the overall effect of the money.
Giving the same amount of capital to wealthy people who turn around and put it into equities probably has much less of a short term economic impact than giving it to poor people who buy Doritos with it.
The bigger point though is that none of that matters, because no matter what you do eventually the average price levels in the economy will increase to reflect the additional money in the system. It is completely unavoidable, a mathematical certainty. The only difference you can make with where you inject the money is who benefits the most and the soonest (whether that is the people receiving the stimulus directly or the first order beneficiaries of the spending).
AGC said:Macarthur said:BusterAg said:Zobel said:You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
Forget what is being purchased - consider them as flat products. Whether we're talking about a bridge, or a new factory, or a pair of socks. There is supply and demand, and each product has second and third and n-th order effects after initial purchase as that money moves through the economy.
I would actually suppose that injecting that money at the lowest possible level is likely to be more efficient in aggregate in the allocation of capital, because you're linking the new supply with demand. The counterpoint to this is that you're also creating marginal demand for otherwise unneeded products (i.e., luxury goods) once baseline demands is met. That would create an inefficiency in the form of a false signal to the market for the demand for those things. But... capital projects do the exact same thing, unless they are actually needed. Or, if there is no immediate needs, that money can be put to use as capital and cause, say, an equities bubble.
The best way to inject money is simply to lower the interest rate. This makes money less expensive in general and leaves the market free to allocate it to where it is needed. But, there is still a moral hazard artificially low interest rates, because projects on the margins of "true" economic viability cross the bar, and you get malinvestment.Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.Quote:this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
The payoff is less commuting time, leading to more commerce, leading to higher value real estate, leading to higher property taxes, leading to more civil services, etc. Those are long-term payoffs that happen over time. And, it helps GPD.
In a stimulus check, the money goes to red bully, funyuns, doritos, frozen burritos, manchego, McD's french fries, lobsters, and little league private lessons on curveballs. All of that is consumed immediately. There is no payback to the economy. You are just going to jack up the demand for cheese.
The place where the Austrians sometimes fall down is in practicality. All models are wrong. Some are useful. Those that assume a private company will someday build a bridge are not useful.
I find this a very cynical take. It strikes me as odd that when we have tough times, any help given out to those at the bottom of the ladder is vilified and talked down to, but bailing out banks and billion dollar companies is seen as vital to our economy. If you have any wonder why these younger generations are more jaded and aren't fallling into line with what have been our 'working norms', look no futher than this type of attitude.
Do people in poverty change their habits during tough times? The answer is predominantly no; in fact, the reason they're given money for stimulus is precisely because they blow through it. The mentality of, 'I have this today but won't tomorrow so I should spend it' isn't some imagined stigma. Our BJJ gym changed with stimmy money and went back to the pre-existing 'normal' after.
You need to step outside your worldview to evaluate these decisions. Note that this isn't a defense of bank bailouts, nor to be misconstrued as standing in contrast to any general public policy or idea. I'm just engaging with your, 'but the poor!!' sentiment. Their lot is not materially improved and they're still a check or two from disaster.
Edit: not giving them money would have forced some re-evaluation of Covid policies that caused all this in the first place. It was shutting everything down that caused this. If chaos is on the table you could always open it up and let people make their own decisions. You don't get the benefit of making all the right decisions in hindsight and not getting punished for what's going on now as a result. It's the fault of those who shut down the country that we're here.
Wait, do you think transgender people just emerged in 2019? No, it became the conservative cause du jour around then.BusterAg said:Not really. As with most predictions, they were in the right direction, just a bit off the mark.Aggrad08 said:
To your basic question, yes I think it's good to have these predictions time capsuled. But to turn your point back at you, do you agree that the predictions made by seamaster et al in those threads provided have not come to pass?
I don't think anyone saw the ***** / boob chopping block coming in 2019 for our young adults. Nor the pronoun craze. Nor the amount of normalization of transgenderism in public schools. Pedophilia itself was off the table, so the crazy lefties are just biting around the edges wherever they can.
Also, pedophilia is becoming less stigmatized, right? Minor attracted person? What the hell?
It still is.Quote:
Pedophilia itself was off the table,
No they're not. Fighting for the rights of LGBT people is not an end-run to piggieback pedophilia into the mainstream.Quote:
so the crazy lefties are just biting around the edges wherever they can.
You cite this as if it's fact and not just the insane claim of hysterical people.Quote:
Also, pedophilia is becoming less stigmatized, right?
This isn't a term with any actual traction. It's used by 2 types of people: a very small group of vocal pedophiles who are trying to co-opt the LGBT rights movement with no success at actually doing so, and people like you who are eager to magnify their claims and give them legitimacy every chance they get.Quote:
Minor attracted person? What the hell?
Macarthur said:AGC said:Macarthur said:BusterAg said:Zobel said:You'd have to do quite a bit of analysis to find out the answer to that question. Capital projects aren't guaranteed to be a more efficient allocation of excess capital than consumer spending. See: China over the past few decades. Malinvestment is a real thing.Quote:
In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.
If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.
Forget what is being purchased - consider them as flat products. Whether we're talking about a bridge, or a new factory, or a pair of socks. There is supply and demand, and each product has second and third and n-th order effects after initial purchase as that money moves through the economy.
I would actually suppose that injecting that money at the lowest possible level is likely to be more efficient in aggregate in the allocation of capital, because you're linking the new supply with demand. The counterpoint to this is that you're also creating marginal demand for otherwise unneeded products (i.e., luxury goods) once baseline demands is met. That would create an inefficiency in the form of a false signal to the market for the demand for those things. But... capital projects do the exact same thing, unless they are actually needed. Or, if there is no immediate needs, that money can be put to use as capital and cause, say, an equities bubble.
The best way to inject money is simply to lower the interest rate. This makes money less expensive in general and leaves the market free to allocate it to where it is needed. But, there is still a moral hazard artificially low interest rates, because projects on the margins of "true" economic viability cross the bar, and you get malinvestment.Only the government is going to build that bridge that is going to unlock the potential of undeveloped land just over the river from the major commerce sites and unlock extra tax revenues. If the government builds the bridge, the money will be spent on steel, concrete, cranes time, coffee beans, pocket protectors, and cat memes. That will trickle down to the rest of the economy, yes, but a lot of that cash goes into inputs of production that get consumed in the project.Quote:this is not a thing, at least not at this level. any and all government spending has this exact same effect. it doesn't matter whether it is a capital project or not. this is an argument against stimulus in general (which I agree with).Quote:
The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.
If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.
Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.
The payoff is less commuting time, leading to more commerce, leading to higher value real estate, leading to higher property taxes, leading to more civil services, etc. Those are long-term payoffs that happen over time. And, it helps GPD.
In a stimulus check, the money goes to red bully, funyuns, doritos, frozen burritos, manchego, McD's french fries, lobsters, and little league private lessons on curveballs. All of that is consumed immediately. There is no payback to the economy. You are just going to jack up the demand for cheese.
The place where the Austrians sometimes fall down is in practicality. All models are wrong. Some are useful. Those that assume a private company will someday build a bridge are not useful.
I find this a very cynical take. It strikes me as odd that when we have tough times, any help given out to those at the bottom of the ladder is vilified and talked down to, but bailing out banks and billion dollar companies is seen as vital to our economy. If you have any wonder why these younger generations are more jaded and aren't fallling into line with what have been our 'working norms', look no futher than this type of attitude.
Do people in poverty change their habits during tough times? The answer is predominantly no; in fact, the reason they're given money for stimulus is precisely because they blow through it. The mentality of, 'I have this today but won't tomorrow so I should spend it' isn't some imagined stigma. Our BJJ gym changed with stimmy money and went back to the pre-existing 'normal' after.
You need to step outside your worldview to evaluate these decisions. Note that this isn't a defense of bank bailouts, nor to be misconstrued as standing in contrast to any general public policy or idea. I'm just engaging with your, 'but the poor!!' sentiment. Their lot is not materially improved and they're still a check or two from disaster.
Edit: not giving them money would have forced some re-evaluation of Covid policies that caused all this in the first place. It was shutting everything down that caused this. If chaos is on the table you could always open it up and let people make their own decisions. You don't get the benefit of making all the right decisions in hindsight and not getting punished for what's going on now as a result. It's the fault of those who shut down the country that we're here.
Again, you using terms like 'blowing through money' shows me that YOU are the one that needs to step outside your world view. I think it's staggeringly ignorant of what the lower middle class and working poor deal with on a daily basis.
Zobel said:
I'm not sure it is relevant - y'all are imposing some kind of desirability onto the spending based on the first order effect of the stimulus. I don't think that's the right way to think about it. I think what matters is the overall effect of the money.
Giving the same amount of capital to wealthy people who turn around and put it into equities probably has much less of a short term economic impact than giving it to poor people who buy Doritos with it.
The bigger point though is that none of that matters, because no matter what you do eventually the average price levels in the economy will increase to reflect the additional money in the system. It is completely unavoidable, a mathematical certainty. The only difference you can make with where you inject the money is who benefits the most and the soonest (whether that is the people receiving the stimulus directly or the first order beneficiaries of the spending).
Labor costs have been going up for a while. Here's a 2018 article about mcdonalds kiosks because of minimum wage increases in 2018Sapper Redux said:
The kiosks were being placed before there was any movement on minimum wages and many places are actually removing self-checkout machines because they aren't cost effective and upset customers.
