DM to Financial Market Guru guy
- Thread starter doogie
- Start date
HoustonHusky
New Fish
HoustonHusky
New Fish
Yes. The idea house prices have, what doubled or tripled in the last 10 years but inflation is 1% makes zero sense when you step back and look at it. The fact the govt changed the calculation to try and pay less SS doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Stick to sports.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
@HoustonHusky , we've written much here, and we are on the same page, about what we should be seeing. I don't get it. I think your position is more intellectually-based, mine is more gut-level, "how can that be?" based.
But, fuck, the one thing on which I do not think we (the royal we) have settled is, what is the "right" inflation test analysis? Even if we settle on the right bundle of goods, it doesn't feel inflationary to me if there is a reasonable, or at least rational, economic explanation for price increase other than monetary inflation and pure loss of buying power. That is, if the currency is still a proxy for a robust economy, or the expectation / speculation of it, then do we have real inflation? So stories about supply chains and actual robust demand need not apply to our conversation.
One example is the stock market. Earnings, real value stories and other normal measures of the pie getting larger are disconnected from prevailing prices. There has to be some speculation built in there for post-COVID economis parties. But still, major disconnect. Not inflation in the Germany post WWI sense; but inflationary nonetheless.
For monetary policy inflation, I'm still waiting for the $15 loaf of bread. Am I wrong here?
Last edited:
HoustonHusky
New Fish
We’ve hidden a lot of it through banking/finance...it used to be 20% down on a mortgage with 7% interest. Now it’s 0% down on a house with 3% 30-yr mortgage...keeps the “payments” from ramping up even though the underlying asset’s prices do. For cars you can get, what a 6 or 8 year note now at 2% rate? Unheard of 20 years ago. IPhones are $1,300, but they roll into a monthly fee on the cell plan so nobody knows or cares. College tuition is up 500%, but the govt let’s you finance more $$$ for longer periods of time at artificially low interest rates. It’s why people have so much shite and are still up to their ears in debt.
A lot of this changed with the budget deals with Clinton and Gingrich and even Greenspan way back when...they were looking for ways to limit the SS spending going forward and juice the GDP numbers. It some ways it works, but long-term it helps further divide the haves from the have-nots. And the unforeseen consequence has been that it let the Federal Govt spend itself silly racking up debt.
A lot of this changed with the budget deals with Clinton and Gingrich and even Greenspan way back when...they were looking for ways to limit the SS spending going forward and juice the GDP numbers. It some ways it works, but long-term it helps further divide the haves from the have-nots. And the unforeseen consequence has been that it let the Federal Govt spend itself silly racking up debt.
Last edited:
doogie
New Fish
Buckle up buttercup.
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/mysterious-111-billion-payment-gap-talk-town
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Interesting. I did not understand the first third of the article. Typical esoteric finance speak ... and you guys complain about the lawyers invoking latin phrases into our work.
But as I pressed on through the article, I started to get the punchline, which I think is this:
... As in the 1930s, no country wants to see a stronger currency and become a larger net importer of goods (and exporter of jobs). That includes China. To avoid excess FX appreciation on the back of its huge trade surpluses and the rising capital inflows from global markets happily shrugging off any Biden appeals to trans-Atlantic values, Beijing may not only allow easy access to the promised USD50,000 in per capita annual FX outflows, but permit this for buying foreign financial assets or property! [/b]Let’s see if this is actually delivered, but if it is, more levitation for all assets outside China seems assured. Ta-dah! Let’s just try not to think of the risks involved from the asset-liability imbalances as foreign capital flows into China, and those FX flow back out again rather than boosting its FX reserves – especially if that FX flows into US assets, helping to push up US real yields even faster[/i]
This point of no home team wanting its currency to be over-valued is for most people not an obvious one, but this article is a good explanation for why that is.
@godawgst
@Houhusky
thoughts?
Last edited:
Why not @oregonblitzkrieg ?
creepycoug
Well-known poster
You know this well as a veteran of the Tug wars. I automatically don't like people who don't like me a split second before they articulate their feelings. It's a gift.
OBK is on the Creepycoug no-fly list. Will always be. You can roll around in the dirt with him in the Tug. But you damned-well better clean yourself up and put on a jacket when you come back to the Club.
Live look at this place
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Thud.
Just keep your sheep herders out of town
@creepycoug highlights" But as I pressed on through the article, I started to get the punchline, which I think is this:
... As in the 1930s, no country wants to see a stronger currency and become a larger net importer of goods (and exporter of jobs). That includes China. To avoid excess FX appreciation on the back of its huge trade surpluses and the rising capital inflows from global markets happily shrugging off any Biden appeals to trans-Atlantic values, Beijing may not only allow easy access to the promised USD50,000 in per capita annual FX outflows, but permit this for buying foreign financial assets or property! Let’s see if this is actually delivered, but if it is, more levitation for all assets outside China seems assured. Ta-dah! Let’s just try not to think of the risks involved from the asset-liability imbalances as foreign capital flows into China, and those FX flow back out again rather than boosting its FX reserves – especially if that FX flows into US assets, helping to push up US real yields even faster"
Comments:
Here are interesting stats with the understanding that this is an Cheetas to Lambchops comparison in the sense that who knows what is being included and excluded in the comparison ~ a sardonic but relatable chestnut saying that I love as a stats guy which I always keep in mind when I look at stuff like this is:"figures lie and liars figure"[/b].
The obvious point of comparison is about comparing the trajectory of the growth rate... yow, china is off the charts in the trajectory comparison.
The global comparison shows that #3 eventually is India which brings up my main point... the most relevant measure of economic growth over time is measured as a function of new economic household formation.
I'm defining "new economic household formation" as the combination of two factors:
1. The demographic of under 30 youth that as they mature, they enter the work force and set up an independent "economic household" and
2. The hidden factor of those that were living below the average consumption standards of the local economy as measured in a country and regions around the world that are now beginning to grow equity, and are consequently increasing their consumption patterns of raw materials, products and services from previously low 3rd world standards to the average consumption levels of the established economic households in their region [another source of forming a new "economic household".
Simply put, the highest growth rate countries are China and India because the industrialization and build out of infrastructure has created enough critical mass over time to change the consumption patterns from a largely decentralized rural society into the growth patterns associated with industrialization and "modern" urban styles of consumption ~ the very same phenomenon we witnessed in the United States between 1860-1960.
The above breathlessly states an essential underlying difference between emerging economies when compared with those of the mature major markets of the US, Japan, the EU [with the exception of the eastern states] and Germany.
What we are now witnessing in China is amazing when viewed from a historical perspective ~ the trajectory of the accumulation of capital, coupled with the continuing build out of infrastructure which will continue to be supported by way above average new household formation, and way below average cost of manufacturing due to the still way below cost basis of labor and materials is launching them into the strongest economic position we have seen since the American industrial revolution.
Within that context, the government of China is happy to see the inflow of balance of trade excess capital and their existing Government policy to prohibit / limit foreign investment of the accumulated capital of Chinese individuals and corporations is likely to continue indefinitely as it serves to force reinvestment and consumption within the Chinese economy [which only makes it stronger].
... As in the 1930s, no country wants to see a stronger currency and become a larger net importer of goods (and exporter of jobs). That includes China. To avoid excess FX appreciation on the back of its huge trade surpluses and the rising capital inflows from global markets happily shrugging off any Biden appeals to trans-Atlantic values, Beijing may not only allow easy access to the promised USD50,000 in per capita annual FX outflows, but permit this for buying foreign financial assets or property! Let’s see if this is actually delivered, but if it is, more levitation for all assets outside China seems assured. Ta-dah! Let’s just try not to think of the risks involved from the asset-liability imbalances as foreign capital flows into China, and those FX flow back out again rather than boosting its FX reserves – especially if that FX flows into US assets, helping to push up US real yields even faster"
Comments:
Here are interesting stats with the understanding that this is an Cheetas to Lambchops comparison in the sense that who knows what is being included and excluded in the comparison ~ a sardonic but relatable chestnut saying that I love as a stats guy which I always keep in mind when I look at stuff like this is:"figures lie and liars figure"[/b].
The obvious point of comparison is about comparing the trajectory of the growth rate... yow, china is off the charts in the trajectory comparison.
The global comparison shows that #3 eventually is India which brings up my main point... the most relevant measure of economic growth over time is measured as a function of new economic household formation.
I'm defining "new economic household formation" as the combination of two factors:
1. The demographic of under 30 youth that as they mature, they enter the work force and set up an independent "economic household" and
2. The hidden factor of those that were living below the average consumption standards of the local economy as measured in a country and regions around the world that are now beginning to grow equity, and are consequently increasing their consumption patterns of raw materials, products and services from previously low 3rd world standards to the average consumption levels of the established economic households in their region [another source of forming a new "economic household".
Simply put, the highest growth rate countries are China and India because the industrialization and build out of infrastructure has created enough critical mass over time to change the consumption patterns from a largely decentralized rural society into the growth patterns associated with industrialization and "modern" urban styles of consumption ~ the very same phenomenon we witnessed in the United States between 1860-1960.
The above breathlessly states an essential underlying difference between emerging economies when compared with those of the mature major markets of the US, Japan, the EU [with the exception of the eastern states] and Germany.
What we are now witnessing in China is amazing when viewed from a historical perspective ~ the trajectory of the accumulation of capital, coupled with the continuing build out of infrastructure which will continue to be supported by way above average new household formation, and way below average cost of manufacturing due to the still way below cost basis of labor and materials is launching them into the strongest economic position we have seen since the American industrial revolution.
Within that context, the government of China is happy to see the inflow of balance of trade excess capital and their existing Government policy to prohibit / limit foreign investment of the accumulated capital of Chinese individuals and corporations is likely to continue indefinitely as it serves to force reinvestment and consumption within the Chinese economy [which only makes it stronger].
Last edited: