• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Inflation

A theory, that I just came up with out of thing air, is that in actual reality the 2010's were highly inflationary*. Its just that a huge amount of dollars were tied up into corporate stock. Most people were just holding shares, and not spending it.

Not thin air but entirely factual.

The inflation all went to assets that don't count towards headline inflation numbers.

And now that cunning plan is coming unstuck, but as you note with housing stock alone, a dip for a year or even several, isn't going to harm that growth a great deal, nor is the Dow likely to ever see 25,000 again.
 
Apparently the spending during the 2008 recession didn't do very much,
nor does quantitative easing over the next ten years, but the spending
by the federal government in 2020 sure did.

In six years the government debt expanded by ten trillion which works out
to about half of the twenty trillion dollar economy - a clear case of rising
supply of dollars.

Slowing the extra spending or raising taxes would definitely cool the inflation.

There are lots of variables in the equation in terms of where the inflation is coming from; my observation was intended to show it is not easy to lay the blame at Biden or Trump or Obama's door. That said, I agree with your last point but no politician is going to want to take the pain that implies and that leaves it up to the Fed to pound on the brakes.

Lawrence Summers had a piece today about how hard it is to curb 8% inflation (paywalled at the WaPo), based on data from first world countries. Basically two years of stiff rates and cutbacks in government spending gets you back to 6%.
 
There are lots of variables in the equation in terms of where the inflation is coming from; my observation was intended to show it is not easy to lay the blame at Biden or Trump or Obama's door. That said, I agree with your last point but no politician is going to want to take the pain that implies and that leaves it up to the Fed to pound on the brakes.

Lawrence Summers had a piece today about how hard it is to curb 8% inflation (paywalled at the WaPo), based on data from first world countries. Basically two years of stiff rates and cutbacks in government spending gets you back to 6%.

Very tight labor market, disruption in the energy market, gargantuan amount of wealth tied in homes**, and de-globalization because a lot of countries are distrustful of international supply chain*. De-globalization means less efficiency which means higher prices. I honestly don't expect "core" inflation to get below 4% for many many years. Fluctuating energy prices might mean headline inflation gets low here and there. I'm thinking if TIPS hit 3% fixed I'm going to allocate the majority of my retirement funds to them.

*plus there's the national security risk of depending on China for
semiconductors

**I have made something like a 300% gain in home equity in 7 years!!
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't expect "core" inflation to get below 4% for many many years.

4 to 6 seems to be a loose consensus. People are waking up to the fact that inflation is here to stay and there's a bit of a rush on to pick a number that it will settle down to.

I'd like to see the higher end, personally, but the world economy doesn't give a **** what I think.

I've certainly had a chuckle at banks suddenly advertising investment rates, having been a dead duck for the past decade.
 
Fed announced another 75bps rate hike... US markets instantly go up for reasons I don't understand.

Arguably because it indicates that the Fed is serious about inflation, which will eventually make longer-term borrowing cheaper.
 
2% down is up?

I'm seeing 1.9 to 3% across the board, and that's even with Powell signalling a slowdown in increases.

I doubt it will go down much further, because +0.75 was already locked into prices.
 
2% down is up?

I'm seeing 1.9 to 3% across the board, and that's even with Powell signalling a slowdown in increases.

I doubt it will go down much further, because +0.75 was already locked into prices.

Markets shot up at 2PM EDT when the number was released. Then, came down hard during Powell's remarks.
 
Last edited:
The whole cause of all the economic problems is "Quantitative Easing", or as I like to call it "print money flat out and hope like christ you didn't create another Weimar Republic".
More specifically, it is governments continuously running massive deficit budgets. Central banks are forced to QE to compensate for this.

Another reason why it should be unconstitutional for governments to run deficit budgets.
 
While some of the blame can be laid at the government's door, the problem (at least in the US) is which government. The inflation of the 1970s was mostly caused by Lyndon Johnson. I suspect a lot of the inflation we are experiencing today in the US is due to the spending during the recession of 2007-2009, along with the stimulus payments made by Trump and Biden in 2020 and 2021.
A major cause of inflation occurred when Richard Nixon decoupled the USD from gold (the alternative would be to reign in spending to avoid gold reserves being depleted).

Pricing international oil in USD is the only reason why the USD is still worth more than the Zimbabwean dollar.
 
More specifically, it is governments continuously running massive deficit budgets. Central banks are forced to QE to compensate for this.

Another reason why it should be unconstitutional for governments to run deficit budgets.

This is backwards. Deficit spending is inflationary and central banks tighten monetary policy in response to inflation. QE is used to combat deflation.

In nearly all cases monetary policy swamps fiscal policy so all you typically get from deficit spending is a tiny increase in interest rates.
 
This is backwards. Deficit spending is inflationary and central banks tighten monetary policy in response to inflation. QE is used to combat deflation.
As usual, you are reacting rather than thinking. The government doesn't print money so the effect of borrowing to fund its deficit is higher interest rates. The Central bank has to buy back some of this government debt to counteract this and that is inflationary.
 
As usual, you are reacting rather than thinking. The government doesn't print money so the effect of borrowing to fund its deficit is higher interest rates. The Central bank has to buy back some of this government debt to counteract this and that is inflationary.

Government borrowing does not "force" the central bank to do anything. The only reason central banks buy government bonds is to increase the money supply in order to keep inflation in the target range.

If inflation is too low the central bank buys government bonds in order to increase the money supply and increase inflation. If inflation is too high the central bank stops buying government bonds and may even sell some it already owns in order to restrict the money supply and reduce inflation. The central bank certainly does not buy government bonds to "help finance deficit spending", this simply isn't a part of the mandate of any central bank in any developed country.
 
Strawman. The central bank does what it does to counteract the effects of government borrowing.

that presumes that government borrowing causes inflation - which it does only if the economic growth doesn't keep pace, as well as a number of other reasons.
 
that presumes that government borrowing causes inflation - which it does only if the economic growth doesn't keep pace, as well as a number of other reasons.
Government borrowing doesn't cause inflation. It puts pressure on interest rates. It is the central bank's attempts to counter the effect on interest rates (by printing money and buying government debt) that is inflationary.
 
Whatever the cause of inflation it is not wage rises. In Australia
Private sector wages rose 2.7% over the year to June quarter 2022, the highest seasonally adjusted rate of growth for the sector since September 2013. Public sector wages rose 2.4% over the year. This is the fourth consecutive quarter in which the rate of growth has increased, as adjustments to State and Federal wage policies in response to the pandemic continued to unwind.

But if we look at inflation is it 7.3% for the year and increasing rapidly. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/e...consumer-price-index-australia/latest-release
 
Strawman. The central bank does what it does to counteract the effects of government borrowing.

Counteracting the effects of fiscal stimulus means cooling the economy and reducing inflation, which is the exact opposite of what you said in your previous post.

More specifically, it is governments continuously running massive deficit budgets. Central banks are forced to QE to compensate for this.
 
Last edited:
Government borrowing doesn't cause inflation. It puts pressure on interest rates. It is the central bank's attempts to counter the effect on interest rates (by printing money and buying government debt) that is inflationary.



Central banks don't care if interest rates rise or fall so long as inflation is in the target range. Since they use inflation to judge whether interest rates should rise or fall so it's nonsensical to suggest they "create inflation by attempting to counter possible changes in interest rates."
 
Central banks don't care if interest rates rise or fall so long as inflation is in the target range. Since they use inflation to judge whether interest rates should rise or fall so it's nonsensical to suggest they "create inflation by attempting to counter possible changes in interest rates."
You seem to be assuming that higher interest rates are not deflationary.
 
I think lomiller needs to re-read what psionl0 has said. This includes the context. It may not be the best wording, but it is correct.
No, It most certainly is not correct. It's the complete opposite of how central banks actually operate.
 
You seem to be assuming that higher interest rates are not deflationary.

I'm not assuming anything.

BTW it's not higher interest rates that cause deflation, rather restricting the money supply causes both deflation and a rise in interest rates.
 
BTW it's not higher interest rates that cause deflation, rather restricting the money supply causes both deflation and a rise in interest rates.
If you can't see the link between the government competing with other borrowers and interest rates then I can't help you.
 
If you can't see the link between the government competing with other borrowers and interest rates then I can't help you.

Goalpost moving noted. What you originally claimed was that central banks would cause high inflation in order to keep interest rates low. This will not happen because central banks target inflation rates not interest rates.
 
What that does is lower bond rates. Its inflationary, it makes borrowing for everyone cheaper.... sovereign, municipal, corporate, and individuals.

Excess government borrowing should actually result in an increase in bond rates. Higher yields make the bonds more desirable to investors which allows the treasury to sell more of them.

In the real world, however, governments in first world countries rarely have any problem selling as many bonds as they need to, so more borrowing doesn't change borrowing costs much if at all. And, as I said above the central bank wouldn't care if it did since they target inflation rates not interest rates. Interest rates are simply a tool they use to signal what they are going to do wrt money supply.

Cash flow reasons notwithstanding, government borrowing us used to finance deficit spending. When governments engage in deficit spending there is more money chasing goods and services which creates inflationary pressure. Fiscal policy, however, plays second fiddle to monetary policy which has a far bigger impact on inflation and economic growth except in rare circumstances. The result is that any growth or inflation caused by fiscal stimulus is easily canceled out by tighter monetary policy.

The important thing to remember is that central banks target the highest possible economic growth possible while still keeping inflation in a desired range and they have far and away the most powerful tool available for achieving this.
 
What that does is lower bond rates. Its inflationary, it makes borrowing for everyone cheaper.... sovereign, municipal, corporate, and individuals.

It makes the cost of past borrowing cheaper, yes (because you are paying back with less valuable money), but it raises the cost of current and future borrowing as investors are quick to demand a larger inflation premium. In finance, interest rates are "built-up"; that means that they are made up of component parts. Inflation is one of those components, as is maturity risk, default/credit risk, as well as the desired "real" rate of return. When assumptions about future inflation change (as they have markedly this year) interest rates change with them (ditto). The 10-year treasury rate (an important benchmark rate) started 2022 at 1.52%; currently it's at 4.216%. The additional 270 basis points is all increased inflation premium.
 
It makes the cost of past borrowing cheaper, yes (because you are paying back with less valuable money), but it raises the cost of current and future borrowing as investors are quick to demand a larger inflation premium. In finance, interest rates are "built-up"; that means that they are made up of component parts. Inflation is one of those components, as is maturity risk, default/credit risk, as well as the desired "real" rate of return. When assumptions about future inflation change (as they have markedly this year) interest rates change with them (ditto). The 10-year treasury rate (an important benchmark rate) started 2022 at 1.52%; currently it's at 4.216%. The additional 270 basis points is all increased inflation premium.


Not exactly, inflation only indirectly affects bond rates**. If the fed was still holding short term rates at near 0 and still buying back treasury notes/bonds they'd still be low yielding.

Anytime the market gets the jitters, yields on treasuries plummet, because suddenly there is extra demand by investors for risk free assets. The reason the 10 year is yielding more than shorter term t-notes/bills is because the market is pricing in the chance of a recession and lowered rates.

I've never even heard of maturity risk, do you mean interest rate risk??

To complicate matters, I hold two bonds* whose coupon is based on the 3m Libor and unlike fixed rate bonds... I've made money on them this year.

*actually no, one of them is a trust preferred stock issued from Citigroup.

**Kind of a yeah duh... but that doesn't apply to inflation linked bonds, ie TIPS and I-bonds.
 
Last edited:
Inflation is also caused by greedy corporations using inflation as cover to hike prices well beyond actual cost increases and make record profits. At least according to this report from the House subcommittee on economic and consumer policy

I chuckled when I failed to see the one piece of information that would make it worth reading - exactly how much corporate profits have added to inflation.

Surprised, I was not - the fact that those corporate profits contribute an insignificant amount to actual inflation doesn't fit the narrative was never going to make the cut. And note I'm not a greedy capitalist; I'd love to throw rocks at greedy corporation, but it's misleading at best, and jealousy at worst.

80% of people think corporate profits are the problem, and they wrong, just as the 80% of the world who believe in a sky-fairy are wrong.
 
Not exactly, inflation only indirectly affects bond rates**. If the fed was still holding short term rates at near 0 and still buying back treasury notes/bonds they'd still be low yielding.

Maybe the treasury rate would stay low, but corporate bond yields and other interest rates would rise. The Fed can't print that much money.

Anytime the market gets the jitters, yields on treasuries plummet, because suddenly there is extra demand by investors for risk free assets. The reason the 10 year is yielding more than shorter term t-notes/bills is because the market is pricing in the chance of a recession and lowered rates.

Yes to the first part; this is called the flight to quality. But historically there has almost always been a spread between the short-term rates and long-term rates to compensate for the greater duration.

I've never even heard of maturity risk, do you mean interest rate risk??

Maturity risk premium discussed here.

Investopedia said:
A long-term bond generally offers a maturity risk premium in the form of a higher built-in rate of return to compensate for the added risk of interest rate changes over time. The larger duration of longer-term securities means higher interest rate risk for those securities. To compensate investors for taking on more risk, the expected rates of return on longer-term securities are typically higher than rates on shorter-term securities. This is known as the maturity risk premium.

To complicate matters, I hold two bonds* whose coupon is based on the 3m Libor and unlike fixed rate bonds... I've made money on them this year.

I assume they've changed to SOFR? LIBOR is no more.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the treasury rate would stay low, but corporate bond yields and other interest rates would rise. The Fed can't print that much money.

The fed can "print" as much money as it wants!

The spread between corporate bonds and treasuries has actually narrowed a bit recently.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAA10Y

Given the same maturity corporate bonds will always yield more than treasuries. How much will depend on their credit rating. But the spread changes, goes up when the market is turbulent.


Yes to the first part; this is called the flight to quality. But historically there has almost always been a spread between the short-term rates and long-term rates to compensate for the greater duration.

Yes, indeed, the farther out you go the higher the issuer's coupon has to be to get investors to buy it, ie the more yield you get. However, right now you may notice the yield curve is inverted. 2 year treasuries are yielding more than the 10 year. Thats due to market expectations that rates will go back down.



Maturity risk premium discussed here.

Yes, as they call it, interest rate risk. BTW, I've read soooooo many articles on that website in the last few years before getting into bond investing. A bond issuer must pay a premium based on how far out the maturity is. You can see why if you look at the losses on bond etf's or mutual funds. The longer the maturity, the worse they've done this year.




I assume they've changed to SOFR? LIBOR is no more.

Legally everything that was indexed to LIBOR has to transition to SOFR. Though, I don't believe its dead yet for existing securities, can't be used for new issues though.


Thats what I was referring to... https://www.citigroup.com/citi/fixedincome/data/docs/7875due103040.pdf?ieNocache=118

But it has a different kind of risk, call risk :jaw-dropp Although even if they called it tomorrow I have already broken even.
 
Last edited:
Yes, indeed, the farther out you go the higher the issuer's coupon has to be to get investors to buy it, ie the more yield you get. However, right now you may notice the yield curve is inverted. 2 year treasuries are yielding more than the 10 year. Thats due to market expectations that rates will go back down.

Yep the inverted yield curve usually implies recession ahead, which will eventually lead to lower rates.

Yes, as they call it, interest rate risk. BTW, I've read soooooo many articles on that website in the last few years before getting into bond investing. A bond issuer must pay a premium based on how far out the maturity is. You can see why if you look at the losses on bond etf's or mutual funds. The longer the maturity, the worse they've done this year.

Investopedia is a terrific resource. On the hammering that the longer-term bonds have been taking I have definitely noticed an uptick in students looking for help on bond duration (a measure of how much up or down a bond's price will move in % terms in response to a 1% change in interest rates). It's an annoying calc by hand but of course excel has a function.
 
Inflation is also caused by greedy corporations using inflation as cover
to hike prices well beyond actual cost increases and make record profits.
At least according to this report from the House subcommittee on economic
and consumer policy


When I was searching for information about inflation and its causes I ran
across this video that argues differently on the subject. What do you think
of it.

 
Back
Top Bottom