I am ok with lower salaries catching up. For decades it used to be that mainly the top 10% benefited from a better economy so maybe it’s time everybody else’s incomes to go up. It’s against my own interest but it seems fair.
Nobody worried about inflation when house prices, stocks, healthcare and education shot up. It seems they worry only now that low incomes have pressure to go up.
If you look at customers served by an occupation it's needlessly absurd to pay as little as possible when there is a hand full of staff making millions of units/day. It doesn't benefit the economy. Many if not most of these are factory jobs that are horrific to do while supper important for economy of scale but I think with some effort we could also make a difference between a truck driver moving goods for 10000 people vs 1 customer. Or a dishwasher in a soup kitchen serving 2000 people vs a small restaurant serving 30.
And maybe their workers will actually be engaged in their jobs. I am always confused when low-wage employers complain that none of their workers give a sh*t.
In France, the gvt's response to rising inflation is helicopter money. It's like if they never opened an history book and never heard of the weimar republic inflation...
Not just additional spending, direct money on everyone's bank account (you could have built some infrastructure, etc). A recipe for making inflation worse.
Not additional spending exactly, but direct payments to the population to avoid a liquidity trap. It's a trade off, gaining a little on GDP by increasing inflation. See: Japan for what a persistent liquidity trap does to a country.
Helicopter money is a bit unconventional, and doesn't solve every economic woe. It's just one of the 1000 tools in the monetary policy toolbox.
EDIT: It's important to note that mild inflation is a good thing. It spurs people to buy now rather than later. If inflation was zero for a hypothetical country, why buy a house today if you know the house would be the same price 10 years from now? That spending today cycles dollars into the economy that keeps the engine running. 2% is generally regarded as pretty optimal. Aggressive unconventional measures applied early has stronger effects than applied later.
France has had some pretty lackluster GDP growth over the past few years, and probably sees now to be prime time to keep the engine rolling now that the country is waking back up from the pandemic. This is more or less in line with the European Central Bank's line of thinking: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2021/html/ecb.sp210...
France's inflation was only 2.7% for the month of September, which is a little high, but way low compared to what their more successful peers are hitting (not that 5% is what you should be aiming for, but as a yardstick for hot economies, it means they have some wiggle room). If France wants to keep the renewed interest in spending going, especially with their historical sluggish growth, they need to apply a little more juice to the economy.
> EDIT: It's important to note that mild inflation is a good thing. It spurs people to buy now rather than later. If inflation was zero for a hypothetical country, why buy a house today if you know the house would be the same price 10 years from now?
This argument in favour of inflation always baffles me .. yeah, maybe people weigh different reasons for/against buying something like a house now or rather later ... but I'm rather sceptic that regular people who'd buy a house to live in it (who could afford to buy it right now) would have a relevant tendency to wait another 10 years because there's almost no inflation.
For entities such as real estate investors the inflation aspect is obviously a lot more relevant, yes. But for regular people, most buying decisions are probably dominated by the aspect of when they need the thing, not by the speculation of whether the thing they could use right now might still cost the same in the future.
Besides that, the notion of spurring people to buy now rather than later is IMO a bit outdated. Buying less now and shifting consumption into the (hopefully less carbon footprinty) future might be one of the most important levers to push, to get humanity out of the climate catastrophe trap.
Might just be the argument in favour of deflation ... let's hear it in 10 years from now.
I'm also curious what all these modern monetary advocates will bring up when - contrary to their predictions - inflation doesn't just conveniently level off to an acceptable 2 per cent in the next 18 months.
> It's important to note that mild inflation is a good thing
I'd lightly disagree with this and say that a naturally small but positive interest rate is desirable but not always good or right. That's different than saying a small but positive interest rate is optimal in ever scenario or regardless of what it takes to make it happen.
We've been playing tricks with interest rates to attain a positive interest for a decade and now bond markets are so drastically distorted that we are having to do increasingly drastic measures to try to get our fix.
I would argue the problem is that for much of that time, mild disinflation was priced into the market clearing rate. And instead of taking our medicine then, we have created an incredibly fragile environment that has the potential to be way more painful than the thing we were trying to prevent.
Cpi is 5 but I'm going to argue 7-8 is a more meaningful number to the average American right now. We can't raise rates but 7-8 sustained is also intolerable. I think our low but positive rates at all costs attitude is going to turn out not to look so clever through the lense of history
It's from a Milton Friedman paper, "The Optimum Quantity of Money":
"Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated."
His point was that the Fed can generate output (and inflation) when the economy is running below potential.
Didn't we know this was going to happen as soon as we shut everything down last year to combat Covid? This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody... we collectively agreed that this was the price we were willing to pay to save lives.
We thought the opposite last year. We didn't think that over 2% inflation would happen until around March of this year. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE
22 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 68.5 ms ] threadhttps://www.narcity.com/vancouver/vancouver-restaurant-dishw...
Nobody worried about inflation when house prices, stocks, healthcare and education shot up. It seems they worry only now that low incomes have pressure to go up.
Plus at that price, you can afford to be picky.
Helicopter money is a bit unconventional, and doesn't solve every economic woe. It's just one of the 1000 tools in the monetary policy toolbox.
EDIT: It's important to note that mild inflation is a good thing. It spurs people to buy now rather than later. If inflation was zero for a hypothetical country, why buy a house today if you know the house would be the same price 10 years from now? That spending today cycles dollars into the economy that keeps the engine running. 2% is generally regarded as pretty optimal. Aggressive unconventional measures applied early has stronger effects than applied later.
France has had some pretty lackluster GDP growth over the past few years, and probably sees now to be prime time to keep the engine rolling now that the country is waking back up from the pandemic. This is more or less in line with the European Central Bank's line of thinking: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2021/html/ecb.sp210...
France's inflation was only 2.7% for the month of September, which is a little high, but way low compared to what their more successful peers are hitting (not that 5% is what you should be aiming for, but as a yardstick for hot economies, it means they have some wiggle room). If France wants to keep the renewed interest in spending going, especially with their historical sluggish growth, they need to apply a little more juice to the economy.
This argument in favour of inflation always baffles me .. yeah, maybe people weigh different reasons for/against buying something like a house now or rather later ... but I'm rather sceptic that regular people who'd buy a house to live in it (who could afford to buy it right now) would have a relevant tendency to wait another 10 years because there's almost no inflation. For entities such as real estate investors the inflation aspect is obviously a lot more relevant, yes. But for regular people, most buying decisions are probably dominated by the aspect of when they need the thing, not by the speculation of whether the thing they could use right now might still cost the same in the future.
Besides that, the notion of spurring people to buy now rather than later is IMO a bit outdated. Buying less now and shifting consumption into the (hopefully less carbon footprinty) future might be one of the most important levers to push, to get humanity out of the climate catastrophe trap. Might just be the argument in favour of deflation ... let's hear it in 10 years from now.
I'm also curious what all these modern monetary advocates will bring up when - contrary to their predictions - inflation doesn't just conveniently level off to an acceptable 2 per cent in the next 18 months.
I'd lightly disagree with this and say that a naturally small but positive interest rate is desirable but not always good or right. That's different than saying a small but positive interest rate is optimal in ever scenario or regardless of what it takes to make it happen.
We've been playing tricks with interest rates to attain a positive interest for a decade and now bond markets are so drastically distorted that we are having to do increasingly drastic measures to try to get our fix.
I would argue the problem is that for much of that time, mild disinflation was priced into the market clearing rate. And instead of taking our medicine then, we have created an incredibly fragile environment that has the potential to be way more painful than the thing we were trying to prevent.
Cpi is 5 but I'm going to argue 7-8 is a more meaningful number to the average American right now. We can't raise rates but 7-8 sustained is also intolerable. I think our low but positive rates at all costs attitude is going to turn out not to look so clever through the lense of history
"Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated."
His point was that the Fed can generate output (and inflation) when the economy is running below potential.
https://youtu.be/_uQpyFda6I8