It's wild how Bullard circa '10 was way more dove-ish than the median powerful economists, as in inflation targets should be the goal but the historical stance of being happy when under target and mad when over target was asymmetrical and wrong. but now he's probably a tic more hawkish than the median think most people under estimate the shifts that have happened over the last decade+
Well when you say things like this thinking that’s discrediting what I said without realizing it’s exactly part of my point, you leave a lot of an actual discussion to be desired
i wouldn't consider that shift to be half as aggressive as the verbiage you used was the entire point
You only deem it aggressive because it goes against your stance that inflation somehow isn’t here and can become a real problem if left unchecked. The feds have done more than just altering rates FYI.
some of you all build caricatures of posters in your brain when you don't actually engage bold is not positions I ever held! inflation hawkery has been very bad for the country, this doesn't mean there aren't instances where it needs to be addressed ever but that the slide to more dovish stances is good overall. people who are inflation hawks (especially goldbugs or austrian school folks) imagine this world of imaginary inflation (see the enormous sector of twitter that shares graphs of 10% inflation yearly for a decade!), or don't engage with the reasons certain things are transitory or not broadly applicable to the FEDs actions, such as the enormous spike in used car market is not something that should really make the FED react because FED reactions won't actually touch that market due to very obvious reasons. or that education price or housing price growth isn't something the FED can worry too much about, the solutions to those issues are explicitly political. people learning these things is good! the fed should only care about the aspects they can influence through policy changes!
Nobody said inflation doesn't exist or never can be an issue. I think people who discount concerns just do so knowing it's been used as a scare tactic to perpetuate suffering of the American poor. So some people are more skeptical than others about inflationary concerns.
Like I never hear about inflation when we do all the corporate welfare. It's only when cash is sent to individual American citizens that suddenly there's this big fear.
few things are funnier than rich guys complaining that inflation is runaway because the cost of art has grown so fast, or other ultra luxury goods like yachts, literally sports teams, etc. Haralabob Voulgaris unironically did this! fantastic argument for wealth taxes though, i was somewhat skeptical of this initially but big time fan now.
The problem with this discussion in particular is that anyone who has talked about inflation being a problem in the current climate, people from the opposite side are quick to say it’s a scare tactic and not real. Whether you’ve directly said it I can’t say for sure, but the things posted/said lead that to be the understanding.
There’s way more fundamental reasons that inflation becomes a problem. This narrative must be a Twitter thing?
An inflation tied to bitcoin value narrative and just general inflationary concerns has to be making its rounds in right wing media because I've had the conversation with several people irl over the last few months that are right wing shills. I don't know where it's originating but it's definitely a political posture to argue for less government stimulus and unemployment and to discount things like UBI.
these discussions where people get snippy because they don't actually talk to anyone but largely just shout at caricatures they've built up are so pointless, especially when you ask questions and they respond with vagueness, either you want to discuss it or you're just letting off steam
When you lead off with these You’re not welcoming a discussion. As long as you understand now, that’s all that matters
yes we're all in here having genuine discussions when i make a very affirmative case post and you fall back to "well its hard to have discussions in here because xyz" instead of just engaging with my post you're making a choice. you choose meta arguments or caricature over that. my post is still there! post what you disagree with!
Why did that post bother you so much that you called something untrue which is in fact true and then followed up by an attempted zinger that actually proved my point? I’m not in the goal post moving game.
The fed isnt doing everything it can to stop inflation otherwise they would raise rates this year. They would like it to stay elevated but not too high, (they have debt they'd like to melt away. This latest move is an effort to keep it in relative check and let some air out of things, all good. To remove any mistake Lyrtch where do you fall in inflation camp because it seems like you are in the transitory camp based off some of your comments.
oh no Frankie Carbone yes the fed clearly accepts short term inflationary pressure (with much being transitory as they're related to supply chain hiccups coming out of covid so not even something the FED could deal with) as the goal of full employment will counter act most downsides and there is small long term risk of above target inflation outside of acceptable bounds. i find this a reasonable calculation!
Ehhh they’ve been consistent with their overview as the data comes in. The alarms aren’t ringing just yet but all hands have been on deck and they’ve gone about it accordingly hence moving the rates up earlier than anticipated. What may be lost in translation is what they’ve done leading up to the most recent meeting which is an important part of my point. Raising rates this year is way too premature and doesn’t imply that they haven’t done everything they can carefully.
Did you think that was another zinger? FWIW I also believe it’s transitory. The reasoning behind the inflation is 100% agreeable. The rhetoric that it’s a scare tactic and imaginary is where it gets silly.
this is why i carve out the car market or lumber or whatever other markets are seeing bumpy restarts obvious sectors where the "inflation is permanent cost increases" won't hold true
this just seems to matter who you're talking to, there is a very sizable sector of people who will argue to their dying breath that this year inflation is like 15% and that's why you should buy bitcoin or that the real inflation over the last decade is 10% per year. these people are also out sized share of people on the internet (i talk to them a lot!). this version of inflation is very literally imaginary and silly
its not a caricature, i just think you don't engage with that space of people i'm also not applying the caricature to YOU, but you seem to have gone into a black hole of defensiveness so you're missing it
For sure, it could be "transitory" *. I think it may be stickier than what the Fed originally believed. Clearly its come in higher than they expected multiple times and it seems they think its more of a risk than originally stated. These past few months have had easy base effect comparisons with the depth of the covid crisis and should start tapering down here soon. But going forward there are decent arguments for continued elevated CPI numbers. *but prices will never retreat back to where they were pre COVID, shit like like lumber will come back to earth though once more mills come back online. One component is rent which is looking like it has bottomed out, rent is a huge component of CPI something like 25-30%. If rent starts to increase that could keep things elevated. Spoiler: Current rent Spoiler: rent post GFC for comparison Fuel is breaking out higher Spoiler: Fuel Not including producer prices increasing and companies passing these costs on to consumers, and a labor market that is starting to increase wages to lure in workers. There is more to it than just supply chain issues. Absolutely every inflationary period has had supply issues.
think two of the strongest cases are that inflation has come in over predicted due to faster than anticipated GDP recovery and the upward wage pressure, a 7% GDP year won't repeat and as much as continued upward wage pressure could continue I don't really expect it to at the same rate once everyone gets resorted and we approach full employment fed ain't got the juice to deal with housing prices, maybe my longest held black pilled position is that housing policy is bipartisan and absolutely terrible for people (think I stated that above too) think the rest will end up a wash
It was generally said, not me specifically. Seems as though engaging with those niche groups is damaging. The word inflation, when all signs point to it being present, shouldn’t put you on a misguided crusade to say it’s imaginary or a scare tactic. You can disregard it as much as you’d like but institution(s) have literally put things in place and changed policies to keep its level down as much as possible for a reason.
Obviously going forward it will also depend on what the government does because everything is so fiscal driven nowadays.
Typically inflationary decades have been better for 90% of Americans by reducing the wealth gap but I do feel like it has a negative stigma for most people.
I’m cautiously curious to what happens with home prices. We may see a little dip but idk if it corrects as much as most hope
Bolded is where M2 comes into play, I think upward wage pressure is in the early innings currently companies seem to be trying to avoid it by giving bonuses rather than actual per hour increases. That didn't particularly touch on my rental part of the CPI comment which is a big part of the puzzle, will be interesting to see what happens when moratoriums lift.
I somewhat started this by my response to Frankie flippantly talking about how lumber prices dropped slightly so everything is okay and there is no inflation. To me, that sounded like the type of BS I have seen constantly these past few weeks from right wing shills who want to derail any economic recovery and prevent the government from helping people who need help (rather than corps or wealthy tax cuts). They complain about runaway inflation and "omg but muh Weimar Republic hyperinflation" and dumb shit like that. I don't deny that there is some increased inflation, but I don't see it as being all that dangerous right now, and the people who are making it sound like it's a true "problem" generally have ulterior motives that are not rooted in sound economic understanding. Not sure if Frankie falls into that category, but it definitely gave off that vibe which is all over social media right now.
FWIW I don’t have any social media. identity politics doesn’t apply to anything I’ve said and if you think it does I’m open to that discussion
Guys, as far as the Fed goes, it is highly Keynesian and likely to get more that way… but this Fed has allowed inflation to rise and will allow it to rise above the old 2% bogey because this Fed is now more interested in employment growth, especially employment growth amongst minorities. They that in 2016 to 2017 as unemployment reached lows…and minority unemployment reached all time lows … there was no inflation during that time so they want to see if they can recreate that. Problem is, that was all pre- new China Wolf Warrior policy, pre-COVID and pre-China tariff… we have been exporting all our inflation to China and technology adoption created a nice productivity boom, but if we bring supply chain back to the US + Continue to add liquidity on the fiscal side… they may have to return to policies of preemption and they really don’t want to do that.
I was so hyped up on the retirement investment aspect of the HSA I didn't do much analysis of what my expected annual out of pocket expenses will be. As far as monthly premiums... the HSA is $468 cheaper per year so that's good: HSA plan premium $443 per month, $5316 per year PPO plan premium $482 per month, $5784 per year But what I look at claims over the past 2 years I see: - on the old PPO plan I paid out of pocket about $965 for copays for me & 2 children. - on the new HSA plan... how to determine exactly what I would have paid out of pocket? I see the Billed amount from each provider, so I'm just going by that and if that's the case I would've paid $7362 out of the total $9914 billed. On the HSA plan the annual wellness checkup is free, everything else just goes to the $5000 annual deductible. Much of those expenses were simply preventative things. So my thought now is with the HSA plan I'm probably going to seriously hesitate, much more than I normally do, on going to the doctor for things that aren't critical. For example when I had toe pain that wouldn't go away I eventually went to an orthopedic to get it checked out. Ortho billed my insurance $1089. I paid $50 copay. On HSA plan would I have had to pay $1089? Good lord. And took my daughter to an endocrinologist to get a few tests done. $800 or so. All tests were fine thankfully but it wasn't like "something is wrong, you need to get her checked out now" - it was more of a sure you could do this type option from her pediatrician. Rambling now but do you get my point? TLDR; 1) will I forego medical care more often because it's too expensive? 2) if I end up paying out of pocket an average of $3000 more than before on the old PPO plan, how the hell am I gaining anything via HSA investment account?
gotcha. I switched to high deductible hsa plan this year as well and naturally it’s the first year in the past few where I’ve actually had to go to the dr. will prob end up hitting my deductible so not gonna end up really saving anything in my investment acct. would have been nice if I had been on the high ded/hsa plan in the past though to build up my hsa.
It definitely makes me less likely to go to the doctor and more likely to use teledoc if I can. I’ve never been quick to hit up a doctor though. (Still get regular check ups etc…)