US Core CPI Tops Estimates, Pressuring Fed as It Weighs Hike (bloomberg.com) 176
Underlying US consumer prices rose in February by the most in five months, an acceleration that leaves the Federal Reserve in a tough position as it tries to thwart still-rapid inflation without adding to the turmoil in the banking sector. From a report: The consumer price index, excluding food and energy, increased 0.5% last month and 5.5% from a year earlier, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data out Tuesday. Economists see the gauge -- known as the core CPI -- as a better indicator of underlying inflation than the headline measure. The overall CPI climbed 0.4% in February and 6% from a year earlier. The median estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 0.4% monthly advance in the overall and core CPI measures. The figures reaffirm that the Fed's quest to tame inflation will be a bumpy one as the economy has largely proven resilient to a year's worth of interest-rate hikes so far. The challenge for the Fed now is how to prioritize inflation that is still far too high with growing financial stability risks in the unraveling of Silicon Valley Bank.
The results of a long term low rate policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my opinion (I was an actuary long ago).
The Federal funds rate was effectively 0% from 2010 through 2015, and then again from 2020 through 2022:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]
Lots of assumptions were based on this "trend" and money was pretty close to free to borrow (institutional level). This led to a lot of startup funding/venture capital. With money close to free, it can pay to be risky, it's take less successes to cover failure without interest expense strain.
Now the yield curve is inverted (short term rates higher than long term), so banks holding long term treasury debt are in a bad position, they have to sell those securities at a loss if they are called (this is self-reinforcing, "run on the bank"). Exactly what happened at Silicon Valley Bank.
It's a Catch 22 now. The Fed can't continue to raise rates to tame inflation as it would kill the banking system (this is just now coming into focus).
I've seen articles about the Fed possibly pulling back and reducing rates to help the banking system.
THE LONG TERM ZERO INTEREST RATE ON FEDERAL FUNDS CAUSED THIS. THE FED CAUSED THIS.
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Our economy has been growing and that requires us to print money. That's why we came off the gold standard.
The problem is that in the last 40 years we've shifted 50 trillion in wealth to the 1%. They used that money to buy up all their competitors and to buy up apartment blocks, houses and even trailer parks.
Because we stopped and forcing antitrust laws we have monopolies and trusts at scales greate
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that monopolism is a contributing factor, in particular in the housing/rental market. It's actually pretty bad right now, there is basically no price competition for rent as the very-few companies who own all the rental property use price-recommending computer software to fix prices while seeming to keep their hands clean. The makers of this software are being sued over this, as I recall, though I don't know the current state. In any event, the housing cartel's price fixing is really blatant and is a significant driver of the inflation we are seeing.
However, that alone doesn't explain the high prices, across the board, for home sales. Those are being offered by individuals and many times are being bought by individuals who aren't using any price-fixing software. Its a simple problem of supply and demand. There just aren't enough houses on the market and that is because builders have been building other things ever since the last housing crash. This low-supply is something that we really can't get around by any other means: we must build more houses, and that's that. Of course, we aren't doing that.
Be that as it may, I disagree that "It's got nothing to do with how much money we printed and everything to do with who we gave it to." The economy is very interconnected and every significant change has an impact. Regardless of who we gave it to, the raw increase in money supply absolutely was a contributing factor in driving up inflation, it is impossible for it not to have been. That's simply how it works. Money supply goes up, prices go up, and done. The other things you mentioned are also contributing factors, but they do not stand alone as the only cause.
In most American markets (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you've got the boomers looking for an easy gig to retire on because they didn't save enough while they were working. Then you've got AirBnB and it's competitors.
We turned housing into an investment and retirement plan. Build all the housing you want. It's like adding highway lanes at this point. If you're going to give unlimited cash to the 1% they're going to buy up all your supply. They'll leave it empty if they have to.
Not that we build new cities anymore. Again, you can't build anything when all the money goes to the 1%, and we're all fighting for scraps. So it's not even going to come to that.
Re:The results of a long term low rate policy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a Catch 22 now. The Fed can't continue to raise rates to tame inflation as it would kill the banking system (this is just now coming into focus).
Would the banking system really be killed? What happened to Silicon Valley Bank appears to be perfect. The investors and lenders lost their money, but depositors are going to get their deposits back. This seems to be how a bank should be allowed to fail. And banks have been doing very well lately. Chase has had their stock raise 500% since the banking crisis, and BofA is up 600%. Let all of them have their stock drop 75% and they are still doing fine.
I don't understand everyone's fascination with having such valuable banks. If they just got back to lending and borrowing they would be worth a fraction of what they are now and the economy would be arguably better off.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is when it happens to too many banks, which the Fed action may cause.
It's s tough nut. Banks need to be liquid enough to handle withdrawals. This requires some scale (and initial equity).
I worked at a life insurance company that had a run on a LIBOR+20 Points vehicle that they were treating as a long term investment fund (it wasn't, and it got called). Small spreads can kill and the Fed has been making very large changes (haven't seen such fast raises since the 1970's/80s).
https://fred.stloui [stlouisfed.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well I have seen some discussion that perhaps this size of bank sortof should not exist if they can't be assed or able to comply with the liquidity regulations the larger banks are;
The proposal I saw was so combine most of the $50-250B regionals into a few more larger banks to compete with BoFA, JPM, etc and get some more up top competition and also still allow that smaller $50B cap local banks to operate.
Basicallt SVB did lobby and succeeded in exempting themselvs from the additional scrutiny that the larg
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to Silicon Valley Bank appears to be perfect. The investors and lenders lost their money, but depositors are going to get their deposits back.
What's not perfect about it is that SVB didn't pay enough in FDIC insurance to warrant the amount of money the FDIC is going to spend to make the depositors whole. It's arguably only necessary because Roku had so much money in there that wouldn't have been insured, and they employ a lot of people so if they go under it damages the economy, so the FDIC is paying for Roku's incompetence in how and where they kept their cash. This is not a big deal this one time, but if this keeps happening at an accelerated r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government printing loads of extra money also caused this. And government deficit spending also caused this. Everything that expands the money supply is a contributing factor. Our government could make a significant contribution to reducing inflation by abstaining from spending borrowed money. That budget reduction would go a long way. But of course, they won't.
Also, broken supply chains could still be a contributing factor, and repairing those will also help reduce inflation.
So, there are meaningf
Re: (Score:2)
I'm done with this excuse. If you're telling us that private industry is so fragile that it can't get its act together two years after a minor inconvenience, then that only shows how incompetent they are.
At this point there is no excuse not to have full shelves, yet it can be weeks before bags of cat food are stocked. And which point they promptly disappear and not return for a few
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the previous Fed administrators caused this issue.
Most Fed administrators are cautious at bumping up the Fed interest rate because of the effect it can have on the economy. Too much bump and the economy goes into recession. No Fed administration wants to unintentionally cause a recession. The current Fed administration does want to encourage the economic effects of a recession economy in order to slow down inflation because out of control inflation makes everything unaffordable, can stop or drastically
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a lie - "the fed can't raise rates because it would kill the banking system". Banks who are structurally unsound "fail" - i.e. have to be restructured. It's not the end of the banking system. It sure seems like the people who control the financial press and have a vested interest in having low rates (because it gets them cheap money) are pushing this false narrative awfully hard. The Fed wants to give banks time to adjust their structures, but having a bank have to force restructure is n
Re: (Score:2)
That is half correct. The other half is that Biden fiscal policy -- pumping trillions of additional dollars into the economy without any concern for productive uses, while at the same time shutting down a large fraction of the economy by the states (at federal prompting) -- led to a massive inflation, which finally woke the Fed out of its slumber.
(For the what-abouters: Trump started the money pump, but Biden outdid him immensely.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the hawks has been predicting crazy inflation for the last decade. It was around the corner at every moment.
And now they pretend that their predictions were correct, just like you are.
The Fed will continue to raise interest rates. The banks will be just fine. Inflation will be tamed. And the hawks will go back to their inane cries about how dangerous inflation is and how stagflation is going to happen.
Re:The results of a long term low rate policy (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you have it backwards. Wages are growing in response to people complaining about inflation, not the other way around. And mid-to-upper-end wage growth would not drive inflation of basic commodities. It's not like rich people are suddenly buying more sandwiches.
Re: (Score:2)
And mid-to-upper-end wage growth would not drive inflation of basic commodities. It's not like rich people are suddenly buying more sandwiches.
Most inflation is now being driven by housing costs, and mid-to-upper-end wage growth is having a strong effect on rising housing prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With population growth hitting new lows I wonder what the long-term housing price trend will be. Seemingly the zoomers that are suffering housing un-affordability today will all have 3 mcMansions from the 1980's by late middle age.
Sadly new housing growth has slowed even faster than population growth, so housing affordability is still likely to get worse in the future and not better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, we're not seeing increased housing accessibility with all those "inflated wages."
An increase in wages or economic assistance to buy homes cannot increase housing accessibility without an increase in new housing construction. The only thing more buying power can do on its own is increase housing prices.
All of the rent seeking behavior you describe is only possible because housing construction is being artificially limited by people who want to see real estate prices increase. This is probably the easiest problem the US has to fix. Have the federal government start really start investing
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm lost on this one....
The Federal govt building private housing?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm lost on this one....
The Federal govt building private housing?!?!?
I believe he's suggesting that the government offer tax breaks on new home construction to influence the market toward building more homes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok yeah except materials costs have skyrocketed and labor costs are also up quite a bit so what kind of tax break would convince a builder to construct a bunch of homes they risk losing money on?
It takes a few years to get a new housing community built (scouting it out, licenses, utilities under ground, bringing the labor and materials together, sales process, etc). By the time they're built something the economy could be in a radically different situation.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the rent seeking behavior you describe is only possible because housing construction is being artificially limited by people who want to see real estate prices increase. This is probably the easiest problem the US has to fix. Have the federal government start really start investing in new homes. Sadly most of Biden's attempts to do this were thwarted by Manchin, and with a divided Congress it will be nearly impossible.
I'm not convinced that it's artificially limited. The US has tons and tons of empty land, but the vast majority of it is in places where people don't want to live. If you go near the major cities, the land is pretty full. Good luck trying to find somewhere to build any significant amount of new housing near New York City or San Francisco.
If you want to increase home supply in those areas, you're going to need to tear down houses and replace them with large apartment complexes. But doing that is only going t
Re: (Score:2)
We can encourage that for sure but the reason housing in cities is in such high demand is people actually want to live in the cities because they have lots of ameneties, culture, entertainment and other advantages. A certain percentage of people are open to the idea of rural living but there are lifestyle sacrifices to make for moving either one to the other. and thats a major preference of people.
And yes, building more housing in major metros is going to involve density which doesn't necessily mean only
Re: (Score:2)
All of the rent seeking behavior you describe is only possible because housing construction is being artificially limited
I'm not convinced that it's artificially limited.
It is. Specifically, the supply of starter homes is artificially limited by the cost of permits and mandatory connection fees. It can (and frequently does) cost more to pay for the permits and fees than for the materials or labor. Counties want more large homes because they pay more in taxes per family unit, which means more revenue per county expenditure (on all the usual ways in which people cost the county money, like emergency services and policing for example.) Unfortunately, these policies are destroy
Re: (Score:2)
City life. Ugh. Yuck.
I lived in SF for a few years and nearby for many many years. So gross. Dodging human feeds and used needles and crazy screaming drugged out homeless, trash and filth everywhere, high prices, crime, no parking, bad non-car transit options, omg, nuke it all!
I've visited many other cities and they vary greatly in all those ways and others but please drop SF from your list of great cities to live in.
I moved to a smaller city but still a city a year ago. *Everything* is better except m
Re: (Score:2)
Since you generalized I'm going to provide an anecdote reply.
I moved from a big disgusting city to a smaller city with a lot of big homes, etc, as you describe. My city services are vastly superior in the smaller city, the city is much better run by any measure, the budget is clean, the roads are paved, the power never goes out, the EMTs and police show up quickly for any events, prices for housing and everything else are lower and for some things waaaaaaaaaay lower than the big city. It's all happy happy
Re: (Score:2)
A certain percentage of people are open to the idea of rural living but there are lifestyle sacrifices to make for moving either one to the other.
I lived a rural lifestyle for over 12 years. As a techie (software developer), I experienced exactly three downsides:
1) Affordable groceries were 20 miles away in the city.
2) Internet sucked.
3) My daily one-way commute was 20 miles.
There's no fixing the distance to affordable groceries. You have to adapt to how you shop.
Having good Internet in the boonies can readily fix the daily commute problem if remote work is adopted as a cultural shift. My family and I would happily move into the boonies if we had goo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for. We were definitely overbuilding housing in the run up to the housing bubble bursting, though mostly in the higher cost housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, housing prices are rising because there are not enough houses to meet demand. Builders greatly reduced building after the last market crash. Demand for housing outstrips supply, and that is what is pushing prices up.
If there were a lot more houses built, the prices would come down, regardless of what people's salaries are.
Re: (Score:2)
No one's building houses near the major cities because the land is already fully developed. There's nowhere left to put any significant amount of housing.
Building lots of houses in the rural area doesn't help because there aren't enough jobs there.
Re: (Score:2)
Over paying for new houses and owning multiple units?
Sounds like China. How is that working out for them?
Re: (Score:3)
Most inflation is now being driven by housing costs,
False [theguardian.com]. It's mostly profiteering [epi.org].
and mid-to-upper-end wage growth is having a strong effect on rising housing prices.
It's not the primary driver, investment is [forbes.com], and most of the recent investment is from big capital firms [billtrack50.com] and not from people who have to spend their wages on housing. (Though the purchases are slowing in response to raised interest rates, they still own the bulk of unlived-in homes.)
Re: (Score:2)
The epi is all about DEI. They say so on their about page. Hard to take them seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Zero interest rates for ten years probably has more effect on housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most inflation is now being driven by housing costs, and mid-to-upper-end wage growth is having a strong effect on rising housing prices.
Not exactly. I'd argue that extraordinarily low interest rates is what has primarily driven the rise in housing prices. ex.
500k house w/ 20% down mortgage of 400k at:
7% interest today = $2661/mo P+I
3% of yesteryear = $1686/mo P+I
Or on the flip side, let's assume you can afford $2k/month P+I
at 7% you can buy a ~$380k house w/ 20% down
at 3% you can buy a ~$600k hose w/ 20% down
at 12% you can buy a $240k house w/ 20% down (circa ~1985)
Taxes, insurance, down payments effect it of course, but the interest rate
Re: (Score:2)
Mid to Upper end wage increases have gotten out of hand. If everyone gets a raise every year it severely devalues money.
There are plenty of society challenges being caused by the growth of the upper middle class along with the hollowing out of the middle class, but inflation is not one of them. Wage growth is not a major driver of current inflation, since real hourly wages actually dropped in 2022. Wages are feebly trying to keep up with inflation, and while that still has an effect on inflation it is not the driving force.
Nope. (Score:2)
The wages are not the factor that is primarily increasing the money pool. You see, if they don't pay high wages, they just invest the money into stocks and bonds instead. Either way the money is circulating and the money pool is the same size. Lending money actually increases the pool, as does the government spending.
Higher interest rates are only one part of a comprehensive solution The government must curtail its own spending of borrowed money, and ours has not.
And of course there is the need to repai
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the $2.2T that Biden poofed into existance last year. Add 11% to the money supply without adding 11% to the supply of things that can be purchased with that money is pretty much a guarantee of 11% increase in prices for everything.
Which we're in the middle of right now. If (and I don't really think the government will be abl
Re:The results of a long term low rate policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good plan! Way to fuck over retired, disabled, and others on a fixed income.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The results of a long term low rate policy (Score:5, Informative)
While the years look close, it doesn't match up.
The Fed rate started its nosedive under Bush. It stayed close to zero, but started to edge up the last two years of Obama's last term. Under Trump it continued to edge up, but then it went back down during Trump's last year in office.
In other words, the Fed's activity has not been absolutely correlated with either party.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, the Fed's activity has not been absolutely correlated with either party.
Which is actually as it should be. If the Fed's actions were clearly correlated with when a given party controls the White House, that would indicate a deep problem, because in order for the Fed to do its job, it must be independent.
Of course, independence doesn't guarantee that the Fed does the right things, only that it doesn't do politically-motivated things.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but anyone from either side pointing to Fed behavior as something to blame or credit a president for is going down the wrong path.
Though in reality, it has *some* politically motivations, but it's not as simple as "president says rates go X, we do what president says"
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate on this communist plot? I’m genuinely curious who is behind it and how they benefit from turning the country communist. The middle class is being killed with stagnant wages, expensive health insurance, and corporate greed keeping prices high. Your rant sounds like the Putin playbook but even Russian isn’t a communist country.
Re: (Score:3)
Step 3... profit Take over, eliminate your opponents, sit in power forever.
Wasn't it Mr. Mean Tweets who tried to stay in office after he got voted out?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the sock puppet mods are out in force on this thread, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the President have to do with Federal Reserve? He can send mean tweets at them?
Trump was mad the fed raised rates.
"RAISING RATES - REALLY?"
God damn you are stupid, and I don't say that often. What else did Trump do for the fed, you tell me.
Really fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
The fed really fucked up keeping rates low as long as they did.
If you look at SVB for example their structural problems have everything to do with the fact they have to big a pool of long dated bonds at low interest rates. Why because the rates were in the dumper for 15 YEARS.
Now as rates go up nobody wants that paper. Sure its good for its face amount if you sit on it to maturity but who wants .5% interest when you can get 4+% on newly issued paper with similar maturity dates! I am sure SVB isn't the only bank sitting on tons of this stuff because it isnt as if deer old Uncle Sam wasnt issuing it like it was going out of style - so much for deficits don't matter.
The Federal Treasury has literally managed to poison the commercial banking industry by follow the old saying 'owe the bank 100k you have a problem, owe the bank 100m they have problem.'
The FED let it happen. Now the FED is going to be handcuffed not just by the ability of Uncle Sam to cope with higher borrowing costs but also a commercial banking industry looking at increased spreads between the growth of the Treasury backing and what they have pay for liquid deposits..
The whole thing is like a chinese finger trap.
About the only path out is going to be deposit institutions and money markets are going to have spread the rates further between what they offer on deposits and what they charge borrows over the feds prime rate and hope their competitors can afford to offer their clients better deals and take their business. I predict we see a lot of consolidation in banking over the next few years where the Wells Fargo / JPM / Citi / HSBCs / BOA types with alternative revenue streams and TBTF status to waive in front of commercial treasury clients, buy up the regionals NYCB, Truist, Gratz etc.
Which will suck because we will find we are dealing with some social policy person at these big institutions deciding they just want shut certain businesses, political campaigns, etc of bank access according to the cause of the week and there will be no place to go. Which is going to lead to even more crypto bullshit and other grey-market financial institutions to facilitate perfectly legal activity but also entirely without the ability or incentive to deal with actual crime, that almost everyone but not quite truly does consider deplorable and undesirable.
Before you get to excited about that being some kind of libertarian wet dream it won't be it will be much more like being caught be a scary imperialist force on your left, and ACTUAL pirates on your right. There won't be transparency and their won't be fair execution of contracts.
What the government really needs to do is
1) break up the TBTFS before it happens
2) balance in budget, curbing inflationary pressure and pushing commercial banks toward higher paying commercial paper
3) pressure the fed to hold rates about where they are for the duration while the market sorts itself out again
It will hurt a lot but its about the only way to preserve anything resembling our financial structure and not suffer total calamity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...It will hurt a lot ..."
Your entire post is really well written and interesting, but this is the point at which it collapses.
Bush 1 was the last president I can think of who was willing to do something painful that nevertheless needed to be done (raise taxes, in his case, and it cost him his 2nd term).
There's simply no appetite in the modern era from senior politicians - nor an intelligent-enough electorate generally - to ever make a short-term-pain, long-term-gain choice.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad that Biden, given his age and accompanying health decline...doesn't see the writing on the wall for his long term career in politics, and make one of those painful stands and tries to do what is actually needed to save us.
Re: Really fucked up (Score:2)
Inflation versus greed? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if there is a way to tell how much of the price raises are inflation versus just plain greed? We know that many companies are raising prices more than the cost of inflation and it clearly shows in that many are making record profits during these times. So how do we tell how much is really inflation (which is definitely an issue) versus companies taking advantage of the inflation to raise their profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you should ask (Score:5, Interesting)
Jerome Powell's own projections call for 2 million layoffs, and everything we know about economics says a minimum of 1.5 million will follow after that.
So we've got flat wage growth but still have inflation. That means something other than wage growth and high employment is causing inflation. But Powell doesn't care. He's repeatedly said he won't stop until he gets his 3.5 million layoffs.
Senator Warren asked him how he plans to stop the cycle of layoffs when it starts. He didn't have an answer. We could be heading into a depression caused by Powell's idiotic tinkering. And I think that would suit him just fine. At this point he's like a kid with a magnifying glass playing with ants. Only we're the ants.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, but we're farked until they get the politics out of money. [sic]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Inflation versus greed? (Score:2)
So how do we tell how much is really inflation (which is definitely an issue) versus companies taking advantage of the inflation to raise their profits.
As a consumer you can never know. So it's safer to assume everyone is taking advantage to increase profits. You'll be wrong sometimes. You'll be right most of the time. Especially when talking about corporations whose stated purpose is to increase shareholder value.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be hard pressed to find a better example of class warfare than this.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there is a way to tell how much of the price raises are inflation versus just plain greed?
Yes
https://www.epi.org/blog/corpo... [epi.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
As it turns out, over half of inflation is caused by increases in corporate profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation doesn't care why you raised prices.
All economic activity is based on greed. The only question is whether the government was complicit in letting you screw the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there is a way to tell how much of the price raises are inflation versus just plain greed?
Your question is like asking how much of weather is caused by solar energy.
All price increases are caused by greed. All price decreases are also caused by greed. Businesses always seek to find the price level that maximizes their profits, in the context of their competition, costs (materials & labor) and customer demand.
Just raising interest rates wont fix this (Score:2)
You need to fix the labor shortage and just raising pay wont do it if you don't have enough workers. Issuing immigrant work permits to increase labor pool might help. Also lowering tariffs on imported goods and getting more fuel to the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Raising interest rates is all they've got.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self preservation?
I'm fully in favor of MY government doing everything it can to help MY country and ME get stable in all things (economy, society, etc).
Now...once we get our problems solved, or pretty much back to 'normal', I don't have a problem with helping others once we have what we need plus a little excess for buffer...
Creative Destruction (Score:2)
Zero rates has left us with zombie banks and businesses. Some culling of the underperformers and stupids is sorely needed.
Pour encourager les autres, banks like SVB going to the wall, taking their management down, is a Good Thing. It will leave the country stronger.
Too big to fail? Bah, humbug! Inflation is the only thing.
The stupid thing is (Score:3)
Fantasy Economics (Score:2)
The CPI excludes "non-core" goods. Like food. And energy.
And it's still not enough to make the figures look good.
An index is only useful if you act on it. Acting on inflation figures that don't include the basics of life is never, ever, going to work well no matter how "good" your excuse for ignoring them is.
High Interest rates cause inflation (Score:2)
High interest rates destroy production. With less supply, more things become unaffordable as a lesser number of people will be able to obtain said product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of crippling the demand side they should figure out how to increase the supply side especially of essential items which are skyrocketing in price. Boost supply and prices will drop. Destroying jobs and creating more poor people is are recipe for recession and poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Every late night TV add:
Order your ${thing} now. But hurry. Once our stock is sold out, they will no longer be available due to production bottlenecks. So act now! (Limit two to a customer.)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't make people produce though.
Trying to goose supply is always pushing a string. You can remove the barriers to production. Lift environmental controls, permit requirements, license requirements etc.. You can make credit available to suppliers but they are not going to start cranking out more units and taking on risk, if its going to depress prices, not unless they feel pretty confident they can more than make it up in volume.
Meanwhile look at the consumer right now. Everyone with adjustable rate m
Re: (Score:2)
Targeting the wrong thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The average hourly earnings have been decreasing, but inflation is still going up. That says to me that the increase isn't from workers having more money it's because business are simply charging more. Reference that with those businesses quarterly reports showing all time highs in revenue and I think we can see what's really fueling inflation right now.
Greed.
Raising rates has diminishing returns... (Score:2)
I'm no economist, but I can see how the Fed's favorite tool of manipulating interest rates only has value to a certain extent. Beyond that, the negative consequences outweigh the intended advantages.
It's like most things in life, really. Just because a little is needed doesn't mean more keeps making it better. Food needs more salt? Ok, but you can't keep adding more salt and expect the flavor to keep improving.
I agree with the people who said they kept rates near 0 for far too long. But so much our problem
When all you have is a hammer... (Score:2)
The federal reserve has only a few tools at it's disposal:
- Modify the interest rate
- Purchase assets
- Tinker with reserve requirements
They're trying to shrink their assets (about $8.3 trillion), not grow them. Reserve requirements are already dodgy, and lowering them lets banks get even more risky. So all that's left is the interest rate, and it's about as coarse an instrument as you can have. You can't wield it surgically. It's a flamethrower attached to a bouncy toy - it'll probably torch what you're aim
Interest rate hikes wont work (Score:2)
US inflation is being driven by rising salaries. Salaries rise because the labor pool is shrinking as boomers retire, as there arenâ(TM)t enough working age zoomers to replace them for another 8-10 years. Soâ¦..rate hikes wont cut it.
Re: Interesting they're using Core CPI (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Interesting they're using Core CPI (Score:5, Informative)
[Standard CPI is] the most embarrassing / worrisome and they don't want to trigger a panic-induced doom spiral.
Adding in food and energy, the CPI only went up 0.4% (0.1% less than core CPI). So the core CPI is actually the more panic-inducing number, because food and energy prices have been dropping faster than housing costs (the main driver of inflation now).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? Gas used to be $1.89/gallon. Now it's $4/gallon. Milk used to be $0.99/gallon. [...] Now [it's] $3/gallon.
Prices are still higher than in 2021, but the current inflation figures you are seeing in the news are only looking at the difference between Feb 22 and Feb 23. Inflation for food and energy have cooled over that period, making housing the strongest driver of inflation now. Housing is also the most lagging indicator in the CPI figures, so it's quite likely that in six months housing prices will have cooled as much as food and energy has already.
All your comments about Biden causing these problems is also ri
Re: (Score:2)
18 months... interesting so I googled it. Various Google links from reasonable sites say anywhere from 9 months to 2 years.
Re: Interesting they're using Core CPI (Score:2)
Whatâ(TM)s half way between 9 and 18 months?
Re: (Score:3)
Milk used to be $0.99/gallon. Then Obama/Biden got into office and it went to $2/gallon [themillenniumreport.com].
Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure there was another President in between.
Oh, wait, maybe you fell for this scam: https://www.milwaukeeindepende... [milwaukeeindependent.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's an AC. If he wanted to make a real point he'd post under his regular handle. I'm likely in the minority of named people who reads at -1 so I will see but usually ignore that sort of thing.
Anyone trying to make a real point should just post it normally.
No one should fear posting the truth (assuming they are) even if some idiot mod whacks their karma. Truth is more important.
Re: Interesting they're using Core CPI (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sure it's because the food prices are largely correlated to energy prices and energy prices are subject to the whims of global dictators. In addition, the demand for those things is inelastic, so people have to buy them even if they're hurting.
Core is more in line with discretionary spending which is based on consumer sentiment. Since the real problem is people are still buying shit even with raised prices, Core CPI gets at that dynamic.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's also just simple price gouging. Corps are trying to make up for 2.5 years of lost revenue due to the pandemic and are hiking prices. They can blame it on inflation since everyone is talking about inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Beef is one of the few things that has stayed pretty reasonable. I've been buying ground beef in bulk when it's on sale for ~$3/lb (80/20). I usually expected to pay about the same before the pandemic. Steaks are perhaps slightly more expensive, but roasts seem to be the item that has really gone up. Still paying $3-4/lb for a beef roast is a great deal.
It's chicken that has gone up in price more. I could consistently buy boneless skinless chicken breast for $2/lb pre-pandemic and now that sounds like
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken: probably because shitty farming practices have resulted in half the flock getting a horrible disease every five seconds and needing to be wiped out to save the other half.
Our beef production still isn't ideal but it has improved over the years but chicken is scary.
Re: (Score:2)
I read his shit to get the latest pro-socialism class warfare news and information!
I like to keep up with the latest propaganda memes.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't want to use interest rates to chase after things you know are inflating because of specific supply side causes. You can't entirely avoid it because energy affects everything, but you don't need to count it more than necessary.