Like if all that new money isn't being used to buy things like food or even housing that factor into the inflation index than wouldn't we see something like this where gold and the stock market inflate because that's where the cash is going?
Now I'll buy the idea that isn't necessarily going to cause shortages and price rises in consumer goods, but the idea that it doesn't cause changes in asset prices is too much. Are these rich people supposed to be idiots? There is no return on cash and new money is being created at a fast clip.
Increasing money supply without any change in velocity or other exogenous factors is inflationary for asset prices, etc.
Real-life, however, is not a vacuum [0]
Inflation has been "stubbornly low" for 20 years while asset prices have outperformed historical averages the entire time.
Asset prices seem to have diverged from the real economy because assets are primarily funded with debt (real estate, corporate investment) which has been artificially priced lower, while goods are paid with earned income which hasn't been manipulated.
> Asset prices seem to have diverged from the real economy because assets are primarily funded with debt
Or maybe it's because with rising productivity, capital has become more valuable over time.
In fact it would mean that the only people who can afford assets are people who already have assets.
> "Or maybe it's because with rising productivity, capital has become more valuable over time."
We have 0.1% interest rates, negative in some countries, that indicates a glut of capital, not "shortage of valuable capital"
People incorrectly assume inflation means "the price of everything goes up". The problem word here being everything.
Why? Well because prices aren't merely dictated by supply, but rather supply & demand. Simply comparing inflated money supply to the good supply is naïve, as it ignores to factor in the demand for different goods.
As so, for a dumb example, it's entirely possible to have inflated stock prices but not see inflated sock prices, if all the extra money is chasing stocks, and not socks...
Because they've spent a few generations making sure people don't understand the difference between price inflation and monetary inflation by using the two interchangeably.
This whole sub-thread is a perfect example, "the Fed has been printing money like there's no tomorrow but, look, there's only 0.44% inflation".
So much like how the S&P/NASDAQ has a bias for growth because losers are swapped out for winners, the CPI basket has a negative price bias as expensive goods are swapped out for cheaper ones.
It's incorrect to refer to monetary inflation as just "inflation." If you're talking about price inflation, we're not seeing that yet - although 5 year inflation expectations are popping back up again [0]
So far, it's looking like the Fed is doing as best as could be expected.
Only true if everything else holds constant. Also, wouldn't just apply to asset prices but all prices.
Everything else, unfortunately, is not holding constant. [0]
Foreign demand for the dollar is at all time highs. People forget this and don't think about the impact that this has on currency prices.
Also, the "inflation is actually happening they just don't measure it right" crowd are delusional. Maybe they were right before covid, but they're extremely wrong now.
Was reading just the other day that inflation is actually underestimated right now.
People are buying basics, like food, at far higher rates than normal, prices for those basics are rising, but the CPI hasn't adjusted the ratios. Ergo prices are higher where it counts but the index doesn't see it.
In my opinion, continued inflation in financial assets will / is already partly causing inequality. It's not good for society if the middle class has trouble buying houses or real estate - it tends to lead to a lot of anger and political polarization, as we've seen.
I don't know anything about anything, but it seems to me this is a logical consequence of inflation? Purchasing power of $ goes down, prices (of everything) go up.