It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s everywhere

Re:It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s ... by sleepysysadmin on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @08:13AM (#29161271)

>Maybe everyone can afford a jet ski all of a sudden? No, the stims didn’t really do /that/ kind of wealth expansion.

US money supply M0 in late 2019 was low around 3.5 trillion.

Today it's around 6.4 trillion. This doesn't equate to 100% inflation, but it certainly equates to affording jet skis.

M2 money supply is sitting around 21 trillion and ought to be more around 16 trillion. This is the equivalent to 31% locked in, happening within a few years inflation. Though looking deeper than this, easily 40% inflation locked in.

You are incentivized to buy a jetski even on cheap debt because as this inflation erases the debt. The asset even with depreciation will end up being more expensive than you bought it selling used.

In terms of 'wealth expansion' it's sitting around 400% right now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s ... by dang on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @11:22AM (#29163756)

Please don't post shallow dismissals to HN. We're trying for a different quality of discussion here, to the extent possible. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the rules and sticking to the intended spirit, we'd appreciate it. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

If you know more than someone else, it would be great to share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but then it's usually best not to post. Putting others down or putting their comments down just makes the thread worse.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Edit: ditto for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29161503.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s ... by wexler88 on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @12:29PM (#29164565)

The implication is that one needs to contribute a detailed response to any statement, no matter how shallow and foolish, or else accept it to the discussion as though it had some validity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s ... by dang on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:26PM (#29165360)

Not replying is not the same thing as "accepting it as though it had some validity". As long as you work with that false assumption, you're stuck in a tough place.

The internet is wrong about nearly everything. You can't fight it that way. Responding with a shallow dismissal or putdown is just a variant of the same dynamic—it encourages more of the same, and so creates more of what you're trying to combat. Your two options for not doing that are (1) not replying—because then at least you're not feeding it; or (2) patiently and respectfully supplying better information.

Don't get me wrong, I know how hard it is in practice—it requires going against one's habits at the nervous-system level.* That ranges between difficult and impossible depending on the level of activation. But it's definitely possible, and it's basically what this community is basically working on learning together. Why? Because the goal of this place has always been to have an internet forum that escapes the default fate of deteriorating into suckage—or at least staves it off as long as possible.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

* I don't know if it's helpful or not, but another way of saying this is that we want reflective reactions rather than reflexive ones: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s mostly a demand shock, not a supply shock, and it’s ... by sleepysysadmin on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @09:16AM (#29161998)

>This is not how money works.

Ok, could you educate me please?

[ Parent | on HN ]