News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago. Parent comment

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by mahogany on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:35PM (#37113477)
Is there any evidence that modest deflation actually causes this "holding pattern" in the overall economy? I see this theory stated a lot for the reason that deflation is bad, and it definitely checks out on a basic logical level. But economics is complex right? So I'm curious what the evidence is in the real world.

I can imagine this happening with large deflation (10%, say), but what about 2% or 1%? It's not obvious to me that people would not buy a TV they really wanted if they knew it would be $392 instead of $400 next year. If consumers actually acted this sensitively toward a drop in prices, then wouldn't nearly all consumers wait for sales for all purchases? But we know that is not the case. Hell, if consumers were this sensitive toward their finances, they certainly wouldn't pay lots of interest on avoidable credit card debt, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by dualityoftapirs on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:56PM (#37114379)
It's more the bigger investments that drive a lot of the economy that are the concern - think real estate and stocks. Why buy a $1 million home today if you'll be able to buy it from $980k next year, and maybe $965k the year after that? More importantly, why continue paying the mortgage on your million dollar home when it's likely never to be worth a million again? Why buy 10,000 shares of a company now, when in a few years you could buy 10,500 shares for the same price?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by mahogany on Sunday August 13, 2023 @05:25PM (#37114695)
That's fair - but that is assuming indefinite long-term deflation. What about intermittent modest deflation as a tool to bring prices down? It seems that just the idea of deflation is immediately rejected in any conversation about monetary policy.

Also, I think in the real world today, a home would still sell in a deflationary environment, given serious supply shortages. Especially for those buyers which are looking for a home and not an investment (investors would lose long term in a deflationary environment, as you say). Couldn't temporary, modest deflation actually open the housing market up for those "real" buyers primarily looking for a place to live?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by dualityoftapirs on Monday August 14, 2023 @05:52AM (#37119182)
The fear with trying for temporary deflation is it will become an out of control feedback loop, because there aren't as many "reasonable" monetary tools to combat it as there are with inflation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by odd_perfect_num on Sunday August 13, 2023 @05:40PM (#37114814)
As an extreme example, everyone knows about Germany hyperinflation in the 20s. Fewer people are aware that 1929-1932 was a period of massive deflation in Germany that led to the German economy collapsing, the Nazis siezing power, and 10 years later most of Europe being occupied by Fascists.

So it's pretty reasonable to be concerned about deflation.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by Perceval on Monday August 14, 2023 @09:51AM (#37121022)
There was a 20-year period of mild deflation during the Victorian Era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation

Broadly it was a time of sustained growth in both the United States and United Kingdom, despite the deflation which was driven by industrialization and productivity gains. However, certain industries did suffer as a result of the deflation, so it was neither an unvarnished good or bad economic period.

[ Parent | on HN ]