You’ve got it backwards when it comes to residential real estate. More people become renters during a recession. Vacancies reduced dramatically after 2008.
Why the downvote? Because there are a few people who downvote anything negative for landlords on this board, and as we can see from the replies to this story, there are many landlords on hacker news.
Well. 1st one to the door (selling artificially inflated assets) does not guarantee success.
I'm sure many/most landlords are still rooted in reality and are still using the infamous investing formula of "where there are losers, there are winners" (aka buy low, sell high).
> A good aspect of MMT is that it explains how the Treasury spending more than it takes in in taxes means more money is created into the economy than is deleted out of the economy. This is the more important thing to focus on.
This is one of the most absurd claims of the supposedly "descriptive" MMT. Taxation does not delete money from the economy. When the federal government collects taxes, it doesn't take that money and burn it in a giant pit. It turns around and immediately spends that money.
Yes, the federal government does not need your tax dollars. Yes, they technically have the ability to print an infinite amount of dollars. But that doesn't support the claim that taxation removes money from the economy.
> Some of the MMT professors also do a good job explaining how QE (quantitative easing) doesn't create new net financial assets into the system, it just shifts around assets in accounts at the Fed.
This is completely false. The Fed creates new reserves (base money) in order to buy assets.
>>"This is one of the most absurd claims of the supposedly "descriptive" MMT. Taxation does not delete money from the economy. When the federal government collects taxes, it doesn't take that money and burn it in a giant pit. It turns around and immediately spends that money."
I didn't know that idea was so polemic.
So, what you are saying is that government deficits are inflationary because they add money to the economy, but, on the other hand, government surplus don't retire money from the economy?
>>"This is completely false. The Fed creates new reserves (base money) in order to buy assets."
Yes, but the assets the Fed buy (when practicing QE) are in the accounts of the commercial banks in the Fed. After buying them, those assets are not there anymore, and, instead there is money (1). And money is basically a government bond that pay 0% interest.
> So, what you are saying is that government deficits are inflationary because they add money to the economy, but, on the other hand, government surplus don't retire money from the economy?
Honestly I don't know what point you're trying to make, or what deficits or surpluses have to do with anything. A deficit or surplus is merely the delta between total revenues and an arbitrarily defined budget.
Inflation is caused by additional dollars chasing the same number of goods. Printing money does not create goods and services - it merely decreases the value of each dollar relative to everything else. If I had a machine that could create an unlimited amount of gold at zero cost, the price of gold would approach zero if I made and sold enough of it. I don't know why you would think dollars would be any different.
> Yes, but the assets the Fed buy (when practicing QE) are in the accounts of the commercial banks in the Fed. After buying them, those assets are not there anymore, and, instead there is money (1). And money is basically a government bond that pay 0% interest.
Yes, the bank exchanges an asset (like a treasury) in exchange for reserves (base money). The question you need to ask yourself is, where did those reserves come from? Another question you need to ask is, when Fed engages in QE, why does the monetary base increase?
I'm a little late, but I want to answer for the sake of completeness.
>>"Honestly I don't know what point you're trying to make, or what deficits or surpluses have to do with anything."
You say "Inflation is caused by additional dollars chasing the same number of goods". We agree with that (it could be a supply problem too, but that's another subject).
Now, it seems to me that we agree also that a government deficit can be inflationary. So, by definition, a government deficit is adding money to the economy.
My question is: if a government deficit is adding money to the economy, what a government surplus is doing? That's the meaning of "taxes destroy money".
>>" The question you need to ask yourself is, where did those reserves come from? Another question you need to ask is, when Fed engages in QE, why does the monetary base increase? "
Monetary base increase because that is how it's defined.
I think that the problem here is that you subscribe to the fractional reserve banking theory that, I'm afraid, is false.
I suggest reading this report from the Bank of England (1) about how money creation works. A private bank lending is not limited for the quantity of reserves available in the system, because central banks have to keep the system of payments working and are targeting an interest rate. So, central banks have to answer any request for additional reserves.
The corollary to all this, is that it doesn't matter if the asset of the private bank is a treasury or reserves in the banking system, banks can lend anyway. The central banks sell treasury to the banks for controlling the interest rate, not the quantity of money.
You also seem to be arguing that centrals banks don't create new money, which is an odd assertion, especially for a proponent of MMT. From the article you posted:
> "QE involves a shift in the focus of monetary policy to the
quantity of money: the central bank purchases a quantity of
assets, financed by the creation of broad money and a
corresponding increase in the amount of central bank reserves.
The sellers of the assets will be left holding the newly created deposits in place of government bonds."
> "QE has a direct effect on the quantities of both base and broad money because of the way in which the Bank carries out its asset purchases. The policy aims to buy assets, government bonds, mainly from non-bank financial companies, such as pension funds or insurance companies. Consider, for example, the purchase of £1 billion of government bonds from a pension fund. One way in which the Bank could carry out the purchase would be to print £1 billion of banknotes and swap these directly with the pension fund. But transacting in such large quantities of banknotes is impractical. These sorts of transactions are therefore carried out using electronic forms of money."
>>"You also seem to be arguing that centrals banks don't create new money"
Not exactly. My undernstanding is that all money comes from the government. That is clear with banknotes for instance, it comes only from one place, but the same is true for bank reserves. Reserves originates in the Central Bank that is part of the government.
Now, if the government want to spend into something, let's say to pay a service to a private company, it tells the central bank to credit the appropriate account of the private company bank with the appropriate quantity. Money was effectively spent into existence, and, this will have inflationary effects.
On the other hand, if, for instance, in order to finance a crazy QE program, new reserves are created in the banking system, that money is available for banks to make loans, but that doesn't mean that a loan will be made. It's not until that loan is fulfilled that the new reserves will have an inflationary effect.
That's the reason why the QE programs were not inflationary. They affected the interest rate, but that was not enough because there were not appetite for loans in the economy. I think this has been calling "pushing a string". The MMT perspective would say "those QE programs are not going to be inflationary but they are not the proper tool. If you want to create demand (and some inflation) you need the government to spend, because the private sector obviously doesn't want to".
> My question is: if a government deficit is adding money to the economy, what a government surplus is doing? That's the meaning of "taxes destroy money".
It's rare for the federal government to run a surplus, but it did have one for four years straight in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001[1]. During that that time, the monetary base increased 32%[2] and the M2 money supply increase 23%[3].
No matter how you look at it, despite the government running a surplus, the money supply continued to increase. How do you square that with your claim that surpluses remove money from the economy?
You're forgetting that the government doesn't _control_ the whole money supply. The government only controls how much it itself creates or deletes on net.
Most money is created by commercial banks. As the demand for credit expands the money supply expands, and as credit is repaid, the money supply decreases. This is going on all the time.
My point is that with a government surplus there is less money being spent in the economy, the same way that with a government deficit there is more money spent in the economy. I don't think this is polemic.
Now, in order the government to run a surplus, it has to tax more that it spend. The money that is taxed in excess of the money that is spend, it's the money that it's retired from the economy. Ergo, taxes retire money or "destroy money".
Please, note, that when a government is running a deficit, it's effectively spending new money into existence but, that doesn't mean that all the money comes from the fiscal instance of the government. That's the reason we can see years when the government is in surplus and an increase in the monetary base at the same time.
Where is that money coming from if not from a fiscal deficit? It's coming from the central bank creating reserves. Why the central bank create new reserves if the government is not spending more than it tax? Normally, it would be for only one reason, manage the interest rate.
The credit department of commercial banks doesn't check if they have reserves before given a loan, they check if the loan make business sense (or they should) and then get the reserves in the interbank market. If there are not enough reserves in the system for the demand of credit in the economy, the interest rate will go up (offer and demand dynamics in the interbank market). The central bank has a interest rate target, so, in order to keep it in target, they have to add the reserves necessaries. The central bank don't have control of the monetary base, because if they control the quantity of money, they would loss control of the interest rate.
So, if in years of government surplus, the monetary base grow, that means that central bank had to add reserves to the system. Assuming it was not some crazy QE program, that means that the economy was demanding more credit. Also, we can deduce that in those years, while the public debt was going down, the private debt was going up.
This is related also to the (for me) very interesting concept of sectoral balances (1). If the government is running a surplus, and the GDP is the same or growing, and the external balance of payments is the same, that means that the private debt have to increase.
>>"It's rare for the federal government to run a surplus [..]"
Yes, very rare. It's interesting to think about why is that the case in the context of the sectoral balance model.
> Inflation is caused by additional dollars chasing the same number of goods.
But if there's a fall in aggregate demand at a given price level, there are _fewer_ dollars chasing the same number of goods for a period of time. So if government spending is greater than taxation for that given period, it doesn't necessarily cause inflation.
> the bank exchanges an asset (like a treasury) in exchange for reserves (base money)
The "monetary base" increases because of the way they define the monetary base. In the old days, the money in reserve accounts was convertible into gold, and the money in the Treasury bond accounts wasn't, so they count the money in the reserve accounts as part of the "monetary base" but not the money in the Treasury bond accounts.
> But if there's a fall in aggregate demand at a given price level, there are _fewer_ dollars chasing the same number of goods for a period of time. So if government spending is greater than taxation for that given period, it doesn't necessarily cause inflation.
I actually completely agree, but with a caveat. It may not cause inflation in terms of this years price level being higher than last years price level, but it will cause a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. For example, let's say in the absence of intervention the price level would fall by 2%, but with intervention the price level would stay the same. That's still a 2% decline in purchasing power.
> The "monetary base" increases because of the way they define the monetary base.
The monetary base is defined as the sum of all currency (including coin) plus bank deposits. It increases or decreases completely at the Fed's discretion, because the Fed has the unique ability to create reserves. This isn't some semantic trickery.
Assuming that the fall in aggregate demand will last for several time periods, in the absence of intervention, the companies lay off part of their workforce, since now they don't need to produce as much per time period. So now unemployment is up and overall output is lower. By cutting output, the companies don't necessarily have to cut prices. In short: the lack of intervention doesn't necessarily lead to a fall in the price level.
The point of saying that the Treasury bond accounts aren't counted as part of the monetary base while the reserve accounts are is that it doesn't really matter which account your money is in at the Fed. My original comment was pointing out that QE just moves reserves from one account to the other and that this has little effect on overall economic activity because lending by private banks isn't reserve constrained (MMT people do a good job explaining this as well).
> Printing money does not create goods and services - it merely decreases the value of each dollar relative to everything else.
Consider that during a recession, factories have surplus capacity to produce more goods. But people don't have money to spend, so the factories don't use that existing capacity, or increase their capacity.
Printing money can stimulate demand and thus increase production of goods.
> If I had a machine that could create an unlimited amount of gold at zero cost, the price of gold would approach zero if I made and sold enough of it.
Well, they haven't created an infinite amount (yet). What if the demand for your watches grows as fast as your machine can produce them?
> why does the monetary base increase?
Has inflation kept up with the growth of the money supply?
Adults are capable of deciding risk/reward factors when selecting a job. There are many jobs that are well known for being grueling, and yet people still sign up to take those jobs because they value the compensation more than other considerations.
In many regions Amazon and other large retailers with similar conditions are some of the very few employers left to even offer a decent income, to the point where local governments are groveling in front of these companies.
The classism of the managerial tech class is always on pure display in these discussions, because contrary to developers who can pick and choose their workplace in some free competitive market, unqualified blue collar workers are often more or less forced to work under these conditions if they even want healthcare or be able to send their kids to a decent school.
If healthcare and education was free like it is in other developed countries and not employer bound you could make the argument that they're free to work another job instead. In the US it's a facetious point.
Then move. It's not hard. I've moved for better work five times in my life with nothing but what fit in two suitcases four of those five times. This includes moving from one country to another twice. In two of these five cases I knew nobody where I was moving to, In one I knew exactly one person and in two I knew just a single family. Both my parents did the same when they came to the US. They came alone and knew nobody in the US when they moved here.
Moving in the US virtually provides no wage premium for non-college educated people any longer. This is largely the consequence of breakdown of what would be considered 'good jobs', over the last twenty to thirty years.
"As the geographical pattern of work has shifted, so has that of wages. Economists have long acknowledged the existence of an urban wage premium: workers in more densely populated places earn more, in part because of the productivity benefits of crowding together that nurture urban growth in the first place. This pay premium used to hold across the range of skills. In 1970 workers without any college education could expect to get a boost to their earnings when they moved to a big city, just as better-educated workers did (see chart). Since then the urban wage advantage for well-educated workers has become more pronounced, even as that for less-educated workers has all but disappeared.
[...]
Most jobs in the first two of these categories are located in cities, open mainly to holders of college degrees and decently paid (frontier work is particularly lucrative). Only the last-mile jobs are occupied disproportionately by workers without a college education. They are better than nothing, but only just. Both wages and the quality of such jobs are typically low, which is just as well, since they are unlikely to avoid the creeping tide of automation for very long."
Bifucration of the economy, automation and the shift towards ever increasing knowledge sector and endemic housing shortages have largely destroyed the benefits of moving towards economic clusters for uneducated workers. This is not a solution in this day and age, it's a romanticised fiction. It may have worked for mom and pop who came to the US with nothing else but their clothes, but this is history. The world today is a different one, and it has largely left this segment of the population behind.
Then move to another country. You can live a pretty leisurely life in China just by virtue of being a native English speaker.
I knew many expats there with no college education, teaching for a mere 16 hours a week. They were given housing as part of their contracts and they earned enough to eat out every meal of the weeks if they so desired.
With just 16 hours of work per week, you have plenty of time to learn a new skill and better yourself.
Being a native English speaker is one of the greatest privileges one can have in this world. It's usually a foundational skill for succeeding in many of the best jobs in the World.
The thrust of ABC is that artificially cheap credit, induced by the central bank, causes malinvestment. Interest rates are signals of risk. When you artificially lower interest rates, people take on more debt than they normally would and invest in capital improvements that only make sense in a low interest rate environment. When the central bank attempts to raise those interest rates to the natural level, or there’s a large change in consumer preferences that causes a drop in aggregate demand, all of those over leveraged business fail en masse, which results in layoffs, reduced production, and falling asset prices. It has nothing to do with inventory.
It does. What do you do with the capital malinvestment? Build up inventory consumers don't want or aren't paying enough for, resulting in layoffs, lost revenue, etc.
The central bank is not the only interest rate driver, as the last 5 years have shown, especially for rates of long tenure bonds. But, regardless of drivers, malinvestment certainly does occur.
The Fed artificially lowered the interbank rate to zero percent for ~7 years after 2008, bought other treasuries across the yield curve, and bought trillions in mortgage backed securities. This created an environment that disincentivized saving and encouraged borrowing for both individuals and businesses alike. The market growth over the past 10 years was completely fueled by this artificially cheap credit. The economy was already extremely fragile before the coronavirus hit due to how over leveraged everyone was.
I'm assuming you're intelligent on account of being able to write a comment and doing so on HN. Have you really never heard of FB's shadow profiles and the like? Are you being wilfully ignorant?
> people simply value the utility they gain out of these tools higher than privacy.
Exactly. I bet if Facebook offered a paid, ad-free version of their service, 99.9% of people would not use it. The monetary value of Facebook is $0 for most people.
