re: Fed hides weekly M1 supply, says "money doesn't matter"

quote:

---

Says the guy who calculates his crypto growth relative to fiat.

---

to usd

since bretton woods in 1944 that has been the standard.

quote:

---

opinions may vary, but I disagree with Powell that there are no consequences for debasing your currency. It starts with artificially propping up the stock market and concentrating wealth, but I think it ends with people opting out of your bonds and ultimately your currency if you push hard enough and let the positive feedback loop go forever.

---

the fiat milkshake theory looks more and more like a reality - all the other worthless fiat currencies will flow into the fiat currency which is just slightly better than all the rest (usd).

the thing that is perplexing is that we need to continue to convince others to own our native unit even if they aren't transacting with it. will dollarization take place across the globe when other harder means exist?

we all know where my money is...

quote:

---

we need to continue to convince others to own our native unit even if they aren't transacting with it.

---

That sounds like Bitcoin to be honest.

quote:

---

how can you even make this comment with a straight face?

---

Because it’s true, particularly assets like equities. Real estate as a little bit of a relationship, but the price increase has more to do with a lack of supply, largely a result of poor governmental policies (e.g., zoning), than monetary policy.

quote:

---

there is no "true" way to calculate or measure inflation, that has been my point from the beginning.

---

But it’s not about measurement and methodological differences in measuring and estimating inflation; it’s about the very definition of “inflation” and its conceptual basis. And asset price inflation is not “inflation,” which should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about inflation, even those who disagree about its methods and estimates.

quote:

---

And asset price inflation is not “inflation,” which should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about inflation, even those who disagree about its methods and estimates.

---

to point to an increase in the price of houses and label that "asset price inflation" is just as misleading as it would be to point to an increase in turkey prices and call that "turkey inflation"

it's all semantics, because "asset price inflation" still matters to the fed

quote:

---

but the price increase has more to do with a lack of supply

---

there are 2 big issues i have with this argument

one, our population has not increased in a way that would correlate to the price increase. i'm speaking nationally not in specific hot zones (where this can obviously happen and NIMBYs use zoning to prop up their home values, like SF). the question is how could demand explode like this? there are 3 answers: (1) consolidation of wealth allowing multiple home purchases (2) foreign investment and (3) increased demand

the demand needed for to affect supply in this manner is based solely in unsustainably low interest rates. that is part of inflation. that same increase in money in the system is creating the consolidation of wealth, because only particular populations are accessing these low rates and they're flooding certain markets they see as investments with it. that is inflating these markets.

foreign investment is just an example of "we're the best, worst option" b/c everywhere else is even more fricked

quote:

---

this monetary policy know exactly what they're doing in creating neo-inflation but not traditional inflation, so that they can say "see? no inflation!"

---

you see this all the time in academia. obfuscation of the truth with language, it's very effective

quote:

---

to point to an increase in the price of houses and label that "asset price inflation" is just as misleading

---

But that’s what it is and not misleading at all. It has an impact on inflation, to the extent that it impacts the overall housing costs, but this relationship is small and pretty weak, especially since the primary monetary policies that have the greatest impact on home price increases (lower interest rates) is a result of increasing demand because it LOWERS the cost of owning a home.

For example, my home value has increased ~20-25 percent over the last couple of years. That has resulted in a slight increase in my housing costs, as my property taxes, which are a portion of the housing costs, have risen by a portion of that value increase.

But I’m planning to refinance soon (wish I had done it sooner), so my payment will decrease AND because of the ASSETT PRICE INFLATION, I’m going to be well <80% LTV, and I’ll be able to drop my PMI, and save $1,300 a year. So the asset price inflation will have both indirectly (interest rate relationship) and directly (dropping PMI) decrease the cost of my housing (and many others in my situation) which is a deflationary pressure to offset the inflationary pressures of the asset price increase overall.

See you would know these things if you actually understood inflation and the assets you so confidently discuss.

I mean it was obvious you didn’t understand it when you cited the Chapwood index in an inflation discussion a couple months ago, because not only are the index estimates laughably disconnected from reality for anyone who understands math and reality, the methodology itself is so ridiculous and so invalid, that the only way to accept it as a valid estimate (unless someone dishonestly knows it’s not valid but uses it anyways) would be through outright ignorance, whether willful (which I suspect in your case) or a lack of capacity (which I don’t suspect in your case).

I remember NYC back in the post Lindsey days after the massive borrow and social program binge. Interest on the debt ate most of the revenue and the city was in tatters.