patrick.net

Troy says

Well, people who have their money managed professionally, and only taxed at 15% if that, are going to get richer, especially given the power of compounding interest. Also, the really big money returns are always in real estate, and since real estate has a cost of production of roughly $0, any profit earned in real estate (excluding use of capital) is pure money transfer from weaker to stronger hands (ie rent collection).

That's a great deal different than saying the rich get richer only because they make interest on their investments. You also completely left out the whole real-estate Ponzi scheme - making bad loans based on fraudulent appraisals, driving up prices, selling it off as MBS with inflated ratings, but actually worthless. I feel like you were absent from the planet the last 10 years or something.

I said the middle class’ wealth is being depleted and transferred to the wealthy
What wealth is being transferred, and how?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "what wealth"? Do you not know what "wealth" is?

and that the interest on savings is less than the rate of inflation. That’s not saying much, as you can only get 1% or so even in a premium savings account. You seem to have twisted my words into something entirely different.
The disagreement here I think is what inflation vs. deflation will do to the middle class.
The average 401K balance is under $100K, yet total household debt is well over $10T still, also just under $100K on a per household basis. The poor has no money, the middle class has no equity anymore.

And how is this different from what I said?

at any rate the previous decade set up the middle class with the necessity of having to increase its real income, given all the debt the middle class was allowed if not encouraged to take on.
This is not going to happen; much of the economic growth of the middle class last decade was simply fueled by this debt expansion (which means the middle class is in a precarious position now).

Again, isn't that what I said?

But the bills are beginning to come due anyway, and the PtB have to figure out how to handle a several trillion dollar imbalance — the trillions of USD our trading partners have, the trillions of dollars the medicare system is going to need this century.
The national fisc is shot to hell. Taxes need to be raised — that’s deflationary. Government spending has to be redirected if not cut by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — that’s deflationary. We need to reduce our dependence on oil, but can’t.
Everything we buy is made much cheaper in China than we can make it here.
The Fed -> bankster skim is the least of our problems.

Not sure what any of that has to do with my point. I agree trade imbalance is a problem. Did I ever say otherwise?

maxweber says

Inflation will wipe out the middle class and stomp the lower class; so, the market for houses might not recover for a much longer time. IMO.

What Troy and others are saying, if you'll listen, is that the middle class has more debt than savings right now. So, inflation will actually help them. And the poor have no savings so inflation won't hurt them at all.

tatupu70 says

maxweber says

Inflation will wipe out the middle class and stomp the lower class; so, the market for houses might not recover for a much longer time. IMO.

What Troy and others are saying, if you’ll listen, is that the middle class has more debt than savings right now. So, inflation will actually help them. And the poor have no savings so inflation won’t hurt them at all.

If there were WAGE inflation, it would help them, but there is not. Price inflation by itself only makes things worse. Not to mention the humongous moral hazard this philosophy entails. If you reward the irresponsible and punish the responsible, you encourage irresponsibility.

gameisrigged says

If there were WAGE inflation, it would help them, but there is not. Price inflation by itself only makes things worse. Not to mention the humongous moral hazard this philosophy entails. If you reward the irresponsible and punish the responsible, you encourage irresponsibility.

Of course there will be--if you print money there will be wage inflation.

gameisrigged says

I said the middle class’ wealth is being depleted and transferred to the wealthy

What wealth is being transferred, and how?

I don’t understand the question. What do you mean by “what wealth”? Do you not know what “wealth” is?

My working definition of wealth is three-fold: a) "direct wealth" is that which provides utility (ie. satisfies human needs and wants) and b) "indirect wealth" which consists of capital goods and human skills that assist in the production of direct wealth, and c) "tertiary wealth" which is that which we exchange for the more primary forms of wealth.

So the biggest asset the middle class owns is their real estate, which is a leveraged investment for most people still (they own "direct wealth" (the land use rights + their house) but against this they owe a debt that someone else owns as part of their "tertiary wealth" portfolio).

"Inflation" would improve the middle class's wealth position in this asset class by increasing the dollar value of this real estate against the fixed & declining dollar value of the debt against it.

Actually, real estate is the second biggest asset the middle class owns. The biggest asset is their collective (if varied) ability to engage in productive labor. This was entirely inflation-proof in the closed economy of the postwar era (but not so much in our current globalized economy where many productive jobs can be outsourced to lower-cost "developing" economies).

The average 401K is under $100K, and the social security trust fund is under $20K/household. Not much wealth there to lose, really. Public pension funds are a significant locus of middle-class wealth, with per-enrollee wealth currently in the $100K+ range.

The only near-cash investment in this class (susceptible to inflation losses) is the $20K Social Security trust fund position. 401K and public pensions are highly invested in equities, which as an asset class are reasonably inflation-resistant.

The past investment in public-accessible infrastructure is another form of middle-class wealth, if under-appreciated until free access is lost to privatization. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/privatize-illinois-tollways-voters-say-no.html

I am just not seeing much of an "inflation" threat overall WRT middle class wealth position. Collectively the nation owes $10.2T on its real estate and another $2.5T in consumer credit debt. We'd all love a big round of "inflation" to reduce these burdens (note that we owe more in consumer debt than is in the SSTF!).

Plus the middle-class' exposure to property taxes and income taxes to pay off past state/local debt issues. My mom bought a house in 1981 and the property tax bill is smaller than the gardener's, thanks to inflation and Prop 13. When I inherit the house, who knows, later this century I might be paying the property tax with change I find in the sofa, thanks to Prop 58.

IOW, the middle class isn't sitting on a big cash pile that is going to get inflated away if we get a round of 1970s-style inflation.

By way of reference, the laboring classes, AFAIK, did OK during the Weimar inflation. The people who got really slaughtered were owners of pre-inflated debt, which is not a middle-class thing, by definition.

tatupu70 says

Of course there will be–if you print money there will be wage inflation.

Explain Japan then. Even public sector employees, who have had the most bargaining power for wages, all across the country are facing the cancellation of pay raises, if not outright cuts. I wish we had inflation. A bit of inflation would be a great thing for the country. We're still firmly in a liquidity trap though. "printing money" doesn't do much when the average expected rate of return is negative after accounting for losses. A 0% federal reserve note is just fine. Just because the fed pays you $1000 in freshly printed cash for your mortgage note doesn't mean you're going to spend it or lend it again.

Troy says

My working definition of wealth is three-fold: a) “direct wealth” is that which provides utility (ie. satisfies human needs and wants) and b) “indirect wealth” which consists of capital goods and human skills that assist in the production of direct wealth, and c) “tertiary wealth” which is that which we exchange for the more primary forms of wealth.

That's a good definition.

MarkInSF says

Explain Japan then. Even public sector employees, who have had the most bargaining power for wages, all across the country are facing the cancellation of pay raises, if not outright cuts. I wish we had inflation. A bit of inflation would be a great thing for the country. We’re still firmly in a liquidity trap though. “printing money” doesn’t do much when the average expected rate of return is negative after accounting for losses. A 0% federal reserve note is just fine. Just because the fed pays you $1000 in freshly printed cash for your mortgage note doesn’t mean you’re going to spend it or lend it again.

You're right--I should have better explained my point. I mean to say that if you cause inflation by printing money, then you will also experience wage inflation. Clearly the US printing hasn't caused any hint of inflation to date...

You guys don't understand what inflation it. Inflation is when your paycheck dwindles relative to costs. We have that. Iron Law of Wages implies Steel Law of Pay: lower pay with rising debts is inflation. Rising costs of food, fuel, and more without pay raises is inflation. higher unemployment despite growing population is inflation. Now, if those people worked for lower pay and prices fell then it would be deflation. That's not what is happening. Why is complex but the bottom line is Economics as a science is a century behind reality. Instead of pontificating the economists need to do real work and see what is really happening.

Inflation is when your paycheck dwindles relative to costs

My highest living costs, by far, are taxes and rent. Everything else is noise, including health insurance.

Tell me how the LL determines my rent from his costs.

Hint: the sticker on the built-in microwave says 1989 on it.

maxweber says

You guys don’t understand what inflation it. Inflation is when your paycheck dwindles relative to costs. We have that. Iron Law of Wages implies Steel Law of Pay: lower pay with rising debts is inflation. Rising costs of food, fuel, and more without pay raises is inflation. higher unemployment despite growing population is inflation. Now, if those people worked for lower pay and prices fell then it would be deflation. That’s not what is happening. Why is complex but the bottom line is Economics as a science is a century behind reality. Instead of pontificating the economists need to do real work and see what is really happening.

Actually, I do understand what inflation is--I'm not sure you do. Inflation is quite simply rising prices.

And despite what you may think--wages are already increasing. And if inflation hits, you can be sure that they will rise even faster.

Think of it this way: 41M Americans have food stamps. To them the prices might seem OK. They are not. The government is hocking their future to buy them food. The real price they are paying is inflating and fast!

I think we agree but my argument is not clear. Prices are rising in relation to personal situations. You might argue people are doing better. I don't see it. But you cannot argue the per person debt is not increasing. It is. The fully accounted financial position of every single American reflects high inflation. Extreme perhaps. Simply because you've taken on a debt you may not think you have to pay. You do. It will be paid by someone. The government taking on $T's in debt means YOU and I working Americans will pay. Either through reduced Social Security, War, and/or many other means. We'll pay. Borrowing to live better is not a good financial management strategy. Inflation is there. You are paying more for what you are getting. Much more.

Rising prices with rising salaries is not inflation. It is dollar deflation but it has closer to zero effect on the economy. Yes, it is inflation of prices but that's a meaningless statement. The only situation where inflation matters is in relation to purchasing power. This is what I mean about Economists being in the 19th century. Actually, its probably more like the 1200's. If they cannot understand basic calculations then they really are not able to give any meaningful analysis. The housing bubble and the person referenced originally provide prime examples of Economists and regular folks who fail at math and analysis.

So, we have strong inflation here. Taking on a job while your government takes on a few more $T in debt is not growth.

BTW, some people also still quote "GDP". Measuring the wrong thing is not measuring. Using terms like inflation when they have no meaning to the economy is simply playing crosswords. This is how we got in this mess. Either Greenspan and his compatriates were stupid or corrupt. I read he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on housing bubbles so he's probably not stupid.

Don't get hogwashed by the government. Unless they fully account their debt position into their statistics then you can be assured they are manipulating everything. Just like your friend who says he's doing fine but is really running up ever higher credit card debt.

Max--

You are very difficult to have a discussion with--you ramble quite a bit. Let's try to stick to a few points at a time.

1. Inflation is defined as rising prices. You can argue that it's more useful to measure a different set of variables--fine. But it needs a new name then. Inflation is already being used.

2. We don't have strong inflation here. It's next to nothing right now.

3. The government debt is high now. It does belong to the public and at some point we will have to reduce entitlements, reduce defense, or raise taxes. Agreed.

Can we agree to that?

max, sorry, but your assertions are just too opaque.

The wage-price spiral of the 1970s was a great reset of the economy that divided pre-Boomer haves from Boomer have-nots, as asset prices rose while the debt that was used to acquire these assets remained uninflated.

The situation has calmed down since then but the buying power of a 1985 dollar has fallen to 50c today.

we have strong inflation here

My thesis is that without wage inflation there can be no net price inflation. This is because there is a whole line of rentiers taking money out of middle America's pockets, and their economic rents are entirely proportional to middle America's disposable income less necessities.

A gallon of gas could easily go to $10 in a few years, but I believe our economy will simply reconfigure itself to accept this new reality, with much of the adjustment coming out of rents and land values of the periphery.

Producer prices rise when producers refuse to lose money on producing and simply withhold creation of new goods and services. Owners of existing real estate can't stop their production, the rental unit has done been built already and the costs of making their "income property" economically available (ie rented) is minimal. This is why I believe the real estate segment of the market lacks pricing power and will get smushed should price inflation occur in energy, food, government taxes, or even health costs.

With 20% underemployment and China still working for $200/mo in wages, India working for $500/mo, I simply fail to see the bargaining position of current wage earners.

This is deflation, very similar to what Japan experienced in the 90s. Once you lose full employment, it's a race to the bottom.