Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Inflation

Lacy Hunt:

"....well. I think that the national accounts do suggest the economy is growing well, but the national accounts have a major disconnect in the United States, and there's good reason for why they shouldn't be doing well. We've recently constructed a weighted and detrended money supply aggregate for the United States, China, Japan, the EU, and the United Kingdom. This aggregate over the last four years is declining very, very sharply.

So, when you look at actual M2 growth for the last four years versus detrended, we're substantially in negative territory. What that means is that the economy is far below what we would call the stationary growth rate, the STR, and it is very substantially negative. It suggests that the economy is going to experience a sustained period of subpar economic growth and declining inflation. That's the condition. Now, normally, when you have a severe monetary contraction, the sequence is that first of all, the money growth comes down and then you get a deceleration in economic activity and then you get a deceleration in inflation. That's the pattern. There's virtually hardly any exceptions to that rule.

Money leads, GDP is coincident, and the inflation rate is lagging. That, by the way, is the case in the four major foreign economies. Money growth has collapsed. It's brought down economic activity in Japan, China, the EU, and the UK. In the United States, we've had a collapse in monetary growth on the terms in the way in which I measure it. We've had a dramatic deceleration in inflation, what I would call a contra-normal cyclical development. You've had the inflation rate come down without the GDP declining, and that doesn't usually work that way. Now, in economics, quantity effects and price effects both convey knowledge. When economic conditions are weakening, you expect to see the broad volumetric measures to deteriorate.

But when economic activity is weakening, you experience a sharp decline in the inflation rate. Well, the inflation rate has dropped more than it typically does during a recession and immediately after with the GDP still rising. I think that what we're witnessing is a very broad and very basic disconnect between the national accounts and many measures of the economy.

Take for example, one of the things that we've always been able to do for this economy is we've had affordable homes and cars for the vast majority of our people. Yet if you look at the vehicle sales, the new home sales, existing home sales, they're all down very substantially from their peaks of the last five years. Vehicle sales in the teens. Existing and new home sales down in the 35% to 40% range. Very, very broad disconnect
.
 
Good quote from dona, one thing the author didn't mention is the size of central bank balance sheets.

Last time they tried to reduce it (I think it was 2018 but I'd have to go check) it caused a pretty serious dump in the markets until they actually abandoned their attempts a year or so later if memory serves.

Massive central bank balance sheets and outstanding public debt are two cans that have been kicked down the road constantly for quite some time and are rapidly approaching the point of being unignorable.
 
Good quote from dona, one thing the author didn't mention is the size of central bank balance sheets....
funny you should mention that. It was a 16 page article / interview (titled " Hard Times Hiding in Plain Sight " ) and the meat is from about p7

..
Ed D'Agostino:
I'm just a simple guy trying to keep up with one of the greatest economists of my lifetime. So, bear with me. So, how much of this boils down to government debt and deficits? Because in your last note in the second-quarter Hoisington note, you had a chart where you highlighted debt-to-GDP at 90%, and we are well above 90%. But that 90% mark seemed to be an important threshold for you. How much does government debt play into it?

Lacy Hunt:
That's the critical question and that's the one that no one's willing to answer. That's really the tragedy of the presidential election. By the way, that 90% level is based on gross government debt, and it's not my figure as being a critical level. It came from an outstanding econometric study published in one of the American Economic Association's peer review journals written by the Reinharts and Ken Rogoff. It's called Growth in a Time of Debt. What they showed is that when gross government debt goes above 90% of GDP, you lose one-third of your growth rate against trend. Now, we're at 120%.
So, basically, historically, from 1870 to 1970, we grew at about 2.3% per annum. We're now growing at about 1.4% per annum. So, we've lost nine-tenths of 1% on a 2.3% base. That's about 40% of our growth trend. Reinhart and Rogoff said that we would lose a third of our growth rate against trend, and that's going to happen. Here we are in a presidential campaign and there's no attention being paid to the government debt. In fact, all I'm seeing are more and more promises.

Ed D'Agostino:
From both sides. Yeah.

Lacy Hunt:
Your debt levels are going to continue to rise. There's a corroborating study that proved equally as prescient as Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff. A book published in 2000 by two outstanding Swedish economists, Bergh and Henrekson, they teach at Scandinavian University today, but part of their career was at Harvard. Their work is first-rate, and they did it a little differently.
What they looked at was the impact on the real per capita growth rate of what happens when the share of government economic activity increases. What they found is that for each one percentage point increase in the government share of economic activity, you lose 0.09% of growth per annum. So, in 1970, the government share of economic activity was 25% of GDP. Today, it's 36% of GDP. So, we've lost about 1%, as I said, the same number that Reinhart amd Rogoff would've projected. You go deeper and deeper into the government sector and you get less economic performance.

There's a third way of confirming that because what happened is that when the Fed reversed monetary policy after the inflation rate surged dramatically, the federal budget deficit was funded entirely by the domestic non-bank financial sector. That meant that the funds were not available for the private sector. A lot of people are talking about the revisions to the national accounts. I gave you my analysis of it, but all the news wasn't good. There was some very disturbing news.
Now because of the fact that home sales have been lackluster and motor vehicle sales have been lackluster, we're seeing a big buildup in inventories. We have automobile inventories and units back at where they were in 2019, even though the selling rate is down 12 to 14%. The home sales are down 35 to 40% from their peak levels, yet we've seen a substantial increase in recent months to 9 or 10 months high in unsold home inventories. If you look at the GDP accounts for the first half of the year, what you see is that the inventory buildup was not just confined to automobiles and houses. It was far broader.
If you do this little exercise, if you take the real GDP and you include the inventories, the growth rate in the economy was under 2% in the first half of the year. So, there was actually a slowdown, but it was masked by this buildup in inventories, which is not sustainable.... "
 
If Trump loses my Tesla position is getting torched like a EV with a runaway lithium battery.
I think you will be fine moxjo.
Harris is all for the continuation of EV's, and with the lockout of Chinese EV's , it really only leaves tesla as the most viable producer.
The dems may have come to hate Musk, but they know they need him.
Not just for Cars, but for batteries, for the ability to supply internet services when disaster strikes land based comms, and to rescue astronauts from space when their preferred supplier Boeing screws up (again).
Mick
 
I think you will be fine moxjo.
Harris is all for the continuation of EV's, and with the lockout of Chinese EV's , it really only leaves tesla as the most viable producer.
The dems may have come to hate Musk, but they know they need him.
Not just for Cars, but for batteries, for the ability to supply internet services when disaster strikes land based comms, and to rescue astronauts from space when their preferred supplier Boeing screws up (again).
Mick
Baldy Bezos is waiting in the wings on space travel. I'm sure he was contracted on as well.
Watching Elon jump around on stage like a giant dbag isn't winning fans where it matters. I don't want a bunch of screeching wokiests throwing up roadblocks. I think the robotics side and Tesla's manufacturing/software capabilities will be the winner
 
The problem with that senario is that no matter who or what makes the "things", there has to be a demand for the "things".
If the populace has no money, they aint buyin.
With robotics doing all the nasty work, who will be working outside the UBI system to pay the taxes that provide the UBI?
And apart from say Elon Musk, why would anyone work if there is a UBI?
Mick
In a world where most of the production output comes from companies that use robots, you just continue taxing those companies at some rate based on their output, and continue taxing its share holders on their dividends / profits.

Where UBI exists, some people will choose not to work, just like people live on the dole now, but people that want extra income above the UBI which will be most people, will continue trying to find ways to generate extra income by doing things that robots don’t do, and that we can’t imagine now.
 
if human labour is required less and less .. think of all the middle management jobs gone , no more health and safety manager , payroll staff may as well brush on a U-tube , hobby , supervisors and don't forget the human resources department , you might be laughing at those blue-collar stiffs , but they will sipping beer on the couch way before you ( and snatched up all the best second-hand stuff cheap )
Think of the massive increase in productivity though, and new industries producing more goods and services.

For example 90% of people used to work on farms, and famines were still regular things, now less than 1% work on farms and they easily feed the other 99% by using machines.

Farm machines didn’t cause unemployment, they caused an explosion in new industries and massive increases in output and raised standards of living.
 
In a world where most of the production output comes from companies that use robots, you just continue taxing those companies at some rate based on their output, and continue taxing its share holders on their dividends / profits.

Where UBI exists, some people will choose not to work, just like people live on the dole now, but people that want extra income above the UBI which will be most people, will continue trying to find ways to generate extra income by doing things that robots don’t do, and that we can’t imagine now.
They are already dumbing down the species now, for that scenario IMO.
Most will be happy to sit in their box, playing on their video devices, for all their entertainment needs and those that want to rise from the slime will be harvested for further development. :wheniwasaboy:
 
Think of the massive increase in productivity though, and new industries producing more goods and services.

For example 90% of people used to work on farms, and famines were still regular things, now less than 1% work on farms and they easily feed the other 99% by using machines.

Farm machines didn’t cause unemployment, they caused an explosion in new industries and massive increases in output and raised standards of living.
Think of how much less pollution and waste would be produced, if there were only robots. :thumbsdown:

Why not fess up to be the first Tesla cyborg, let's be honest, you already know everything, you just need the armour. :roflmao:

You could probably get a huge investor script if you subscribed to the Tesla stem cell scheme, it would be right up your street, just like getting in on Fortescue in the early days, another 10 bagger with an implant probably for free?

Just another opportunity waiting. ;)

Just joking.

 
Last edited:
Think of how much less pollution and waste would be produced, if there were only robots. :thumbsdown:

Why not fess up to be the first Tesla cyborg, let's be honest, you already know everything, you just need the armour. :roflmao:

You could probably get a huge investor script if you subscribed to the Tesla stem cell scheme, it would be right up your street, just like getting in on Fortescue in the early days, another 10 bagger with an implant probably for free?

Just another opportunity waiting. ;)

Just joking.

Well, I reckon eventually the world’s population will stabilise, and begin an eventually slow decline, if the population reduced by 2 thirds over the next 200 years (no far from what it was when you were born), and robots did all the hard work and allowed people to only work 3 days a week and retire at 40, and travel etc, that would be a good thing in my opinion.
 
Well, I reckon eventually the world’s population will stabilise, and begin an eventually slow decline, if the population reduced by 2 thirds over the next 200 years (no far from what it was when you were born), and robots did all the hard work and allowed people to only work 3 days a week and retire at 40, and travel etc, that would be a good thing in my opinion.
Why would you need people to work 3 days a week and what would be the point of travel, when they could do virtual travel from home, with no expense, or emissions?
 
1. Why would you need people to work 3 days a week

I am imagining robots doing most of the "hard work", but there still being a place for some human labour in more meaningful jobs that robots can't do or are better with real humans, or artistic ventures.

for example, I could see an aged care facility where robots did all the hard work of preparing meals, cleaning, etc etc and freed up staff to connect more with the patients, and play games and chat with them etc.

even with a UBI and robots, people will find meaningful ways to add value and earn more, but might choose to work a lot less hours than we expect today.


and what would be the point of travel, when they could do virtual travel from home, with no expense, or emissions?

Imagine people would still enjoy real travel, and with a much lower population and future tech, pollution wouldn't be a problem, with money and time not being an issue, Travel is one of the first things people want to do more of.
 
I am imagining robots doing most of the "hard work", but there still being a place for some human labour in more meaningful jobs that robots can't do or are better with real humans, or artistic ventures.

for example, I could see an aged care facility where robots did all the hard work of preparing meals, cleaning, etc etc and freed up staff to connect more with the patients, and play games and chat with them etc.

even with a UBI and robots, people will find meaningful ways to add value and earn more, but might choose to work a lot less hours than we expect today.




Imagine people would still enjoy real travel, and with a much lower population and future tech, pollution wouldn't be a problem, with money and time not being an issue, Travel is one of the first things people want to do more of.
I'm not sure the next generations will want to leave their gaming platform, from what I've observed of the grandkids and to a lesser extent their parents.
 
I'm not sure the next generations will want to leave their gaming platform, from what I've observed of the grandkids and to a lesser extent their parents.
Nah, Gen Z have huge Travel desires, just look at TikTok travel influencers they are some of the most popular TikTokers there is a huge travel culture in the younger generation, they only thing holding them back is the cash and the free time.

Visiting some of the “TikTok famous” places is considered “life goals”,

It’s big on you tube too, these girls make a living off YouTube. And always document their travels. The younger generation watch this stuff like your wife used to watch Home and away or Neighbors 😅. And because my wife watches these YouTube’s almost everyday it means I watch them too, atleast we get some good travel Ideas.

 
Last edited:
Top