Deflation - cash is king

edited November 2008 in The Economy
We are in for an interesting ride here. There is more and more evidence that deflation is clearly here. This article prompted my creation of this thread but there are many others:
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/inf ... from/yahoo

The graphic is very instructive. Remember the Japanese deflation of the 90's? At least the Japanese were avid savers. We are not so fortunate. Funny thing about this is that it is really not rocket science. I have found that the closer to the facts at hand ones analysis is, and the more thought out the explanation, the less need for logic gymnastics and word parsing. The case for deflation is actually very simple - yet not simplistic - and easily explained.
«1

Comments

  • We are also seeing layoffs now at the airlines. American and Alaskan are two I know of off the top of my head. We seem to see separate industries starting to fall, one at a time. What is more interesting is that it is amazing how we "take in stride" the things happening now when experts said, as little as a few months ago, that many of these things could not happen unless things were REALLY bad.

    Well...
  • It's been interesting watching grocery store prices rise significantly in a short time. The manufacturers are employing smaller packaging to try to hide the inflation somewhat. My health insurance just went way up again. I'm fine with all this as long as house prices plummet, at least until I buy again.
  • Markor wrote:
    The manufacturers are employing smaller packaging to try to hide the inflation somewhat.

    I noticed that too. Try finding a half gallon of ice cream at the grocery store. They are 1.5 quarts now, but the same price. Same for the cereal I buy -- smaller box, but same price.
  • So when does this economic phenomena get a real name? The combination of prices falling on everything most people own and prices rising on anything most people don't.

    I'm going to offer the nomenclature screwflation. Any takers?
  • I second "screwflation" :)

    Manufacturers are also trying to ease people into the higher prices by having sales on the smaller packages, for the time being. I've been stocking up on cereal at $2.50 per pound or less, the same price as the generic brand. Eventually it'll be $4+ per pound or whatever.
  • Screwflation, indeed.
  • Screwflation, indeed.

    Careful though. Say it 3 times and the Screwcrow will appear to frighten and amuse you.
  • I think we are seeing temporary inflation in commodities, but give it six months and see where we are. If the government cannot inject cash in the system and jobs are shrinking or even dropping in their value (as is the case in one article I posted in another thread) we could be in for serious deflation in wages and jobs while prices, on average, remain flat or fall slower than income.

    OTOH, there was one article that mentioned that when large defaults happen, the result is that the money basically vanishes from the system. If the fed loans a bank a million bucks but no actual cash exchanges hands and the bank loans it to a developer and the developer pays wages (again, in the form of a check or electronic deposit), but never pays back the bank, which never pays back the fed, where did the money go?

    We could see a Depression Era money supply contraction while the fed TRIES to loan money but there are no takers. That will result in deflation.

    I think the inflationary pressure now is only temporary. People don't fully understand the magnitude of the "creative financing" bubble that is bursting. The amount of money that will be pulled from circulation is truly staggering and there is nothing our rich uncle can do about it. It is simply bigger than him.
  • The most common definition I see for inflation is a generalized increase in prices - which includes both goods and wages. If I recall correctly from my econ classes, it is typically associated with increases in the money supply.

    So what is happening today? We have a situation where prices are going up on a limited set of goods, but wages are flat to down. In the seventies you had CPI going up at 2 digit rate and wages matching it. Remember Wage and Price controls in the 70's? It was both! And the price of housing - the biggest item on consumer budgets? Falling at unprecedented rates. It doesn't seem to be a "generalized increased in prices" at all. So the argument that you should buy a house because you'll be able to pay back your mortgage in inflated dollars just doesn't hold water when your wages aren't increasing. If you want to paint the extreme case of this, consider a real estate agent buying property. Are their wages are going up? (hint: they're paid based on a straight percentage of a deflating asset class, and volumes are down)

    And what is happening to money supply? Is it increasing? Based on what I've read, I don't think so. The fed has tried - through the discount rate - to increase lending which in turn increases money supply. But it hasn't worked. No one is lending anything. They are too scared. So velocity of money has dropped which decreases the money supply. Does it offset the hundreds of billions the Fed has dropped in through the alphabet soup programs? I don't know. But the mere fact that the fed is dropping all this money into the system says they must be worried about velocity.

    But back to prices and inflation. IMO, prices are rising for two reasons:
    1) foreign goods are getting more expensive because of the fall in the value of our currency. This is not inflation. You want lower prices? Buy domestic goods. Can't find them? Sorry. The fact that we don't happen to make anything any more is the result of years of our eroding competitive advantage - but it's not sudden inflation.
    2) increased demand relative to supply of commodities. Again, this is not inflation. It's basic economics. Demand increases, while supply stays flat. Prices increase. These commodities are going into all sorts of stuff you buy and driving prices up. But again, not inflation.

    All this doesn't add up to inflation to me. It adds up to paying the piper for years of mismanagement with the net result that we're all going to feel a lot poorer. When I see high interest rates, and wages rising _i'll believe we are in an inflationary spiral. But right now it seems like a convenient distraction when the reality is were pretty screwed.
  • edited July 2008
    Just a follow on to what DJO posted. I think it might be reasonable to consider which prices are going up and which are going down.

    UP:
    Fuel
    Food
    Metals
    Medical Care


    DOWN:
    Real Estate
    Autos
    Alternative energy sources (e.g. solar panels on your roof)
    Generic Drugs
    Electronics
    Wood


    And here's a few things I'm unsure about, but seem flat:
    Electricity
    Entertainment (thus far)
  • You might think we are uniquely screwed now, but they said pretty much the same back in the 70s, except back then it was called stagflation - a combination of stagnation and inflation. Prior to that time, the relationship between money supply and inflation was controversial. The predominant theory then was that inflation was the result of full employment. The high unemployment during that time, plus the drop in inflation during the recession in the early 80s, put to rest that theory. We are left with the money supply explanation, which is a little too vague for my taste. To me, the economy is a dynamic system, for which the idea of a money supply is an adequate approximation.
  • Lumber prices are definitely down.
    Lumber prices have dropped by more than 30 percent over the last two years, to a new low of $262 per 1000 board feet of wood

    http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/25450789.html
  • sniglet wrote:
    Lumber prices are definitely down.
    Lumber prices have dropped by more than 30 percent over the last two years, to a new low of $262 per 1000 board feet of wood

    http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/25450789.html

    Thanks, fixed it.
  • Just a follow on to what DJO posted. I think it might be reasonable to consider which prices are going up and which are going down.

    UP:
    Fuel (commodity and FX)
    Food (commodity)
    Metals (commodity)
    Medical Care and education (both education and medical care are (IMO) cases where the increase in price is more due to a fundamental disconnect between supply and demand through insurance/gov't loans than it is due to market forces or inflation, but I digress)


    DOWN:
    Real Estate
    Autos
    Alternative energy sources (e.g. solar panels on your roof)
    Generic Drugs
    Electronics
    Wood
    Wages


    And here's a few things I'm unsure about, but seem flat:
    Electricity
    Entertainment (thus far)

    Good idea. Couple thoughts above in italics
  • I'm budgeting $150K for my child's college education, for ten years from now. That's up from < $20K in 1985.

    I bought some used electric space heaters. Should be cheaper than natural gas. While I can still afford the increased prices, in general I try to be as frugal as comfortably possible, so I can save as much as possible. Goodwill and craiglist are my friends for purchases. High quality used goods should become cheaper as people cast off their bubble purchases to raise cash for food, fuel, etc.
  • deejayoh wrote:
    both education and medical care are (IMO) cases where the increase in price is more due to a fundamental disconnect between supply and demand through insurance/gov't loans than it is due to market forces or inflation, but I digress

    I agree with this by the way. I've felt for a while now that the massive increase in education costs are directly related to the excessive availability of "government aid". Perhaps a system where we offer aid to the truly disadvantaged only would be both even handed and would have prevented double digit increases in tuition.

    Medical costs are an even more peculiar issue, because many people falsely believe that the only constraint on medicine is ethical. "If we can extend someone's life at any cost, then we must do it," we seem to say. A person needs a new heart? Then they must have it! Forget the fact that the person is a 95 year old with alzheimer's and diabetes. Meanwhile we've got children who don't get immunized at a cost of a few dollars a shot!

    </rant>
  • deejayoh wrote:
    both education and medical care are (IMO) cases where the increase in price is more due to a fundamental disconnect between supply and demand through insurance/gov't loans than it is due to market forces or inflation, but I digress

    I agree with this by the way. I've felt for a while now that the massive increase in education costs are directly related to the excessive availability of "government aid". Perhaps a system where we offer aid to the truly disadvantaged only would be both even handed and would have prevented double digit increases in tuition.

    Medical costs are an even more peculiar issue, because many people falsely believe that the only constraint on medicine is ethical. "If we can extend someone's life at any cost, then we must do it," we seem to say. A person needs a new heart? Then they must have it! Forget the fact that the person is a 95 year old with alzheimer's and diabetes. Meanwhile we've got children who don't get immunized at a cost of a few dollars a shot!

    </rant>
    I like to think of it this way: If you want to drastically increase the price of a thing, just make sure the person making the decision to purchase or use the item/service is not the one actually paying for it.
  • I've been waiting for deflation to win for some time now.

    it seems like the inflation that we currently have is unsustainable, because wages are not rising to keep up. The housing market was fueling inflation in a vicious cycle because people were using their house appreciation as an ATM machine which then went out and created consumer demand. Now with housing falling that cycle should work in reverse and consumer demand should slow.

    Also, assuming Obama is elected and the Iraq war winds down that will also be deflationary (or, the Iraq war has been inflationary).

    Gold peaked at slightly over $1,000/oz and then broke down and looks to have now failed to rally back up to that level and looks to be failing. Oil is pulling back hard after failing to hit $150/bbl and domestic consumption of oil is actually pulling back.

    Credit in general is also clearly pulling back, which is deflationary.

    That all points towards further deflation to me. Although, clearly the Fed is going to try to re-inflate and congress will continue to bail out the system. At some point though their efforts may backfire and result in higher interest rates.

    It isn't totally decided yet, though. I'm still strongly considering that I may be calling this several years too early, but most of the signs are pointing in a deflationary direction. Commodities would really need to pull back more sharply, unemployment would need to get worse, GDP would need to post actual losses, Iraq would need to wind down and the actions of the Fed to increase money supply and the Congress to bailout the system would need to start more clearly looking like 'pushing on a string'.

    I'm also still kind of worried that Congress and Fed might actually manage to create a panic in the dollar, which would be hugely inflationary and might kick off a wage-price spiral. There is a lot of resiliency in our system so I'm very skeptical of the claims that this kind of hyperinflation is just around the corner, but there has to be a limit at some point to how far the dollar can be pushed.
  • lamont wrote:
    it seems like the inflation that we currently have is unsustainable, because wages are not rising to keep up.
    Couldn't inflation be sustainable and people just starve to death?
  • Markor wrote:
    lamont wrote:
    it seems like the inflation that we currently have is unsustainable, because wages are not rising to keep up.
    Couldn't inflation be sustainable and people just starve to death?

    That would reduce aggregate demand until you had an oversupply of food for the survivors at which point oversupply/underdemand would lead to falling prices and deflation.
  • If we have slow push inflation with no rise in wages, we do get what used to be called stagflation, but what it amounts to is a reduction in the standard of living.

    Imagine prices staying flat but everyones income is cut by 20%. Smaller homes, streets filled with bicycles, a-la Peking decades ago. One car families. Living on an actual food budget and rarely eating at restaurants.

    Stuff like that.
  • That is a good point. With increasing global demand chasing too few commodities, the result may be a reduction in real standard of living for americans. If wages stay constant, prices may rise, giving a paycut to americans in 'real' terms.

    That seems like a *very* long term, 10-20+ year effect, though.

    Shorter term, I still tend to think that as american consumerism contracts that will lead to a recession in China as they will have an oversupply of goods that not enough people will be buying.

    There seems to be a race between global deflation/recession and BRIC decoupling.

    Ultimately, BRIC decoupling wins in the long run, but I don't think those economies are decoupled enough right now to deal with the deflation that I see on the more immediate (1-3 year) timeframe.
  • Things went downhill pretty fast between 1929 and 1932. Ultimately, governments have to do what they can to avoid civil unrest. I used to read a guy at fredoneverything.net that spent a lot of time in cop cars in DC and south Chicago. His take about a decade ago was that if the economy ever tanks, there could be the actual race wars in the US that everyone was concerned about in the late 1960's. And that is just the US.

    The last time something as dire as what we are looking at happened, it led to nations allowing folks like Hitler to rise to power, complete with an implied blessing on his crazyness.

    Just sayin' mobs don't act like reasonable people, and sometimes an entire nation can be a mob. It really CAN happen here. And China. And anywhere else. More importantly, it is not as unlikely as many assume.
  • Robroy wrote:
    I like to think of it this way: If you want to drastically increase the price of a thing, just make sure the person making the decision to purchase or use the item/service is not the one actually paying for it.

    Medicine is still funny with regards to inflation even if the person paying for it is the one using it. 200 years ago, if your 5 year old child got really sick, the best you might be able to do is pay the cutter a few days of your labor to bleed the kid and see if they got better.

    Times have changed. Now, you know it's not just "sick" it's luekemia. It no longer costs 2 days labor to bleed the luekemia out. Instead, you need expensive drugs to slow it down, then you need bone-marrow transfusions, then chemo or radiation therapy. Maybe some day, we get an affordable solution to this type of problem, but today we don't have it.

    Let's just assume the parent is going to be paying for all procedures by cash (no insurance and no medicaid). Now, let's say the "do all you can" option to save the child is going to cost $20,000. Do you do it? What about $100,000. What about $1,000,000.

    For many(most) parents, they would pay as high of a figure as you can name so long as they could get the credit to cover it. Even if they'd be paying 70% of their gross income (uncle same usually takes 25% right?) for the rest of their lives they would probably still do as much as they can.

    So, what's really the right thing to do? Just from a moral viewpoint you want to say "do what ever you can to save a life", but what if the hypothetical family has 3 otherwise healthy children? Will they be fed cheap and unhealthy food to pay for the first child's bills? Will they miss out on college?

    Medical care is just plain tricky, but somehow I feel like we overspend on it in this nation. Just the other day I read an article about how much care is spent on people who are over 90 years of age. Somehow, you've got to think these people have lived full lives and that money should be focused on other people for all but the most basic needs of the over 90 crowd. It's just a very unpopular thing to say that we need some basic techniques to select who gets which procedures and who does not.
  • Robroy wrote:
    I like to think of it this way: If you want to drastically increase the price of a thing, just make sure the person making the decision to purchase or use the item/service is not the one actually paying for it.

    Medicine is still funny with regards to inflation even if the person paying for it is the one using it. 200 years ago, if your 5 year old child got really sick, the best you might be able to do is pay the cutter a few days of your labor to bleed the kid and see if they got better.

    Times have changed. Now, you know it's not just "sick" it's luekemia. It no longer costs 2 days labor to bleed the luekemia out. Instead, you need expensive drugs to slow it down, then you need bone-marrow transfusions, then chemo or radiation therapy. Maybe some day, we get an affordable solution to this type of problem, but today we don't have it.

    Let's just assume the parent is going to be paying for all procedures by cash (no insurance and no medicaid). Now, let's say the "do all you can" option to save the child is going to cost $20,000. Do you do it? What about $100,000. What about $1,000,000.

    For many(most) parents, they would pay as high of a figure as you can name so long as they could get the credit to cover it. Even if they'd be paying 70% of their gross income (uncle same usually takes 25% right?) for the rest of their lives they would probably still do as much as they can.

    So, what's really the right thing to do? Just from a moral viewpoint you want to say "do what ever you can to save a life", but what if the hypothetical family has 3 otherwise healthy children? Will they be fed cheap and unhealthy food to pay for the first child's bills? Will they miss out on college?

    Medical care is just plain tricky, but somehow I feel like we overspend on it in this nation. Just the other day I read an article about how much care is spent on people who are over 90 years of age. Somehow, you've got to think these people have lived full lives and that money should be focused on other people for all but the most basic needs of the over 90 crowd. It's just a very unpopular thing to say that we need some basic techniques to select who gets which procedures and who does not.
    When I made my comment, health care is exactly what I was thinking of. I went five years with no health care insurance. One day my daughter broke her arm and I thought, "uh oh, this is gonna cost me." It did, it cost me what would have been half of one months premium.

    But I am thinking of the people that take their kid to the doctor for a sniffle, and stuff like that. That is why I think large co-pays are a huge benefit to keeping costs down. If there is a $25 copay, people will be a little more prudent about small stuff.

    But about the leukemia stuff.

    My wife's first husband died of Leukemia, leaving her with three kids under age six. The irritating part was that towards the end, Valley General had specific instructions NOT TO hook him up to "life support" machines. This had been worked out with my wife as well has her then husband. They did it anyway, to the tune of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS! And once they hooked him up, it would have taken an act of God to get him unhooked. It did. The act was his death.

    My sister had breast cancer, and it was taken care of. But then, she and her husband are worth somewhere in the neighborhood of one billion, so it was no big deal, financially speaking anyway.

    I'm 54. I never get tested for anything – at all. I eat healthy, live an active lifestyle, and figure I'm gonna go when God wants me to. My kids have all left home, my wife has a good life insurance policy and is well established. People ask me what will happen if I get cancer. My response is simple: I'll die. And to die is gain.

    Of course, a secular world does not see it that way. That can make things very expensive indeed.

    And insurance would be cheap if the government did not meddle in the business. They need only ensure the companies are not engaging in fraud or criminal activity. It should be perfectly fine for an insurer to refuse to insure some people. If it is clarified in the original paperwork, they should even be able to cancel your coverage once you actually get a life threatening disease. The thought here, though, is that nobody would buy such insurance unless it was dirt cheap, because it wouldn't insure much.

    One thing I would really like to see is for it to be illegal to connect insurance of any kind to your employer, other than insurance to cover you while actually performing the duties of your job.
  • Long-term care insurance. Buy it.

    Insurance should be for catastrophe. Everything else should be paid by RobRoy.
  • biliruben wrote:
    Long-term care insurance. Buy it.

    Insurance should be for catastrophe. Everything else should be paid by RobRoy.
    Yep.

    And that is exactly what I did. $5,000 deductible. Strictly for catastrophes, which is why Lloyds of London came into existence to begin with.

    I used to sell insurance. I had an acquaintance that had $10,000 deductible (for all the right reasons) and hurt himself playing tennis. He knew that he needed a specialist and went to the office to get looked at. The receptionist said they needed a referral from a doctor. He had to 'splan it several times before she understood that he was merely a man off the street that wished to pay, out of his own pocket, for their services. She was so steeped in the insurance paradigm that the meeting of the minds was long coming.
  • Based on the USD index, oil, gold and the CRB index it does kinda look like cash is king right now. The dollar is strengthening and everything else (commodities, cars, houses, stock market) is falling.

    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24USD

    I'm not convinced that its really deflation though and that its not just hot money in a panic looking for someplace else to land. The global economy hasn't quite gotten bad enough.
  • lamont wrote:
    Based on the USD index, oil, gold and the CRB index it does kinda look like cash is king right now. The dollar is strengthening and everything else (commodities, cars, houses, stock market) is falling.

    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24USD

    I'm not convinced that its really deflation though and that its not just hot money in a panic looking for someplace else to land. The global economy hasn't quite gotten bad enough.
    I actually agree that it hasn't gotten bad enough, but I think I have a different take on it than you. I liken it to the joke about the guy that falls off a 20 story building and as he passes the 15th floor, someone asks him "how's it going?". He responds, "So far, so good." And I think we really are at about the 15th floor, regarding the worldwide economy.
  • I hope the dollar keeps strengthening. I really had to resist the urge to get out of it. Now I see an increase in articles about housing bubble pops & financial crises in other countries, like Australia, England, and Spain. The tough part is assessing just how f**ked the US is for wasting $3 trillion in the past 5 years (plus many times that in interest payable on it), on top of all its other outstanding debt, relative to other countries that are better managed.
Sign In or Register to comment.