Display:
Any system will be stressed to the breaking point. If the sistem is fragile it will yield locally but if it is very resilient if will accumulate stress over its whole structure and when it breaks the whole think will break catastrophically.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 5th, 2007 at 05:19:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So some inflation is good, because it keeps us on our toes... After 25 years of no inflation, expectations become that there won't be, and risk taking can be more aggressive.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 04:10:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought low inflation meant that the "required rate of return" to beat inflation by a reasonable margin is lower and so you need to take on less risk. In fact, that low inflation and low interest rates make low-risk investment viable.

What is wrong with this reasoning?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 05:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But as everybody now expects a fixed return on your capital (the mythological 15%), the lower inflation is, the higher the rate that return can be compounded over the years, and the more wealth can be captured today, via the miracle of Net Present Value.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 05:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let us again state explicitly that 'inflation' is conventionally seen to arise from wage-'inflation', while growth in return on investment, or of asset 'value', is not seen to drive up 'inflation', but is wonderful good and great 'growth' that is required and beneficial. 'Inflation' as defined by the neolibs being specifically designed to ensure that inequality is increased and wealth capture can proceed at optimal rates, and then happily be referred to as wealth creation. The constant return of the threat of 'inflation' can be mobilized to ensure that money keeps flowing to the right people, and doesn't end up with the scum at the bottom, who would not 'invest' it properly anyway.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 06:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thank you. For me that is a moment of clairty.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 08:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Net Present Value is not a bad idea until you realise that the discount rate is wholly arbitrary.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 06:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not arbitrary. It's a rational market assessment, and not bad fortune telling at all.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 08:24:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Umm, no. The "discount rate" includes things like the "required rate of return" which depends on nothing else but the greed of the investors.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 08:27:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed.

Hence 'rational market assessment.'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 09:33:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you're being facetious :-)

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 09:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The worst problem with the discount rate (from a financial perspective), is that it is simply pulled out of the yield curve. It's a poll, like all implicit market observables. Take thousands of educated traders and observe their crowd behavior: you get idiot forecast, because the IQ of a crowd goes like the inverse of its size, regardless of the IQ distribution of its individuals.

On the particular of the yield curve, the only part where some serious forecasting gets into it is IMHO the first 5 years, because all traders are short sighted. If actual sensible inflation trends over 20/30 years were priced in, long term rates should be 40% and the states would quickly rediscover the virtue of balanced budgets.

As to what this would do to the markets, well they would get even more greedy and short-termist actually, because the tail-end of future cash flows would be totally worthless. But at least the greediest would exit the home mortgage market since it's very long duration.

Pierre

by Pierre on Tue Nov 6th, 2007 at 10:22:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series