Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I’ve got a bottle - almost unused - of the finest quality harness oil. From advertisements for same that I’ve found through internet searches, it appears to come from the 1908-1913 period. I wonder what it went for then....and would go for today?
Probably not the best of long-term investments, but at least it hasn’t deteriorated.
 
Simplistically, the problem with overall deflation in the economy is it means that a dollar today is worth more tomorrow, thereby incenting everybody to hold onto their dollars money.
Everything you write is true. However, there is a second problem with deflation, and there's massive empirical evidence from history showing that it's an even larger problem.

Debt is denominated in nominal dollars. Deflation makes it *harder to pay off debt* while simultaneously making the value of bonds held by rich people higher. Since the poor are generally in debt and the rich generally own debt, deflation directly and immediately makes the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Debt deflation can, and frequently does, run ahead of wages. It can leave poor people in a position where they can NEVER pay off their debt even with a steady job.

Historically, the next step was for the rich lender to "offer" to replace the poor person's debt with a promise of indefinite servitude by the poor person -- *serfdom*. This is actually how feudal serfdom arose in a number of places in the early Dark Ages. We are seeing similar stuff happening now, just the beginnings of it. Rich corporations are taking students who are deep in student debt and offering to pay it off in exchange for the student signing their life away to the corporation, basically. This is the end of capitalism and the beginning of feudalism -- the *actual* road to serfdom.

Now, most debt deflation doesn't actually go THAT far. Because, during the Enlightenment, we outlawed a bunch of these serfdom contracts. So the 19th century result of deflation was simply that very poor people were constantly turning their money over to lenders. While the rich got richer.

Eventually, it gets bad enough that the poor people start defaulting on the loans. Then it hurts the pocketbooks of the rich people too, but it still hurts the poor worse. In the 19th century in the US, whenever this happened, Congress would pass a special bankruptcy law making it really easy for poor people to declare bankruptcy, write off their debt, and start with a clean slate.

By contrast, in the 2000s, our corrupt Republican Congress passed the "bankruptcy bill" which prevented most people with incomes from declaring bankruptcy and getting a clean slate. Now you can have a substantial income and still be dirt poor (in terms of living standards) for the rest of your life as you owe your income to lenders, forever. Supporters of feudalism love this. Of course, student loans are the worst because they can never be discharged except by death.
 
However, I do think inflation is the problem. We've had plenty of it. Btw, what's wrong with falling prices? Everyone loves sales.

Think of the "price of labor", aka wages. Do you see what's wrong with "falling prices", aka "falling wages", now?

While it may be nice in the short term for me as a rich person to be able to hire highly skilled laborers for wages which are too little for them to support their family, it's definitely bad for the country.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Intl Professor
Just for fun and because I thought about it: Accumulation of wealth might create some problems - unless you re-distribute it.

Micro Economy 101
Once upon a time, in a country not so far away, when one thousand Swiss Franks was still worth something, a mountaineer and his friends decided to attempt to summit an alpine peak nobody had conquered yet. At that time such an enterprise could take two weeks considering the provisions way up the mountain, the climb to the summit and back again.
The evening before the final departure, in the village Inn, the mountaineer asked the innkeeper if he could leave a one thousand Swiss Frank note for safe keeping until he got back. The innkeeper promised him to keep it safe in his cash register.
The next morning bright and early the mountaineers left for their expedition.

That same evening the hotelier's wife suggested, since they finally had the necessary cash in the register, to use that one thousand Swiss Franks to pay for the repairs on their outside terrace which was close due to lack of repairs. The local carpenter had already told them that it would cost just over one thousand Franks. She was sure that, since it was tourist season and many hikers came by the village every day, the additional business they would get from the open terrace would bring in more than that thousand Franks by the time the mountaineers would be back.

So they hired the local carpenter, who also owned the small lumber mill in town, to replace the rotten timber on the terrace. It took only two days to complete. And the One Thousand Swiss Frank note went to the lumber mill.

Now the carpenter and lumber mill owner had the money to finally pay the local garage for the long overdue repair of his truck. A few days later the One Thousand Swiss Frank Note went to the garage.

The mechanic used that money the very next day to pay for his wife's extensive dental work she had been putting off because the never had enough cash to pay for it. So the One Thousand Swiss Frank Note went to the village's dentist.

Seeing that cash, the dentist's wife insisted that they organize a lavish wedding party for their daughter at the local inn. Now that he had that one thousand franks in his pocket and the hotel's terrace was repaired, the dentist agreed to the festivities at the hotel. The One Thousand Swiss Frank Note went . . . back into the Inn's cash register.

Just in time, because the very next day the mountaineers returned from their successful conquest; all exhausted but happy and excited. The leader asked immediately about the one thousand Frank note. The Innkeeper assured him that it was sound and safe in his cash register.

The mountaineer explained his anxiety a little bit sheepishly: "You know, this is not a real thousand Frank note, it is my masterpiece of calligraphy, it is a fake I made for myself!"


Adapted 2012 by Urs Schuler from a story I head about 60 years ago on the Swiss National Radio broadcast system.


What if that 1000 Franks had remained in the cash register?
 
Think of the "price of labor", aka wages. Do you see what's wrong with "falling prices", aka "falling wages", now?

While it may be nice in the short term for me as a rich person to be able to hire highly skilled laborers for wages which are too little for them to support their family, it's definitely bad for the country.

Think of the "price of labor", aka wages. Do you see what's wrong with "falling prices", aka "falling wages", now?

While it may be nice in the short term for me as a rich person to be able to hire highly skilled laborers for wages which are too little for them to support their family, it's definitely bad for the country.

Ask yourself this simple question. Who benefits from inflation? Borrowers and those who own the assets. That would mean the government and the rich. Inflation hurts the middle class. Even when wages are stagnant, deflation helps the middle class by making things more affordable. This is why the last 40 years have been so terrible for the middle class.

Let me link this to Tesla. Elon Musk's goal is to make something that was once very expensive (EVs) affordable to the masses. His goal is deflationary. To me that is a good thing. That means someone who has been making say $60K a year for the past 5 years can now afford a quality EV today when they couldn't afford it 5 years ago.

Compare that to what the Fed wants to do which is raise prices of assets like real estate and commodities through their inflationary (QE and ZIRP) policies. They have succeeded and raised the cost of living for those on fixed salaries.

Which is more evil?
 
Last edited:
Ask yourself this simple question. Who benefits from inflation? Borrowers and those who own the assets.

You've got it wrong again. Borrowers benefit from inflation. *Asset owners are hurt*.

Asset price rises are NOT macroeconomic inflation. Let me repeat this AGAIN. If wages aren't rising, YOU DO NOT HAVE INFLATION. You just have the prices of some particular class of things rising or falling. THAT IS NOT INFLATION. Inflation is a devaluation of money in general. Likewise, cutting the price of a particular class of products IS NOT DEFLATION. Deflation is increases in the value of money in general.

Secondly, do you know who the borrowers are? They're the poor and middle class! Mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, student loans... all the things the rich don't have.

The government doesn't really borrow anything; do I have to go through my lecture on government printing of money again? I guess so. So-called government debt isn't debt at all. It's money, nothing more, nothing less.

The Swiss parable is actually correct here. Just remember that T-bills are akin to that counterfeit 1000-franc note, and you'll start to understand money.

The US government has blown up an asset bubble *while* pursuing essentially deflationary policies. They've done this by providing easy loans to the rich, who buy assets, while suppressing wages, encouraging the middle class and poor to get heavily into debt, so that it is very hard for the poor and middle class to get much money for long.

I'm *watching* some commerce stagnating locally due to lack of money, as in the Swiss parable. I'm currently dealing with several businesses and workers who are having cash flow problems which are preventing them from making mutually beneficial transactions. They're resorting to *barter*.

This is *deflation*. People are desperate enough for cash that they're charging less than they normally would if they can get cash up front. This is *deflation*. (I'm using my cash supply to alleviate this to some extent, but most rich people don't do that. Musk does, and good for him.)
 
Last edited:
Simplistically, the problem with overall deflation in the economy is it means that a dollar today is worth more tomorrow, thereby incenting everybody to hold onto their dollars money.

The theory that people would spend less as they get richer is interesting. From my own observations it seems that people like spending and as they can spend more they tend to spend more. By not spending money and given a finite life expectancy(with a risk of dying every year) it seems to me that by not spending you risk never getting to spend. Thus I and most people I have observed tend to like to spend now even if that means not getting exponentially richer in the future. Also spending now(instead of delaying spending, and instead letting someone more productive, such as Elon, have access to the resources now), is likely not good for the economy.
 
Here's the Federal Reserve board member explicitly stating that they were trying to create an asset bubble to generate a wealth effect.
Not disputing this.

This is the definition of inflation.
No it's not. If wages don't go up, there's no inflation. Repeat that 20 times, please.
 
The theory that people would spend less as they get richer is interesting.
Not a theory. Documented fact. Of course it's not less in absolute terms -- it's lower percentages.

The richer spend less proportionally. They (we) save more, and then they start "investing" the savings.

Basically the way it works is that there's only so much consumption spending you can do. A poor person spends every dollar that comes in -- on really urgent stuff like food, shoes, medical care, etc. A rich person basically still eats the same amount of food and wears out shoes at the same rate, and even though they're getting fancier food and shoes, that only increases the costs by so much. At some point there's no point in buying a third yacht or Gulfstream and you can't have more parties than you're already throwing, and you start saving or investing your money. (Or giving it to charity, but this is rarer.)

Most rich people simply can't spend a billion dollars on consumption, unless they are Musk or Bezos and have truly grand ambitions like going to outer space. And most rich people aren't like Musk or Bezos.

Oh, also: Spending now is ipso facto beneficial to the economy. Read the Swiss parable again: the purpose of money is to get people to do useful goods and services. When money is hoarded, bouncing back and forth between banks and not paying for useful goods and services, it's not really doing anything for the economy. (One of the purposes of banks is actually to take people's savings, which are doing nothing for the economy, and convert them into mortgages, which pay people to build houses, which are potentially beneficial to the economy.)
 
Last edited:
Not disputing this.


No it's not. If wages don't go up, there's no inflation. Repeat that 20 times, please.

Let's define our terms. Yes, wages are required to cause consumer inflation. But the Fed's easy money didn't go into wages but did go into stocks, bonds, and real estate. That is asset inflation. Some call it the Everything Bubble.
 
Not a theory. Documented fact. Of course it's not less in absolute terms -- it's lower percentages.

The richer spend less proportionally. They (we) save more, and then they start "investing" the savings.

Basically the way it works is that there's only so much consumption spending you can do. A poor person spends every dollar that comes in -- on really urgent stuff like food, shoes, medical care, etc. A rich person basically still eats the same amount of food and wears out shoes at the same rate, and even though they're getting fancier food and shoes, that only increases the costs by so much. At some point there's no point in buying a third yacht or Gulfstream and you can't have more parties than you're already throwing, and you start saving or investing your money. (Or giving it to charity, but this is rarer.)

Most rich people simply can't spend a billion dollars on consumption, unless they are Musk or Bezos and have truly grand ambitions like going to outer space. And most rich people aren't like Musk or Bezos.

Oh, also: Spending now is ipso facto beneficial to the economy. Read the Swiss parable again: the purpose of money is to get people to do useful goods and services. When money is hoarded, bouncing back and forth between banks and not paying for useful goods and services, it's not really doing anything for the economy. (One of the purposes of banks is actually to take people's savings, which are doing nothing for the economy, and convert them into mortgages, which pay people to build houses, which are potentially beneficial to the economy.)

You don't think a rich person investing (vs. not spending) helps grow the economy?
 
  • Love
Reactions: landis
let’s see what tomorrow brings. if its a continuation from last week it won’t be good. hopefully the posturing pays off with something positive for all

I think both sides will eventually find a middle ground, but there will be some short term volatility as the next wave of tariffs are scheduled to be inacted July 6th. If anything positive comes out of this then they should be announced before the 6th of July. Otherwise, negotiations could stall for another few months. Futures are not looking good at the moment with the Dow, Naz, SP all down 1/2% (.5%), maybe attributed to the Trump tweet.
 
Last edited:
  • Helpful
Reactions: Boomer19
Big business has *always* hated tarriffs. For thousands of years. The business lobby is going to be fighting Trump on this. Unfortunately, Trump seems to be able to do whatever he wants on tarriffs until Congress gets its act together; we'll see how long it takes for the Republican Congressional leadership to act on the "stop these tarriffs" phone calls from all their biggest donors. I'm actually thinking it will take a long time, because the Republican Congressional leadership seems to be pretty stupid.
 
I found it rather interesting and informative.

I also find it interesting. Not often that I see or hear of a rich person arguing in favor of short term pain (higher taxes on the rich), in exchange of long-term gain (a healthier economy that benefits everyone).

From my limited and anecdotal experience (I have not researched anywhere close to as much as neroden), it seems to me that we have seen this play out over the last few presidential cycles. Republicans take over with the economy booming, and instead of using that ideal situation to pay down debt and invest in infrastructure, they cut taxes and increase the budget deficit while times are (relatively speaking) good. They also simultaneously cut regulations. This takes an already frothy asset / debt market and blows it into a massive asset / debt bubble. Hence 2008 / 2009.

Our current asset / debt bubble is being fanned in the short run by the current admin in the same way, while seeds are being sown for longer term problems (deregulation and tariffs).

I hope I’m wrong, but the deja vu is very strong.