One man against inflation (Betting on inflation is a bad bet for your portfolio)

Fortune ^ | 6/19/2009 | Beth Kowitt

[SeekAndFind]

The main argument is this ( and note, he already took into account the government pumping money):

One reason the speed with which people spend money is down is that people would rather repay debt than go out and buy a lot of new stuff. People are more interested in trying to get out of debt than increasing it, which means the economy cannot grow. If there’s no increase in demand, there can be no increase in prices.

Hence the conclusion -— THE NEXT DECADE WILL BE A PERIOD OF DISINLFATION.

[jdege]

Throughout history, we’ve always had really bright folks explaining how we could go ahead and do what was convenient, that this time is different, the problems that had always been caused before won’t happen this time.

And they’ve always been wrong.

[BipolarBob]

China has a bunch of our dollars and ARE looking for a way/place to spend it. Hoisington is an idiot to not see inflation coming.

[SeekAndFind]

Are you saying that Van Hosington ( the man arguing against inflation) is wrong in his assessment ?

[liberlog]

I would be inclined to agree with the fellow who was the subject of this article. But one thing seems to keep nagging at me. I think of the experiences of Germany during the Depression and of Zimbabwe, currently. I believe both of those countries experienced very weak economies with very high unemployment. Yet, they had runaway iflation. Our path seems more like that of Germany and Zimbabwe....we throw money at a weak economy thinking that will make it strong.

[Daveinyork]

Hasn’t this jerk ever heard of the 1970’s and stagflation?

[DManA]

That’s the problem with reading financial advice. You will find someone predicting EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME. When an outcome eventuates, that particular predictor is crowned a genius. The genius crown gets passed around randomly.

[Phlyer]

Are you saying that Van Hosington ( the man arguing against inflation) is wrong in his assessment ?

I guess I am. The problem is that he seems to be assuming that all demand is 'elastic' to use the economic term - meaning that people can freely choose to buy or not buy.

Yet much of demand is 'inelastic' - meaning we don't have a choice. When energy prices double due to cap-and-trade, prices will rise. Though unemployment is high at 10% or so, that still means that 90% of the people in the work force have a job, and I don't see them (us) going without heat in the winter, or walking 25 miles each way to work every day.

And since all goods and services require energy, food costs will rise, rent will rise, and so on.

There is not likely to be a lot of inflation in durable goods (cars, refrigerators, machine tools for factories, etc.) because those are largely elastic demands. However, if production of durable goods falls below demand because major manufacturers like GM go out of business, then those few durable goods being produced will still rise in price.

Overall, I expect inflation. As one of the other posters pointed out, we've been down this road before with Carter.

[Bull Man]

Mind boggling how much today looks like the government spending of the 60s followed by the nightmare of the 70s. Sure, there is no inflation now since the economy is still damped down. The problem comes when it starts to recover and the Fed lacks the will to raise rates to begin soaking up all them cheap dollars. Every serious economist will tell you - when you actually begin to see the inflation it is too late.

[SeekAndFind]

Sure, there is no inflation now since the economy is still damped down.

If you read the article, that's EXACTLY what he's arguing. Inflation won't be a problem because we will be in this state for a long time.

[tsomer]

One other thing: the value of the dollar compared with other currencies.

We get most of our stuff from somewhere else.

[WILLIALAL]

The near term problem will be interest rate inflation as the Fed has to finance the 2 trillion dollar deficit. Keep your eye on the 30 year bond rates this fall. An increase there will lead to an increase in mortgage rates killing off any hope for a housing rebound and hence a weaker economy for a longer term.
If the Feds just print money to cover the debt, then the weaker dollar will be a back handed way of giving us inflation.
You don't have to have greater demand to cause an underlying inflationary problem.

[wastoute]

You assume 30 year bonds will be attractive enough to actually sell. Ten years ago betting on the US Gummint still being here in 30 years was a good bet. Is it still?

Μολὼν λάβε

[tiki]

I think that he may be right on the lack of consumerism because consumerism was running rampant.

The young families that I know have so much crap they don’t have enough storage space to hold it all. Mom, dad and all the kids have Ipods, cell phones, computers, CDs, DVDs, TVs. In a bad economy when one of those things dies it will be less likely that it will be replaced because food and utilities will be more important.

[FastCoyote]

[Fisher believed that gross domestic product is equal to money times its turnover, or velocity, which is basically, the speed with which people spend it. In the last two quarters, money supply has grown at 14% but velocity has declined by about 17%, so nominal (non inflation-adjusted) GDP fell 4.5%.]

That is my opinion as well, after a great deal of thought.

That doesn’t mean the Trillions in money being printed and astronomical deficits aren’t hugely damaging, just that the bad things they cause can show up as decreased monetary velocity, or stagflation, instead of hyperinflation alone. Either way we are screwed, but you just can’t count on it all coming out as hyperinflation because it’s a two variable equation.

[Mase]

It's been a while since I've seen an article here arguing that we're not entering a period of hyperinflation. The inflation bugs bet on hyperinflation last year and lost their collective butts. Will it happen a second time?

[erman]

I don’t know about you fellers... but I’ll put my money on Milton Friedman and the Hayek school of economics.

[willgolfforfood]

China is taking our ever more useless dollars and converting them to hard assets right now. They are buying mines, smelting operations and similar very heavy, fundamental industrial infrastructure all over the world.

When the dust settles, the Chinese won't have hardly any dollars in their pockets and they people that took their dollars for hard assets will be kicking themselves for not selling mines, etc. for a more valuable currency.

And if it takes a mere decade for that to happen, that's not a problem for the Chinese. They think in a VERY long term manner about their financial and economic future.

[Toddsterpatriot]

China has a bunch of our dollars and ARE looking for a way/place to spend it.

What do they have, $1 trillion? How long are they going to take to spend it? Versus how big our GDP is, how much inflation do you feel that will cause?