site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31672 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel like a key issue in the "theft" metaphor is a distinction between the literal property (some number of dollars) and what that property can be exchanged for (its purchasing power). The "theft" that happens due to inflation does not actually entail taking any of my literal property, just a decrease in what that property can be exchanged for. The "theft" accomplished by FTX and other crypto exchanges involves the taking of actual property. The same logic that says inflation is "theft" to people who save currency would suggest it is "theft" from homeowners when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates and causes home prices to fall or that Elon Musk "steals" from $TSLA owners when his own sales decrease the price of the stock.

That aside, I also don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises or arguments. "We shouldn't put more regulations on cryptocurrency or banks because consumers don't have a risk-free way to preserve their purchasing power over some time horizon" is how I would summarize that final paragraph in the quote (and penultimate paragraph in the article). I just don't see how the argument connects to the conclusion.

Dilution is a form of theft. If, Musk, without his shareholders knowledge or consent, printed entirely new shares of Tesla and gave them to himself or his cronies, this would be theft, even if the price of shares actually rose during that period due to other factors. Tesla shares rising or falling is not theft.

"We shouldn't put more regulations on cryptocurrency or banks because consumers don't have a risk-free way to preserve their purchasing power over some time horizon"

Some amount of well-thought out regulation is fine. My point is that demand for scams and get-rich-quick schemes will exceed state capacity to police them as long as people must find an alternative to simple savings deposits in order to simply preserve purchasing power for retirement.

Dilution is a form of theft. If, Musk, without his shareholders knowledge or consent, printed entirely new shares of Tesla and gave them to himself or his cronies, this would be theft,

Not if that was legal for him to do it is not. If so, then anyone buying shares should have priced in the chance of further shares being issued in to how much they valued the shares at when they purchased them. In that case they have implicitly consented to Musk creating more shares in buying the shares in the first place.

The dilution itself then is not theft, only if done illegally or in breach of a contract. At which point that is the issue not the dilution in and of itself. Better to rephrase it to say that Dilution can in some cases be similar to theft, if carried out illegally.

Taking something from someone isn't in and of itself theft either. It entirely depends on the circumstances.

Not if that was legal for him to do it is not.

That's... a bit like saying "primae noctis" wouldn't be rape. Technically correct, I suppose.

The best kind of correct. If we want to argue that it is morally wrong, that is absolutely fine, and arguably correct in both cases, but then we should take care to use terms appropriately.

We could say:" If, Musk, without his shareholders knowledge or consent, printed entirely new shares of Tesla and gave them to himself or his cronies, this would be morally wrong and comparable in outcome to theft."

or "If, Musk, without his shareholders knowledge or consent, in breach of the law, printed entirely new shares of Tesla and gave them to himself or his cronies, this would be theft"

then those are both plausibly correct.

Dilution is a form of theft. If, Musk, without his shareholders knowledge or consent, printed entirely new shares of Tesla and gave them to himself or his cronies, this would be theft, even if the price of shares actually rose during that period due to other factors. Tesla shares rising or falling is not theft.

I continue to be confused. So the theft is not the loss of purchasing power of the dollars, but the literal printing of dollars? Is the takeaway supposed to be the government should stop printing new currency so as to stop the dilution? Given that economic output generally increases year over year this would almost certainly be a strongly deflationary position. Maybe that's good for currency hoarders with no debt, but it's pretty bad for everyone else.

Some amount of well-thought out regulation is fine. My point is that demand for scams and get-rich-quick schemes will exceed state capacity to police them as long as people must find an alternative to simple savings deposits in order to simply preserve purchasing power for retirement.

I wish this position was in the article! I can find nothing in the article that discusses state capacity to police get-rich-quick schemes or their relative frequency with regards to inflation.

The post conflates actual theft with some weird definition of theft which is nonsensical/wrong.

We shouldn't put more regulations on cryptocurrency or banks because consumers don't have a risk-free way to preserve their purchasing power over some time horizon

The second part here is false. You can put money into TIPS, but there is an opportunity cost, so people tend not to do so.

It could be considered theft of wages.

I work, and rather than immediately spend my money, I save it in a bank account hoping to spend it later. However, due to negative real interest rates, the value of my savings goes down 40%. And what's more, it is reckless government spending that is responsible for much of the devaluation.

Sure I could gamble on stocks, or hoard gold in my basement, but one of the advantages of living in a society is the ability to save my wages for later when I need them. Losing this ability is a strong negative. Just ask people in Argentina or Venezuela.

Sure I could gamble on stocks, or hoard gold in my basement, but one of the advantages of living in a society is the ability to save my wages for later when I need them. Losing this ability is a strong negative. Just ask people in Argentina or Venezuela.

No asset has any sort of guaranteed return on investment. The role of society is to preserve property rights, not to ensure that you are rich. When countries used precious metals, governments couldn't arbitrarily print money, but the value of your gold stores could still fluctuate wildly when e.g. new supplies of gold were found, or some foreign country changed their currency.

I feel like there's a confusion in both this post and the OP about what banks do. What banks do is play custodian for certain kinds of assets and give you access to those assets on particular terms. The interests rates that banks pay for being that custodian is compensation for the risk of having a third party be custodian of your assets. The interest rate is small because the risk is small. What banks do not (and cannot) do is save the purchasing power of your assets (i.e. some rate of relative exchange between your assets and other assets) at some time t_0 so it has the same power at time t_1.

I am not confused by what banks do, and I doubt the OP is either. Yes, I am aware that it is not banks that control interest rates, just as gas stations do not control oil prices. I was speaking in the context that everyone understands we are really talking about Federal Reserve and government policy. If not, I apologize for contributing to a banal discussion about banks.

Federal Reserve does NOT control interest rates. People who know monetary policy know the fed can maybe manipulate rates for 6 months but they have zero control over what the average real rate will be over 30 years.

Maybe not officially, but they absolutely have been controlling (or at least strongly influencing) interest rates via setting the FFR and also QE. If the Fed didn't step up to buy trillions in treasuries during Covid, who would have bought them at the comically low interest rates that were on offer?

And why do you think the market will jump 6% on news about Fed policy? The Fed has immense power.

They act second. It’s like you get -20 degree day and the Fed puts on a coat. That doesn’t mean the fed is controlling rates (putting on a coat) it just means natural rates moved (weather changed) and the fed followed the weather.

Are you a Scott Sumner fan? This reminds me of his arguments, and which I always found to be just plain wrong. But in order to actually have a productive conversation about it we need to go in full "rectification of names" mode.

Then I am confused by your comment. Your comment makes it seem like you have an expectation that you ought to be able to put money in a bank account and thereby be able to exchange it for certain particular goods at particular rates at some future time that are similar to the rates when you put it in. Even in a world that was absent the Federal Reserve and an inflationary government policy this would not be the case. It's not like individual bank-issued currencies held their value particularly constant against classes of goods in a pre-Federal-Reserve world.

Your comment makes it seem like you have an expectation that you ought to be able to put money in a bank account and thereby be able to exchange it for certain particular goods at particular rates at some future time that are similar to the rates when you put it in.

We would have the expectation that we should be able to save and be able to preserve our claim on a share of the economy. If output genuinely falls, if there was a grain famine, then we would not expect our purchasing power of grain to hold steady. But if output increases greatly, then we should benefit from that too.

Why? You say should, so I assume this is a values based claim, ought rather than is, so what is the underpinning to this belief?

Not to say I disagree necessarily, but I am interested in where this value comes from, more so than the value itself.

I feel like this comment evinces an even more confused conception of the economy. Why does being compensated some number of dollars at time t_0, which could be exchanged for some fraction of total economic output, entitle you to a similar share of total economic output at time t_1? Are you under the impression that large increases in output, under the current system, have not generally resulted in benefits to individuals due to inflation? I think that would be a pretty hard case to make!

Your comment makes it seem like you have an expectation that you ought to be able to put money in a bank account and thereby be able to exchange it for certain particular goods at particular rates at some future time that are similar to the rates when you put it in.

And that's just what I was able to do for much of the 20th century in the United States. Sometimes, I would even came out ahead.

I am confused by your objection. Perhaps you don't realize the role of the Federal Reserve in controlling interest rates. For example, in the Post-WWII period, the fed used Yield Curve Control to maintain low rates in the face of high inflation. This allowed the government to deflate the substantial debt it had accrued during the war. The patriots who bought war bonds lost out big time.

While the Fed is not explicitly using yield curve control now, the unprecedented government stimulus during Covid drove real interest rates to extremely low levels, reaching something like negative 8% at one point. Europe, of course, is much worse, and countries like Argentina, Venezuela, and Turkey have destroyed their currencies through political interference in central bank policy. That is starting to become a possibility in the United States as well with both Trump and several prominent Democrats calling on the Fed to lower interest rates to give a short-term boost to the economy at the expense of savers.

The fleecing of bond investors to reduce the US war debt was done through capital controls and other regulations, not monetary policy.

Gillitrut's objection is the overwhelming consensus among people who have researched monetary policy. A possible explanation for why you do not follow this objection is that you do not understand this research.

You sound pretty sure, but the U.S. did indeed use YCC to maintain hugely negative interest rates after WWII.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/august/what-yield-curve-control

YCC in the U.S.

The U.S. incurred massive debt expenditures to finance World War II, and the Fed capped yields in order to keep borrowing costs low and stable. In April 1942, short- and long-term (25 years and longer) interest rates were pegged at 3/8 percent and 2.5%, respectively. These rate caps were largely arbitrary and were set at approximately pre-1942 levels.

As the U.S. continued to incur debt, the Fed was obligated to keep buying securities to maintain the targeted rates—forfeiting some control of its balance sheet and the money stock. The public generally preferred to hold higher-yielding, longer-term bonds. Consequently, the Fed purchased a large amount of short-term bills, which also increased the money supply, to maintain the low interest rate peg.

After the war ended, FOMC members grew more concerned with addressing the rapid inflation that materialized. However, President Harry S. Truman and his treasury secretary still favored a policy that maintained YCC (which also protected the value of wartime bonds by implying a price floor). By 1947, inflation was over 17%, as measured by the year-over-year percent change in the consumer price index (CPI), so the Fed ended the peg on short-term rates in an attempt to combat developing inflationary pressures.

In combination with rising debt from the U.S. entering the Korean War in 1950, the peg on longer-term rates contributed to faster money growth and increased inflationary pressures. In 1951, annualized inflation was over 20%, and monetary policymakers insisted on combating inflation. Against the desires of fiscal policymakers, interest rate targeting was brought to an end by the Treasury-Fed Accord in March 1951.

Yes, that describes exactly the mechanism by which the Fed cannot fix nominal interest rates. As soon as these became binding, it rapidly faced a choice between accelerating inflation and the interest rate target.

By the way, note how the peg was of nominal rates, not real (ex post) interest rates.

Money has never been all that stable. Inflation and deflation (mostly inflation) have been with us for all of modernity. There was a nice little blip in the middle where ordinary banks could provide decent returns on savings accounts, but there was never any reason to expect those conditions to remain constant forever.

For most of the 20th century, real interest rates in the United States were positive.

Expanding our window, yes life was nasty, brutish, and short for most of history. But the value to society of sound money is great and its loss should be avoided or at least mourned.

Most of the 20th century banks have global wars and then rebuilding massive continents to invest in. This raised the amount borrowers were willing to pay for investment capital. Today banks have apps to invest in. Completely different environment. Maybe if we boosted military spending back to 10% it could raise borrow demand for capital

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats