Deflation - Inflation - Hyper Inflation & Interest Rates Questions?

itwasntme001

Linton said:

All this talk about Boomers did this and did that apparently in a centrally coordinated way to do down another generation some 40 or 50 years later is totally counter productive and in many cases simply wrong.  We in the 1960s/70s had our own problems and for many life was much harder than it is for most now.  People generally behave fairly rationally in their own interests in the situation they find themselves.  No different now to then.  What is different now is when people moan they have the benefit of the megaphones and reverberation of the social media.

I don't think anyone is blaming anyone.  What has been discussed is people trying to present the facts.  It should be obvious that the baby boomer generation benefited immensely from asset price appreciation and various pension schemes and there is now a generational inequality.  Nothing to blame baby boomers about.  Simply stating economic facts and interpretations.

Another_Saver

Linton said:

All this talk about Boomers did this and did that apparently in a centrally coordinated way to do down another generation some 40 or 50 years later is totally counter productive and in many cases simply wrong.  We in the 1960s/70s had our own problems and for many life was much harder than it is for most now.  People generally behave fairly rationally in their own interests in the situation they find themselves.  No different now to then.  What is different now is when people moan they have the benefit of the megaphones and reverberation of the social media.

TL;Dr ok boomer

... What talk? All I'm stating is opinion and theory about inflation, interest rates and demographics supported by research. If you have alternative facts please present them, I'm content with the research presented by Lord Willetts. 

Nothing I have said is moaning, you are literally the one moaning at me for stating the above. Classic Schopenhauer - attack the credibility of your opponent and the most ridiculously misinterpreted version of their argument.

Agency theory is nonsense.

itwasntme001

It does seem like the last 4 decades have truly been a goldilocks period of disinflation, asset price (and therefore wealth) appreciation, low cost of capital (financial and human) etc.  Unlikely to repeat again.  It would be incredibly disingenuous to think that the boomer generation had it anything but easy.  It is very unlikely to repeat for younger generations unless some major advancement in tech is achieved such as robotics and AI that sees galloping leaps in productivity.

How can people be so stupid on these forums and elsewhere to think that 8-10% GARs, inflation linked DB pension annuities, state pensions, low house prices relative to earnings, rapid wage inflation, cheap emerging market labour resulting in cheaper and cheaper goods are not at all hugely beneficial to the boomers???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Eco_Miser

Linton said:

3) the high interest rates etc in the 1970s and 80s wasnt due to the boomers moving into work.  After all the very oldest boomer would not have entered work until 1971. 

I don't know where you got that date from.

If the very oldest boomer was born in 1946, and left school for full time work at age 15, they would have entered work in 1961.

I was born in 1950 and entered work in 1968.

Linton

Eco_Miser said:

Linton said:

3) the high interest rates etc in the 1970s and 80s wasnt due to the boomers moving into work.  After all the very oldest boomer would not have entered work until 1971. 

I don't know where you got that date from.

If the very oldest boomer was born in 1946, and left school for full time work at age 15, they would have entered work in 1961.

I was born in 1950 and entered work in 1968.

I am surprised it took so long for anyone to notice!  Yes my maths was in error.  However it doesnt change the general point that boomers did not selfishly create an environment for their own benefit at the expense of anyone younger.

Another_Saver

Linton said:

Eco_Miser said:

Linton said:

3) the high interest rates etc in the 1970s and 80s wasnt due to the boomers moving into work.  After all the very oldest boomer would not have entered work until 1971. 

I don't know where you got that date from.

If the very oldest boomer was born in 1946, and left school for full time work at age 15, they would have entered work in 1961.

I was born in 1950 and entered work in 1968.

I am surprised it took so long for anyone to notice!  Yes my maths was in error.  However it doesnt change the general point that boomers did not selfishly create an environment for their own benefit at the expense of anyone younger.

No one has said that.

itwasntme001

Linton said:

Eco_Miser said:

Linton said:

3) the high interest rates etc in the 1970s and 80s wasnt due to the boomers moving into work.  After all the very oldest boomer would not have entered work until 1971. 

I don't know where you got that date from.

If the very oldest boomer was born in 1946, and left school for full time work at age 15, they would have entered work in 1961.

I was born in 1950 and entered work in 1968.

I am surprised it took so long for anyone to notice!  Yes my maths was in error.  However it doesnt change the general point that boomers did not selfishly create an environment for their own benefit at the expense of anyone younger.

You seem to have a knack for making up things people supposedly have said.  Very foolish.

Linton

itwasntme001 said:

It does seem like the last 4 decades have truly been a goldilocks period of disinflation, asset price (and therefore wealth) appreciation, low cost of capital (financial and human) etc.  Unlikely to repeat again.  It would be incredibly disingenuous to think that the boomer generation had it anything but easy.  It is very unlikely to repeat for younger generations unless some major advancement in tech is achieved such as robotics and AI that sees galloping leaps in productivity.

How can people be so stupid on these forums and elsewhere to think that 8-10% GARs, inflation linked DB pension annuities, state pensions, low house prices relative to earnings, rapid wage inflation, cheap emerging market labour resulting in cheaper and cheaper goods are not at all hugely beneficial to the boomers???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes but it was only the past 15 years or so that hands on investing was available to most people.  Many people did not have a DB pension and if they did, it may well not have been inflation linked.   In fact many people did not have an employers pension at all.  That was why SERPs was introduced. When I started work as a computer programmer with a degree (which only about 5% of people leaving school were able to get, most leaving any form of eductaion at 15-16) a pension was a management perk.

Dont confuse the lucky few with how the vast majority of the population fared.

itwasntme001

Linton said:

itwasntme001 said:

It does seem like the last 4 decades have truly been a goldilocks period of disinflation, asset price (and therefore wealth) appreciation, low cost of capital (financial and human) etc.  Unlikely to repeat again.  It would be incredibly disingenuous to think that the boomer generation had it anything but easy.  It is very unlikely to repeat for younger generations unless some major advancement in tech is achieved such as robotics and AI that sees galloping leaps in productivity.

How can people be so stupid on these forums and elsewhere to think that 8-10% GARs, inflation linked DB pension annuities, state pensions, low house prices relative to earnings, rapid wage inflation, cheap emerging market labour resulting in cheaper and cheaper goods are not at all hugely beneficial to the boomers???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes but it was only the past 15 years or so that hands on investing was available to most people.  Many people did not have a DB pension and if they did, it may well not have been inflation linked.   In fact many people did not have an employers pension at all.  That was why SERPs was introduced. When I started work as a computer programmer with a degree (which only about 5% of people leaving school were able to get, most leaving any form of eductaion at 15-16) a pension was a management perk.

Dont confuse the lucky few with how the vast majority of the population fared.

You will of course get many people who did not benefit.  The point is much more did benefit in your generation compared to the younger generation.  Even without inflation linkage, there were still generous high rate annuities available such as GARs.  My father has one taken out at a rate of 10%.  No degree.  Average intellect.  Worked in average jobs.  Highly risk averse.  But wealth wise has done incredibly well.  Savings at high real rates (RISK FREE) of interest and buying homes when they were cheap makes a massive difference.

The young now, even with lower than average intellect have to go to uni to do pointless crappy degrees like media studies because of social pressures and every job pointlessly requires a degree.  That too saddled with £50k of debt....

Thrugelmir

JezR said:

The problem with 'generation' definitions and their relations to birth rates and days is that they originate from the USA experience which was rather different in immediate post war period. They had a pretty sustained rate post war into the early 1960s, falling off in the early to md 1960s to a minimum in the mid 1970s and it has pretty much bounced around the same kind of level since. 

The US came to prominence because of the war. Being unaffected was a major factor. Now the tide is turning.