7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

systemskeptic
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by systemskeptic »

You guys are probably right that QE is way too complex for me to understand.  If it was easy to understand there would be no debate and we would probably all be pissed.

Here's what I do understand.  I have some standard of living I am comfortable with and some amount of money I need to retire.  If for example that number is $2,000 a month, or $24,000 a year, then to retire I need the following net assets to maintain my inflation-adjusted standard of living:

0% Inflation, 10% CAGR of the PP -- $240,000 until retirement
3% Inflation, 10% CAGR of the PP -- $342,000 until retirement
7% Inflation, 10% CAGR of the PP -- $800,000 until retirement

As you can see, inflation matters not only for those who are retired, but those who want to retire in the near future.  I agree....if you want to work for the rest of your life, who cares about inflation?

By the way I am in my late 20s, so I think we are in the same boat :)
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by moda0306 »

As you said yourself, "money is a medium for barter" why does the medium need to keep up with what is being bartered, so long as it is sufficiently divisible?  


Because we build long-term contracts around it, debt and all.  We want its value in relation to a given level of production to remain relatively stable.  This is pretty basic.  If money doesn't have relatively predictable value in relation to a given basket of goods/services the economy is inefficient.  What you're asking for is that each unit of money be able to buy more and more goods as time goes by and the economy grows (if it even can with this policy).  This isn't how money is supposed to function.
If the real rates on such an investment are only 2-3% as opposed to 6-7%, isn't that going to throw a massive wrench in most retirement plans?
 
We've already established that our definitions of "real" rates of return are probably vastly different, but to answer anyway, you act like the 10% is fixed, and the inflation is the variable.  I think you'll probably find that this is a very bad description of the options we have.  It's much more likely that we could receive a real (using CPI, not M2) return that is greater if along the way the gov't issued enough net financial assets to use the econonomies full capcity, and only after that will we see an increase only in our nominal, not real, return.  Your example just has a lot of erronious assumptions built into it regarding inflation and return.
Wouldn't this mean that you are destined to work for the rest of your life, well into your 60s or even 70s depending on how long you expect to live?  Tell me this, the powers that be, would they prefer you employed (for them) or living off static investments drinking beers on a beach?
Real wealth, not money and debt, is what our lives are really about.  Money just makes transactions easier.  More money in an economy will tend to pull more REAL goods and services, (aka, REAL wealth) out of the productive capacity of that economy, until we reach full employment, at which point we'll just start seeing rising prices.  How we get from that to people working forever to "beat inflation" is beyond me. This is giving inflation WAAAAYYY too much credit in its ability to make peoples' lives miserable.  Every net financial asset issued by the gov't ends up in someone's account.  It doesn't just make things expensive and then disappear, stealing your cake and not letting you eat it either.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by moda0306 »

ss,

QE really isn't that complicated... it seems so at first, but think if the government went around the country and made everyone trade their guns in for a VERY similar gun... M16's for AK-47 and Baretta 9MM for 38's (please, gun enthusiasts, don't pick this analogy apart... you know what I mean)... would our country be any more dangerous/safer?

No, we'd have almost the same mix of fire-power out there... unless you consider the AK-47 a piece of Communist crap.  Likewise, with QE, it's simply trading the most liquid asset in the world with the second most.  In normal times, this CAN have some short-term affects on the economy and where people choose to invest... not during a deleveraging/balance-sheet crisis.

Secondly,

Saying that the 10% is fixed, and the inflation around it is a variable is just completely missing the affect of inflation and returns in the market.  Like I said before, until we reach full capacity, more net financial assets in the economy tends to actually pull MORE real goods and services (wealth) out of the economy than would otherwise be... This means more return on your stocks WITHOUT inflation, because there's more money AND more i-pads out there.  You can still get yours for $299. (???).  Even when you DO get inflation, it's not necessarily all bad, because instead of 10% nominal and 8% real, you'll often get 12% nominal and 10% real.  Your description of real/nominal return simply doesn't represent reality.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by Gumby »

moda0306 wrote:if the government went around the country and made everyone trade their guns in for a VERY similar gun... M16's for AK-47 and Baretta 9MM for 38's (please, gun enthusiasts, don't pick this analogy apart... you know what I mean)... would our country be any more dangerous/safer?
OMG, the Fed is printing M16's like there's no tomorrow!! We're all going to die! ;)
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by Gumby »

systemskeptic wrote:I have some standard of living I am comfortable with and some amount of money I need to retire.  If for example that number is $2,000 a month, or $24,000 a year, then to retire I need the following net assets to maintain my inflation-adjusted standard of living:

0% Inflation, 10% CAGR of the PP -- $240,000 until retirement
3% Inflation, 10% CAGR of the PP -- $342,000 until retirement
7% Inflation, 10% CAGR of the PP -- $800,000 until retirement

As you can see, inflation matters not only for those who are retired, but those who want to retire in the near future.  I agree....if you want to work for the rest of your life, who cares about inflation?

By the way I am in my late 20s, so I think we are in the same boat :)
FYI, historically, the PP has provided a relatively steady 4.2% "real" return (after inflation, before taxes) if that helps you with your calculations on achieving critical mass for retirement. But, don't plan on retiring too early.... Kids have a way of draining your reserves like you wouldn't believe.

And, of course, past results do not guarantee future returns.
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by moda0306 »

systemskeptic,

Good to hear you're young.  This means you have even less to worry about in terms of inflation (IMO... some disagree) than if you were looking to retire soon.

I find it easiest to simply imagine an inefficient world of talented people having to offer up goods and services to each other via bartering.  The economy is severely limited in its productive potential not because these people are lazy or stupid, but because of the inefficiencies of not having enough, or any, stable, common medium of exchange.

Once introduced, if people believe that the newly formed fiat medium of exchange will never grow in quantity no matter what happens in the economy, while they'll have a much more efficient economy than they had before, they'll still be making decisions on growing businesses with the idea that if the economy size doubles over the next 20 years, their money will be worth twice as much.  This means that they will sit on their hands with their skills and not grow since there are structural limitations to the future demand they could see.  Any future growth is quite likely to result in deflation and more bartaring.  If on the other hand, gov't said we'll try to prevent shocks and grow the money supply with the economy, people would engage each other much more to offer and purchase goods & services.  Real wealth.  Real employment.  Not make-work.  Not a free lunch.  Little/no inflation.
Last edited by moda0306 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
systemskeptic
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by systemskeptic »

Gumby wrote: FYI, historically, the PP has provided a relatively steady 4.2% "real" return (after inflation, before taxes)
So if the CAGR is around 9.8%, that would be a 5.6% rate of inflation.  Given that my 7% number is based soley on the the money supply and does not include increases in efficiency or other secondary effects that depress the price of goods, the data seems to match pretty well.

I'm still not sure how you are confident enough to quote inflation to a decimal point, but lets say 5-7%...seems like a decent enough range.  Certainly much higher than 3-4% you hear thrown around...
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by Gumby »

I'm pretty sure Harry Browne said the Permanent Portfolio is historically closer to 9% CAGR. If I recall from his radio show, Browne used to tell people it was "about a 9% return, 4% after inflation".

Either way, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 2011, the Annualized Inflation Rate was 4.4%.

In other words, $1.00 at the beginning of 1970 had the same purchasing power as $6.00 at the end of 2011.

http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ ... ulator.htm
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
Storm
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: 7% Inflation and What it Means for the PP?

Post by Storm »

Gumby wrote: I'm pretty sure Harry the Permanent Portfolio is historically closer to 9% CAGR. If I recall from his radio show, Browne used to tell people it was "about a 9% return, 4% after inflation".

Either way, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 2011, the Annualized Inflation Rate was 4.4%.

In other words, $1.00 at the beginning of 1970 had the same purchasing power as $6.00 at the end of 2011.

http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ ... ulator.htm
Also, during the 70s and early 80s we had some crazy inflation - 9% return, 4% after inflation, was probably not unrealistic considering the economic climate at the time.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines.  Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
Post Reply