|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Goods just costing more to make is inflation! If goods cost more to make, why are corporate profits up, and why is inflation falling? Agronox posted:I'm kind of shocked no one has mentioned "productivity gains" in the last few pages, because that would be the easiest way to square that circle. Problem is, it's hard enough to measure it well in the US (particularly since the pandemic threw a lot of stats out of whack) and totally impossible in, for instance, China. Yes. This makes a lot more sense, and does not require some kinda "trust me costs are up, I know because of my boat knowledge" hand waving. However, if companies have pulled back from just in time and are warehousing and stockpiling more, that should hurt efficiency/productivity. Also when productivity rises on a per person basis, companies cut staff. So I'm think you are on to something but it's still a complex and confusing situation.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think you are a domain expert but are really struggling to present a coherent, clear argument for why we see inflation falling off without an loss of jobs. Right my argument isn’t a complete explanation. It’s like 15% - 20% of an explanation. I do get a bit carried away, I like getting surly about supply chains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If goods cost more to make, why are corporate profits up, and why is inflation falling? When inflation started companies used it as an opportunity to raise prices above what their in cost increases were. The supply chain stuff is mostly calming down. Think about it this way: Business has an overseas partner they’ve been using for years. Crisis hits their ability to use that vendor gets harder and slower. They begin partially sourcing at other suppliers, or a brand new suppliers. It takes a couple years to work the kinks out of new logistics. The new CFS forgets desiccants and loads on a hot wet day. hosed container. Customs in the country of the new supplier works differently, hosed shipment. New international supply chains have a more expensive period at the beginning. So cost start at a lower stable level. They shoot way the hell up. Then they stabilize at a new level (above the original) a couple years of later once all the problems in the new logistics chains are worked out. We are starting to enter that later period and leaving the mistakes are made period. That and rates per teu have mostly normalized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Right my argument isn’t a complete explanation. It’s like 15% - 20% of an explanation. I do get a bit carried away, I like getting surly about supply chains. That is a much, much more acceptable and reasonable position than I thought you were trying to stake out. Changes in costs aren't mysterious; public companies report them in their quarterly reports. If they're part of the explanation for what we've seen inflation do, analysts should have no great chore teasing them out. I think most of us in this thread are already on board with supply disruptions having driven the inflation of 2021-2, with help from huge money injections/stimulus/relief. It's the 2023 economy that is confusing and in particular the hiring behavior. It's very muddy to me how supply chain cost changes translate to corporate hiring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 00:56
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:A large part of international trade is within the manufacturing process, not in finished goods. What happens to supply chains when containerships divert around the horn from the Red Sea with shoes that just had the soles glued on in China, but still need to be finished in Europe? so there's a fundamental problem with your "costs go up" model of inflation, which is that for inflation to happen, both wages and costs need to go up. Costs can't go up across the board if wages don't go up, because consumers can't afford to buy all the things they did before if prices have gone up and incomes haven't. If the cost of imported goods increase, then either consumers need to buy less of it, buy less of something else, or the price of something else needs to fall, and in all cases you there isn't inflation. By the way, this isn't an economic model, it's an accounting identity; PY = MV. If P (price level) rises and MV is unchanged, Y (output) has to drop - which is not what happened after Jan 2021. If costs have gone up in the supply chain, in order for that to cause inflation, that money needs to be going to workers somewhere. If it's a pure efficiency loss as you seem to be arguing for, it doesn't - can't - cause inflation across the board. This gets wooly if monetary policy comes into play, since the government can print money and cause prices to go up any time, but in that case the printing of money, not the supply chain issues that's being covered up, is what's causing the inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Costs can't go up across the board if wages don't go up, because consumers can't afford to buy all the things they did before if prices have gone up and incomes haven't. They can spend down their savings and borrow money to do it. Have you looked at graphs for those things recently? Cause you should. And they are buying less things because they are paying more for them. Have you not experienced that over the last year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 05:32
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:They can spend down their savings and borrow money to do it. Have you looked at graphs for those things recently? Cause you should. And they are buying less things because they are paying more for them. Have you not experienced that over the last year? this would imply a negative savings rate which has not happened. buying less things would imply a fall in gdp growth which has also not happened. this is what i meant when i said you couldn't possibly believe you were seeing all of global trade from a single viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
You guys have slightly under 3 hours to hash this out and declare the winner In other news of things that expire at midnight, the SPY guessing game in the stock market thread, guesses are due by midnight Pacific time! Good luck!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 05:42
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:
Double posting
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 05:42
|
|
I put the 2024 stock picking low/high guessing game up in the
|
hypnophant posted:PY = MV Hadlock posted:You guys have slightly under 3 hours to hash this out and declare the winner sneakin' in a post before the deadline P (price level) Y (output) and M (money supply) are all observed variables, within the bounds of statistical practice. P is just the price index, Y is good ol' GNP, and M is M2. In theory M can be a little fuzzy due because it factors in credit conditions - in practice the Fed can dictate it. That leaves V, velocity of money, as the sole unobserved variable. Friedman thought V would not vary, and the central banker's job could be trivially performed following a k rule, but that has turned out not to be true. It turns out V varies a lot. There was a huge drop in V in march 2020, for reasons that have been well documented, which led to corresponding, though short-lived, drop in P (somewhat balanced by an equally short-lived drop in Y). A lot of arguing about inflation, separated from the question of Y, is really arguing about V, since the other variables are well explained. I concede, happy new year
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:this would imply a negative savings rate which has not happened. buying less things would imply a fall in gdp growth which has also not happened. this is what i meant when i said you couldn't possibly believe you were seeing all of global trade from a single viewpoint. I said a very large portion of it. Not all of it. And you should think about what what a global to regional transition of supply chains means for GDP. When you have a value chain or works in progress each of those steps are additions to GDP in the countries where they occur. If you move steps in the supply chain onshore the GDP generated by those steps moves home. Supply chains can become less efficient and gdp can increase at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 06:03
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I said a very large portion of it. Not all of it. intermediate goods are not included in gdp calculations
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
Friedman also thought nobody could know how make a pencil. A lot has changed. The supply chain management folks are looking to predict future raw materials orders at the start of the chain from POS data of the sale of finished goods at the end of it.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 06:16
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:intermediate goods are not included in gdp calculations Intermediate goods are added in terms of the value added of the step . That value add can move around depending on the country where it occurred, and when things are moving internationally they do very often do get double counted (even if they shouldn’t be) Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 06:32
|
|
|
Curious everyone's thoughts on the so called podcast bubble finally busting I'd heard about Joe Rogan getting ~$200 million from Spotify; I fell down a random wiki hole only to find out Conan O Brian had signed a deal with SiriusXM for a "deal worth up to $150 million" Kind of feels like the whole broadcast.com thing that made Mark Cuban a billionaire. Nobody knew how they would ultimately monetize it, but "being first to market" would somehow secure their success long term As Spotify is pulling back drastically from their podcast strategy it's becoming apparent that podcasts are neither profitable nor a growth market and what little funding there was has totally collapsed over the last six months Can anyone recommend a book about the origin of ABC/NBC/CBS
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 10:28
|
|
|
Ads aren’t worth much when you can just skip them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 12:24
|
|
|
I only want music in my music app and podcasts in my podcast app. There is no use case or any situation where I would want to mix those two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
I only like using one app so having everything in Spotify was nice. But if I really like a podcast I'm typically subscribed so I've either already listened to it and/or it's only available on patreons crappy embedded player, and I'm assuming the real podcast heads just pirate everything anyways Edit: I would guess the actual real money from podcasts is usually from people who want to Support the Pod, like, they enjoy the product first and want to reward the creators vs purchasing a product that they are interested in, since its internet radio and radio is free right? So, securing the rights to Truecrime Cafe or commissioning a mini series from Chad and Dave's Basedcast isn't actually a draw to the platform itself very often The Chad Jihad fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 14:46
|
|
|
SiriusXMs business model is "Bring in people who really like thing x and then hope they forget they have a subscription", so it kinda makes sense that they toss big money at people who might be a draw or you might tune to while your car gives you a free 6 months or w/e. Basically just the next Howard Stern. Spotify is similar I'd imagine. The other bigger deals I think are usually part of a portfolio. A sports subscription wants some podcasts as part of the larger subscription (offering early access or bonus episodes) and in general after the upfront cost a podcast is a cheap way to produce content that keeps your customer engaged and coming back, even if your not getting a ton of monetary return on ads themselves. Past that I can't see any real advantage of a big studio trying to capture a podcaster as a standalone thing. Like, WTF Pod has been going on forever and been successful with brands actively seeking them out because they find it successful, but what advantage would a big studio get gobbling them up? They money is good for a small-ish business (and it's done Marc Maron's career tremendous benefit) but not really scalable and if some business wants exposure it's far more cost effective to just buy a spot. All that means I don't see a bubble necessarily, its more that there are a few specific opportunities for a show that can command big bucks and the rest are just bouncing around, some moderately successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Curious everyone's thoughts on the so called podcast bubble finally busting Rogan on Spotify was the one thing to guarantee that I would never even make a free profile on Spotify. Not just from amplification of extremism but just purely showing obviously bad business sense means Spotify is going to have to figure out another way to get creative. It was the "this platform is not going to survive" eventual death knell, even if via consolidation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Podcasts are in that phase where they clearly make money, but it is very difficult to determine the exact ceiling for how much one could make. Basically the perfect conditions for the kinds of insane deals we've been seeing. Anyways, we had a jobs report today!  New York Times (free link) posted:U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in December, Outpacing Forecasts Doomers remain in shambles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
Couldn't afford a shambles, best I could do is a wreck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
The tax man is real mad about the Ohtani pay deferral:Citing Shohei Ohtani’s $680M pay deferral, California official urges U.S. to fix tax system posted:California’s top fiscal officer on Monday urged Congress to take “immediate and decisive action” to restrict the ability of high earners to defer income — and cited Los Angeles Dodgers superstar Shohei Ohtani’s $700 million contract as an example of how California could lose millions in tax dollars. I'm calling it now: a decades long litigation campaign between the state and Ohtani over nexus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
It's really about tech company CEOs, Ohtani is just a useful high profile example
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 06:45
|
|
|
It does seem like they ought to go after Tim Apple et al who famously get paid “$1/year” but we all know that’s not true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 11:46
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:It does seem like they ought to go after Tim Apple et al who famously get paid “$1/year” but we all know that’s not true. Cook has been drawing a multi-miilion dollar salary for many years.  And, yeah, the majority of his pay package is actually those stock options, but he gets taxed on them, so...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Nonqualified deferred compensation plans are incredibly common, not just in tech companies and not just in California. I have a hard time imagining congress making sweeping changes barring another Enron level abuse event.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
Yeah it's California getting mad about deferred comp. The scam is Baseball Man will spend X years working in CA making a piddling single digit millions then get paid out large double digit millions every year after X+1 when he is no longer required to play baseball in California and presumably decides to "live" somewhere else (probably Florida with no state income tax). California is arguing "no no the labor you did to fulfill that contract was done in CA so you should have to pay CA taxes even if you don't get paid until later" which eh, probably fair. Sounds like that's not the law now though and you gotta admire the balls on the tax dodge here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Yeah it's California getting mad about deferred comp. The scam is Baseball Man will spend X years working in CA making a piddling single digit millions then get paid out large double digit millions every year after X+1 when he is no longer required to play baseball in California and presumably decides to "live" somewhere else (probably Florida with no state income tax). If I'm understanding correctly the rules are deliberate. If payout is 10 years or longer it's taxed in the state received, shorter than 10 it's the state it's earned. The design of the law and the design of Ohtani's arrangement in the context of the law is obviously intentional. From the actual quotes from the state controller, they appear to be mad about the fact that nonqualified plans have no limit at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
Ohtani's arrangement is almost 100% to reduce the luxury tax hit to the Dodgers to be able to win a championship. He is going to make $30+ million a year in sponsorships that aren't likely to be deferred.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
Also he’s probably gonna live in Japan after he retires. You know, where he’s from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Nonqualified deferred compensation plans are incredibly common, not just in tech companies and not just in California. I have a hard time imagining congress making sweeping changes barring another Enron level abuse event. Enron was only like 64b dollars, the amount of this bullshit going on every year is probably in excess of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Enron was only like 64b dollars, the amount of this bullshit going on every year is probably in excess of that. Yeah but NQDCs are used almost exclusively by rich executives. Those are Congress' people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Enron was only like 64b dollars, the amount of this bullshit going on every year is probably in excess of that. I was specifically referring to Enron's executive's nonqualified deferred compensation actions leading to section 409A rules in 2004/2005. The normal historical narrative generally goes: NQDC plans are basically used as pensions for executives. Because they are nonqualified, unlike pensions and 401k, these promises of deferred compensation are unsecured and assets aren't held in trust. So it was supposed to be that if the company goes under, the deferred compensation is put below other creditors. When the Enron executives saw that the company was going bankrupt, they took actions to move the deferred comp into a structure that protected it against creditors. This was closer to millions rather than billions. So Congress introduced a bunch of rules under section 409A to greatly reduce flexibility around NQDC plans
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Oil! posted:Ohtani's arrangement is almost 100% to reduce the luxury tax hit to the Dodgers to be able to win a championship. He is going to make $30+ million a year in sponsorships that aren't likely to be deferred. This. It’d be a real stretch to think that this scheme is intended to avoid CA income tax on Ohtani’s part. The present value of his contract is about half of its nominal value - he is effectively giving up 50% of his comp with this scheme (15yr midpoint at 4.6%). He isn’t doing that to avoid 13% in taxes, he’s doing it because that’s the only way the Dodgers would agree to pay him this much. Eyes Only fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jan 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Yeah it's California getting mad about deferred comp. The scam is Baseball Man will spend X years working in CA making a piddling single digit millions then get paid out large double digit millions every year after X+1 when he is no longer required to play baseball in California and presumably decides to "live" somewhere else (probably Florida with no state income tax). Taxes on athletes are actually pretty complicated. Sure, he is playing for an CA based team, but a lot of his labor will actually occur in other states. You better believe those states want their cut too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:This. It’d be a real stretch to think that this scheme is intended to avoid CA income tax on Ohtani’s part. The present value of his contract is about half of its nominal value - he is effectively giving up 50% of his comp with this scheme (15yr midpoint at 4.6%). He isn’t doing that to avoid 13% in taxes, he’s doing it because that’s the only way the Dodgers would agree to pay him this much. Specifically the Dodgers and to remain competitive, there are teams that would have paid $60mm+/year, but they also would not have been able to be competitive spending on the rest of the roster with the luxury tax as is. Hell another california team was rumored to be offering as much even.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
The Ohtani thing isn't new, either. When the story broke, sports fans were cracking jokes about how "Ohtani" was a really strange way to spell Bonilla. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/37938979/bobby-bonilla-day-2023-new-york-mets-paid-119m-every-july-1 quote:The calendar has turned to July 1, and that means one thing: It's time for Mets fans everywhere to wish each other a Happy Bobby Bonilla Day! Why? On Saturday, 59-year-old Bobby Bonilla will collect a check for $1,193,248.20 from the New York Mets, as he has and will every July 1 from 2011 through 2035. quote:In 2000, the Mets agreed to buy out the remaining $5.9 million on Bonilla's contract. quote:Bonilla last played for the Mets in 1999 and last played in the majors for the Cardinals in 2001, but he will be paid through 2035 (when he'll be 72). Sundae fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 03:51
|
|
|
Inflation at 3.9% in December; 3.4% less food and fueldrk posted:Taxes on athletes are actually pretty complicated. Sure, he is playing for an CA based team, but a lot of his labor will actually occur in other states. You better believe those states want their cut too. What's the lower limit for this? If you have a meeting at the factory two states over that makes your widgets and then stay the night in a hotel there, do you owe taxes in that state? Fly to France for business now you owe Macron for that week you were at the conference?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Hadlock posted:Inflation at 3.9% in December; 3.4% less food and fuel The states based laws about this I dunno 15-20 years ago, it’s by jurisdiction. They really only bother with like athletes afaik.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 19:44
|
|