40/ And one sector is particularly vulnerable: construction. Because:

1. Materials (imported) are much more expensive
2. Interest rates are way up, so a lot of projects are halted due to financing
3. They are dominated by highly unionized workers and their salaries just went up (because the unions didn’t negotiate with them, they negotiated with the swimming in money export sector)

So all sorts of companies associated with construction are going bankrupt.

41/ Which means, as @intarga
points out, housing prices are not going down as we expected.
https://hachyderm.io/@intarga/112719682482183505
Ingrid (@[email protected])

@[email protected] I find the interest rate situation in Norway extra annoying, because even with it not working to bring down inflation, the one silver lining it should have had was to cool the housing market. Instead, house prices are still going up because we completely stopped building 🙄🙄🙄

Hachyderm.io
42/ The interest rate hikes are making a hard situation worse by “cooling” the wrong economy. We are getting a higher interest rate because America has lower unemployment (I am really happy for y’all though).

43/ And that gets us the whole “what is inflation?”. Because if it is that it is harder to make ends meet because everything is more expensive. Then they are actually creating MORE inflation.

Yeah, we are exposed to the exchange rate, but now we are killing the economy that’s supposed to compensate, while driving actual living costs even further through the roof.

44/ Housing is also a weird market in general, because once you’re in, you buy and sell in the same market. So that market becomes sort of disconnected from everything else. Because demand is constant and supply is pretty constrained: the people selling their homes and newly built stuff.

But with no construction the supply is even more constrained, and the people buying are mostly the people selling, so it becomes a strange closed loop system.

45/ However, if you are a renter you are also getting hit, again by different effects. The current left coalition (and previous iterations) have wanted to make it less lucrative to be a landlord. So margins have shrunk due to higher taxes etc. But a lot of this has been funded through loans, and so those margins are getting squeezed further. So landlords are either selling off their properties, which are often in the cities, or raising rents. But the housing market is undersupplied so it just absorbs these properties.

So now we have fewer rental properties, which would drive up prices on its own (according to economic theory 😅), but the remaining market is also increasing rent to compensate for higher interest rates.

So even if you rent you are getting hit by the interest rate. And actually it’s worse there, because rents will for sure not go down in the same way mortgages will if/when they reduce the interest rate.

46/ Or in kubernetes analogy (because of Cybercyn and the book The Unaccountability Machine): some stuff in our system (the Norwegian housing market) are auto-scaling in some cloud, some are manually scaled (by buying and adding new servers in our on prem data center) and once the peak in consumption is over, some things might scale down quickly, but some are stuck now with a lot of expensive hardware taking up space in our server racks.

Mortgages are in AWS and rents are on-prem in my very confusing analogy.

47/ I don’t know what the answer is, my earlier idea of constraining the supply of NOK… it looks like they did that, and it had apparently about as much effect as the interest rate (not much if any).

Maybe without these two things it would’ve spiraled out of control… but I don’t think so, because this wasn’t caused by our economy.

So maybe the best thing would’ve been to just accept it? Yeah, the NOK is weak, because the world is rough, increase salaries some and just sit tight? Maybe even stimulate internal growth to compensate?

48/ And maybe the bottom dropped out from under the NOK, but the whole oil tax thing will keep it from dying. Because there will always be buyers, because they have no other choice.
49/ is it possible that they are so afraid of “inflation” they are actually creating “inflation”? (Where each “inflation” is a different flavor of inflation)
50/ I told you, inflation is much harder to grok than I thought, because it’s much less well-defined than they say it is. It seems economists don’t actually know what it is, they just know some of its shapes. Unfortunately, the current Norwegian shape is not the stereotypical one. And the Norwegian central bank only has one hammer and it was made for the stereotypical case.
51/ Ok, I’m still on the inflation chapter (but getting towards the end, I promise), and I think I get at least one of the major changes MMT wants to do: To manage the economy through fiscal policy: spending more/less and increasing/lowering taxes, instead of through monetary policy: raising/lowering interest rates.

52/ Ok, I think I get it. MMT says that a deficit isn’t a sign of government overspending, inflation is. (And here they are clearly talking about the overheated economy inflation) So as long as the spending doesn’t cause inflation, it doesn’t matter if you run with a deficit even over a longer period (she mentioned decades).

So basically she is sort of saying that deficits aren’t real because taxes aren’t real.

This is more like the water in a radiator system (my analogy). You can add in water or remove water, but the system isn’t the water. And adding water (money) only becomes a problem when the pressure in the system gets too high and water starts spilling out somewhere.

Basically, money isn’t “real”. It’s… just water in a radiator system in a building. The building and the radiators and the people living there are the real things.

53/ Ok, fine. Y’all have told me over and over to read Steve Keen, and I would’ve if he had a freaking audiobook, but he does have a podcast, so let’s do a crossover, because he has an episode on MMT.
(h/t @joelving and the 5 other people who have brought it up)
https://mastodon.joelving.dk/@joelving/112720891429481986
Peter Toft Jølving (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] Most economic forecasting models are relatively simple and don't require supercomputers (because the models are oversimplified). Steve Keen takes a System Dynamics approach and has many more feedback loops in his models. He's also one of the fiercest critics of mainstream economics I know of, for many of the same reasons @[email protected] is. Worth looking up, if it interests you.

Mastodon
54/ Hopefully the link to the episode works, title is “Does Modern Monetary Theory make sense?”
https://debunkingeconomics.com/episode/does-modern-monetary-theory-make-sense
Does Modern Monetary Theory make sense? | Debunking Economics - the podcast

Modern Monetary Theory states that’s, because the government of a country is the monopoly supplier of money, it has an unlimited capacity to pay for things and...

Debunking Economics - the podcast
55/ Short recap: he basically agrees with MMT on most things. One thing came up though which is relevant to my discussion here about Norway, and that is that the USD is not a normal currency, and it can get away with a lot the rest of us can’t. The term he used was “reserve currency”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency
Reserve currency - Wikipedia

56/ Here is the clip, I have no idea if he’s right or not about this particular argument, but I do think that (as far as I’ve gotten in the book) MMT seems very US centric and I also wonder if this protection they get from being a “universal global currency” protects them in ways they might not be completely aware of.
57/ The parts of MMT that I like are the descriptive parts. Where they just talk about How Stuff Works In Practice. The problem I have (and tbh they are by far the worst here) is that when they slip over from descriptive to prescriptive it’s like they don’t even notice. They go straight from How Stuff Works to My Opinion without skipping a beat. And then I start to wonder if they can even tell the difference.
58/ Another interesting clip from Keen where they talk about how to “create money”:
1. Through exports
2. Printing money
3. Borrowing from banks
59/ Ah nice, finally we have some mention of a more “global” economy. And this is where I want to learn more “trade deficit” vs “trade surplus” and how it interacts with currencies.
60/ someone asked about this buying and selling of NOK when it comes to the sovereign wealth fund. And the Norwegian central bank has a page on it in English! And it has pictures 😃
https://www.norges-bank.no/en/topics/liquidity-and-markets/Foreign-exchange-purchases-for-GPFG/
Norges Bank’s foreign exchange transactions on behalf of the government

The Norwegian government receives revenues in both NOK and foreign currency from petroleum activities. Some of these revenues are used to finance a planned central government budget deficit. Norges Bank carries out the necessary foreign exchange transactions associated with petroleum revenue spending. These foreign exchange transactions are planned and smoothed over the year and are pre-announced each month.

61/ Based on this is it possible that Norway is actually doing MMT? Sort of? But instead of “printing money” they are covering a planned deficit with the earnings from its petroleum export?

62/ I feel so smart when I read news articles that agree with me 🤓 🤣
“And an interest rate increase will not help, he believes. - The higher the interest rate goes, the more landlords have to raise the rent, and then the interest rate increase is inflationary. It does not have the same effect as in the housing market, where prices fall if interest rates rise. The interest rate is not a good weapon to deal with this kind of inflation. It makes matters worse, he says.”
https://e24.no/norsk-oekonomi/i/93zl4d/uenige-om-leieprisene-det-gjoer-vondt-verre

https://social.vivaldi.net/@Patricia/112720508129615142

Uenige om leieprisene: – Det gjør vondt verre

Vil leieprisene knuse drømmen om rentekutt, eller har det lite å si? To sjeføkonomer er uenige om effekten.

63/ What is absolutely hilarious is that the effect he describes on the housing market is actually not happening. But this is yet another time the terrain is wrong for not fitting their map.
64/ Real estate prices are up 8% this year, that’s bananas. But I guess it’s like the gold, people are investing in their homes, and maybe also the fact that it is a closed loop system. So until people start defaulting on their loans, the real estate market won’t feel it.

65/ After spending ages on inflation, I’m apparently breezing through chapter 3 “The National Debt (That Isn’t)”

Basically, in the same way tax isn’t real (in that it is just a mechanism to remove money from the economy and/or create demand for the currency. MMT says that the deficit isn’t real. Very clear that it is the US they are talking about. To generalize to more countries she picked the UK and I would’ve preferred another more “normal” country.

@Patricia I’d have expected some qualifiers on that: deficits aren’t real, so long as…
@BenAveling there’s a whole chapter 😂 but the basic idea is the radiator model from earlier in the thread and of course that you can use MMT (the 3 requirements towards the beginning of the thread). It’s confusing, but from the point of view of the central bank, there are no restrictions on money, they can literally make it up, the only thing that is “real” is inflation (the radiator system springs a leak somewhere due to too high pressure in the pipes). So as long as that doesn’t happen, you can pump as much money/water into the economy/radiator-system as you want. And a deficit is then just a bookkeeping issue. Because if/when you need the money you can just create it. Also, apparently the Chinese don’t want it back, from their point of view it’s in a bank account 🤷🏻‍♀️ I’m just reading the book, I don’t know if it’s “right” 😅

@Patricia I don't follow the radiator analogy.
My simple understanding currently is (and I should acknowledge that each of these was once a revelation to me and that journey is incomplete)

1. money is debt.
2. government debt is fundamentally different to household debt.

I think we've covered the first one. (But note that it surprises people)

The second one, and maybe we're retreading ground already covered, but so be it.

cont...

@Patricia Household debt is about balancing consumption over a lifetime. We borrow to buy a car, a house, which we then use while we repay the debt.
Government debt's not like that, because governments are, for practical purposes, immortal. It doesn't need to be repaid, or if it does, it can be rolled over and funded with extra debt.
Extra debt can always be issued (printed). But there are consequences.

cont...

@Patricia The immediate consequence of printing money is that all the money you've already printed becomes worth less. (Not worthless, just, worth less)

Over simplification, but imagine you have a fixed supply of goods, and a certain supply of money. And you print a lot more money, as much again, for example.

Suddenly, you have twice the currency chasing the same quantity of goods. Absent price fixing (which is a whole 'nuther issue), the price of goods will double.

So far so good?

@BenAveling according to how I understand MMT, money isn’t really anything other than an instrument that you (the state) use to provide a convenient way to pay for stuff. It has no fixed size. It can be conjured out of thin air and burned to the ground. It’s just a driver for passing the heat around the building ie the water. The amount of water doesn’t matter, we don’t have to buy it and we don’t have to give it back. We have a tap of free water. So we can put more money in when that makes sense and take some out when that makes sense. There is no speed limit, only the capacity of the system to take the water/heat.
@Patricia The word "only" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
True that there is no limit on how much money is printed, but there are consequences.
For the US, those consequences are small, because there's so much money already printed, a bit more doesn't make much difference.
And yes, this is massively oversimplified. But lets add complications one at a time.
First, the supply of goods is not fixed.
cont...
@Patricia Suppose the supply of goods were to grow by 10%, and the amount of money did not.
Then we'd have the same amount of money chasing more goods - prices would drop.
Deflation. Sort of the same consequence as before, but in the other direction.
To have zero inflation, we need the supply of goods and the supply of money to grow at about the same rate.
This is still massively oversimplified of course.
@BenAveling that is your model. But that is all it is. Just like all the other models. None of them have any real evidence, all of them simplify to the point that what they do say is largely uninteresting because the real world is complicated. The Norwegian central bank did a massive interest rate increase and said that housing prices would drop. They’re up 8% so far this year. Which is my whole point: the real world is a complex thing and simple models are insufficient and possibly harmful.
@Patricia All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
Lets use the radiator model for a moment.
If we turn up the radiator, the room should get warmer, right?
But does it always?
What if someone also opens a couple of windows.
Even though we turned up the radiator, the room is getting colder. Just, not as fast as if we hadn't turned up the radiator.
Our model is insufficient, but that's different to saying it's not useful.
Harmful? Perhaps.
Cont...
@Patricia If it was our turning up the radiator that triggered someone to open the windows, then yes, our model produced the opposite result to that intended.
@BenAveling I think now that these models are hindering the whole field, and by extension politics, from observing the system how it actually is. And I also think that right now in human history it is absolutely critical that we see what is actually happening and are not being blinded by made up stories that sound alluring in their simple elegance.
@BenAveling I’m in essence saying all models are wrong and these particular models are not only not useful, they are damaging.
@Patricia There's a tendency for models to start simple, and get more complicated over time - until eventually someone says enough (usually someone young) and creates a new simpler model that actually does a better job.
@Patricia Part of what makes economics particularly hard is that forecasts change behaviour.
@BenAveling exactly that is the “adaptive” in “complex adaptive systems”