Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

> On my end I think the term mortgages are great since I believe it leads to lower overall interest rates.

When rates are going down, yes.

But locking in low rates in the United States for 30 years either at purchase time or via refinancing is one of the weirdest advantages of home ownership here. It's surreal to have a 2.x% mortgage locked in for decades when rates are quickly going up and inflation is reducing the relative value of my debt and payments.

View on HN

The only way this ends is by running the process in reverse where declining asset prices reduce the gains made on the debt side. If asset prices do not decrease in a rising rate environment, then inflation cannot be controlled. We've baked in 8% annualized real loss somewhere going forward and it will come out of somebody's pockets, but it's still being decided whether asset owners or debtors will pay.

> If asset prices do not decrease in a rising rate environment, then inflation cannot be controlled

the asset price could remain stable, if the jobs that service those mortgages aren't removed.

Inflation of consumables can be controlled, but it is painful. Inflation of assets should not be controlled, even if it could - asset growth represents the wealth of those who invested in it. If this growth is artificially suppressed, millions would lose their retirement funds, and become poorer in the future, and for what?

Inflation means there is too much demand in the economy compared to the supply (of goods and labor). Decreased retirement funds are one mechanism by which asset price reductions can lead to people consuming less and working more. More broadly there’s a wealth effect that determines how much people spend.

Nothing is in a vacuum and wealth only has meaning relatively. As much as it may be a shock to hear, wealth is but a social contract on how much it gets you in exchange. There is no absolute answer on that and it's subject to negotiation. If you are in charge of distributing wealth (which is what this is, let's be honest), higher prices means current asset holders are favored over future asset holders who want to purchase assets. Why should those who invested in a bubble during the loosest money era be entitled to exchange it for the same amount of labor or goods of those who built wealth during austerity?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com