Row 69609

Row ID: 69609 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 69609 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Not trying to be rude, but those aren't papers. They're blog posts.

Let's get one thing out of the way first. This isn't "my point". I'm providing information that extensively details causality. This is the NBER, World Bank, and IMF's point lol.

Two of them are from two years ago. The other (PIE) literally directly corroborates what I said lol.

The booth piece as well as Fed blog post are both old but more importantly don't counter anything I said.

The booth piece very correctly asserts that while a supply shock is the causality, inflation can become self sustaining after supply shocks, this needs intervention. Nobody's disagreeing with that. I'm a huge fan of Cochrane and his work around asset pricing, but he's not a macro guy and never has been despite delving in to it from time to time. Read his paper on discount rates to see him really shine. On macro though, he's uhhh, out there sometimes. His core background is actually in physics which lends a lot of expertise in the asset pricing world.

The Fed blog piece is actually referencing this paper, so you should have just linked it: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30240/w30240.pdf

Which has this important piece:

>Ouranalysis lays bare how the inherent pandemic-driven labor dislocations were bound to show up as inflation when combined with aggregate demand stimulus. While the increase in consumer spending barely brought economies back to pre-pandemic levels, this rebound in economic activity coincided with supply chains problems that were slow to dissipate. This mismatch in demand and supply led to inflation being less transitory,

They're characterizing a demand shock not as outsized demand, but as demand that existed on par with normalized levels over time.

So like, I don't see that as conflicting with anything posted above. And truth be told I'm not convinced you've read these. I've previously been familiar with di Giovanni's paper, it's good but a bit older. We've got a lot more data to work with now.

FieldValue
text Not trying to be rude, but those aren't papers. They're blog posts. Let's get one thing out of the way first. This isn't "my point". I'm providing information that extensively details causality. This is the NBER, World Bank, and IMF's point lol. Two of them are from two years ago. The other (PIE) literally directly corroborates what I said lol. The booth piece as well as Fed blog post are both old but more importantly don't counter anything I said. The booth piece very correctly a…
label r/investing
dataType comment
communityName r/investing
datetime 2024-05-23
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1lTm5ucFBYYkNuSVJBbDdpdHJ3eXFCcjQycmltNFVEUVdzS2dKSWhfS1c5OGZGOHNoTWZwbE1EMzFtbnUzT253UkRsQ3FKVG03NzlUZDNSNDAwVmp0QXc9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak92RWw1NlpfeDVsUHZ5VTV2YWxqbkFpNGFJUFJJbXRkWkh5RjJhWVhzeURCQVUyZVhiSE9OdXozR3J6OEtJZW9xa2pXd2Y0V0dLYVo0cmMwSHRfaTZPUG9uR1NvclJaSERORkN1cFhBa0R6M3JrN0xDYU5DX0NfbGFoMkIydlpzYm16Z2p4VUtzbUtxWWhfSmhGVlhscUhxNEFnSlVOZDhVWU5zZkk4V2VHM0hVRVk5WGtudmlHb2ZLUU1pRk1ZdF84eWM2eTdMNVFUUHpEWmd3bFlXSmd5Zz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Not trying to be rude, but those aren't papers.  They're blog posts.\n\nLet's get one thing out of the way first.  This isn't \"my point\".  I'm providing information that extensively details causality.  This is the NBER, World Bank, and IMF's point lol.   \n\nTwo of them are from two years ago.  The other (PIE) literally directly corroborates what I said lol. \n\nThe booth piece as well as Fed blog post are both old but more importantly don't counter anything I said.  \n\nThe booth piece very correctly asserts that while a supply shock is the causality, inflation can become self sustaining after supply shocks, this needs intervention.  Nobody's disagreeing with that.  I'm a huge fan of Cochrane and his work around asset pricing, but he's not a macro guy and never has been despite delving in to it from time to time.  Read his paper on discount rates to see him really shine.  On macro though, he's uhhh, out there sometimes.  His core background is actually in physics which lends a lot of expertise in the asset pricing world.    \n\nThe Fed blog piece is actually referencing this paper, so you should have just linked it: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30240/w30240.pdf\n\nWhich has this important piece: \n\n>Ouranalysis lays bare how the inherent pandemic-driven labor dislocations were bound to show up as inflation when combined with aggregate demand stimulus. While the increase in consumer spending barely brought economies back to pre-pandemic levels, this rebound in economic activity coincided with supply chains problems that were slow to dissipate. This mismatch in demand and supply led to inflation being less transitory,\n\nThey're characterizing a demand shock not as outsized demand, but as demand that existed on par with normalized levels over time.  \n\nSo like, I don't see that as conflicting with anything posted above.  And truth be told I'm not convinced you've read these.  I've previously been familiar with di Giovanni's paper, it's good but a bit older.  We've got a lot more data to work with now.",
  "label": "r/investing",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/investing",
  "datetime": "2024-05-23",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1lTm5ucFBYYkNuSVJBbDdpdHJ3eXFCcjQycmltNFVEUVdzS2dKSWhfS1c5OGZGOHNoTWZwbE1EMzFtbnUzT253UkRsQ3FKVG03NzlUZDNSNDAwVmp0QXc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak92RWw1NlpfeDVsUHZ5VTV2YWxqbkFpNGFJUFJJbXRkWkh5RjJhWVhzeURCQVUyZVhiSE9OdXozR3J6OEtJZW9xa2pXd2Y0V0dLYVo0cmMwSHRfaTZPUG9uR1NvclJaSERORkN1cFhBa0R6M3JrN0xDYU5DX0NfbGFoMkIydlpzYm16Z2p4VUtzbUtxWWhfSmhGVlhscUhxNEFnSlVOZDhVWU5zZkk4V2VHM0hVRVk5WGtudmlHb2ZLUU1pRk1ZdF84eWM2eTdMNVFUUHpEWmd3bFlXSmd5Zz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information