2009
跟理论大虾讨论：为什么“无论是通胀还是滞胀，对已经泡沫化的楼市来讲，不动产都不能保值”？
22
前一阵海归网热火朝天的讨论国内的房地产投资的问题，看了理论大虾的一个深海跟贴，居然近500个点击，可见海归网的人还是识货的。
但是为什么在通胀或者滞涨的情况下，不动产都不能保值呢？ 理论大虾说 Steve Saville 文章有“one fundamental flaw”，这个flaw是什么捏？
换句话说，如果钱贬值，物价就一定会升。如果贬值十倍，那么现在一百万买的房子，到时候就值一千万。这不是“保值”吗？
请有识者来讨论一哈。不过我跟理论大虾的观点相近，对国内房地产的走向比较悲观。
附：
无论是通胀还是滞胀，对已经泡沫化的楼市来讲，不动产都不能保值。 (471 reads) 时间: 2009-7-04 周六, 15:23
——————————————————————————–
作者：theoretical 在 海归主坛 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
如果要是inflationary recession，更是死路一条。U can run but u can’t hide. 有人估计要拿香港楼市说事了，不过我琢磨着他都不知道香港现在的主体经济是什么。
那什么是inflationary recession？Here is an example. Even though I think his idea had one fundamental flaw, what the heck, it still worth a few minutes to read.
By Steve Saville | March 18, 2008 | 12:12 AM | 0 CommentsTweet This
The term "stagflation" was invented — and became very popular — during the 1970s to describe the situation where persistently weak economic growth goes hand-in-hand with a strong upward trend in the general level of consumer prices, as if such a situation represented a strange set of circumstances that warranted its own name. The term has again become popular, but the whole concept of stagflation is ba<x>sed on a misunderstanding of the relationship between prices and economic growth.
The perceived need to have a distinct label for the supposedly strange coupling of rising prices and falling growth stems from the erroneous belief that strong economic growth causes prices to rise and weak economic growth causes them to fall. The reality is the exact opposite — strong economic growth puts DOWNWARD pressure on prices because it involves an increase in the supply of goods and services. If monetary factors are constant while the supply of goods and services increases then the same amount of money will be ‘chasing’ a greater supply of ’stuff’, and the average price of ’stuff’ will fall. By the same token, if monetary factors are constant while the economy shrinks then the same amount of money will be ‘chasing’ a smaller supply of ’stuff’, leading to HIGHER prices.
Of course, monetary factors aren’t usually constant, especially under the monetary system that has been in place since 1971. What tends to happen these days is that an economic slowdown prompts the central bank and the government to implement counter-cyclical policies that lead to faster growth in the money supply. The end result is a large increase in the supply of money at a time when the supply of the things that money can buy is either falling or growing at a relatively slow rate; that is, the end result is the perfect recipe for higher prices. This is the way the law of supply and demand naturally operates. There is nothing strange about it and there was never any need to invent a new word to describe it.
"Inflationary recession" is, we think, a better term than "stagflation". In a world where money can be created in unlimited amounts and counter-cyclical monetary/fiscal policies are enormously popular, most recessions will be inflationary. In fact, the weaker the economy becomes the more inflation there will likely be and the faster consumer prices will likely rise. It is therefore not surprising that the worst recession experienced by the US over the past 40 years (1973-1975) coincided with the fastest increase in the general price level.
A related misconception revolves around the belief that the Fed is currently in a tough spot because it can’t simultaneously stimulate economic growth and keep inflationary forces in check. The Fed is certainly in a tough spot, but not for this reason. As explained above, there is NO trade-off between inflationary pressures and real economic growth. The opposite is actually true — real economic growth puts downward pressure on prices, and less currency depreciation leads to less misallocation of resources, which, in turn, paves the way for higher economic growth.
The problem facing the Fed is that it can’t stimulate economic growth, period. All it can do is depreciate the value of the dollar, and the more rapidly it depreciates the dollar the slower the long-term economic growth rate will be.
Another common misconception — one that crops up every time a recession looms on the horizon — is that insufficient aggregate demand (insufficient consumption) lies at the root of the economic malaise. Someone who makes the mistake of thinking that insufficient aggregate demand is the problem will wrongly believe that the solution entails doing something to boost demand. And in most cases, the recommended demand-boosting ’solution’ will involve currency depreciation and increased government spending/borrowing.
The truth of the matter is that "insufficient aggregate demand" can never be the underlying problem because a sustainable increase in demand must be preceded by an increase in production. To put it another way, in order for someone to consume more they must first either produce more, or dip into their stored past production (savings), or borrow the excess production of someone else. In each case, production precedes consumption.
A person can also boost his/her consumption of goods and services by borrowing money that gets created ‘out of thin air’ by a bank, but because the increased consumption in this case is not backed by increased production it does not contribute to sustainable economic growth. It will, instead, contribute to an increase in the general level of consumer prices, which will, in turn, have a deleterious effect on long-term economic growth.
The bottom line is that you cannot get something for nothing — you cannot get a sustained increase in consumption without a preceding increase in production. Moreover, attempts by interventionist governments to boost consumption in response to economic weakness will lead to the worst possible scenario for consumers — rising consumer prices at a time of rising unemployment. So, why do so many people advocate policies designed to stimulate demand/consumption whenever the economy heads into recession? Because they are either economically illiterate or willing to accept a more negative long-term outcome in exchange for a potential short-term gain.
标题:低手乱说：高房价依赖高信贷，高通胀高利率，信贷成本增高，affordability下降。
英国80年代末的房市崩盘就是高利率引发的。
另外信贷成本增高也会成为企业的负担，阻碍经济和就业发展，恶性循环，即为滞胀。
更何况国内的房价无论是看租售比还是看房价收入比都早已偏离价值。要不是国有银行托市早垮了。
;p
标题:美国的房市已去泡沫了吧?
我半年内买了几个fire sell. 觉得很值.
标题:这个应该是我要写的贴子的主要的point之一
海归跟国内的人不同。国内的人投资没有选择，海归应该有更多选择。
标题:保值是个伪命题
后金本位货币特性之一是没有价值延续性。
实物形态价格的不可预测性！！！
标题:TG诸侯通过操纵房价，玩弄鸡抵屁数字，足够逼疯大量百姓，最终可能导致群体事件的乱源。
暂时没有工作不要紧，老百姓起码的吃穿住行还得要保障才行。国内房价若实在太离谱了，海龟们大不了再返回国外工作、经商、买房去。美国很多地区房价掉了不少，有些吸引力了。
标题:就美国而谈，1980 vs 2009
美元还叫美元，内涵完全不同。
实物、服务之间的价格比，HEDONIC 意义也完全不一样。
不要缘木求鱼。
标题:已经泡沫化=市场价格已经priced in了未来的通胀预期甚至发展到ponzi阶段
通胀下：市场价格也不一定会长， 根据泡沫化的程度甚至会跌。以前的低mortgage
获得的好处敌不过泡沫带来的风险。
滞胀下：房价不涨，还要付以前的高MORTGAGE。
标题:房子可以和石油一样，一年内从147到35
如此剧烈波动，使得价格，保值如同笑话。
无意义。
所以，只能着眼于数月的价格波动，而市场价格的投机性使得每个人都成为赌徒。
标题:真命题：如何保持自己的相对其他地球人的货币支配量
地球人定义也在变
现在算包括了中国人
以后还会有非洲人。
标题:大家千万不要理会经济学
是伪科学，概念都是错的，比如通货膨胀。
现在体会到国家机器是多么的暴力。
标题:将来，中国房子可能是5千万一平米，
也许一个非洲人干两个月就赚到中国一套房子。
大家不要笑我！！
标题:无形资产价值更高
包括社会运作力
和个人素质等。
还有海归网等。
老狼的商誉。
标题:If not permanently impaired.
and have to be written off.
标题:刚回国看了一下，中国老百姓的忍耐力是惊人的。TG的运气真好。。。
标题:读了克鲁格曼了吧？
中毒不浅哪！
标题:这位"深套死抗"网友说到点子上了. 现在的钞票都是各国政府印出来的非法钞票.
所谓的非法钞票,就是用高通涨来掠夺民众财富,去填补天文数字的债务和赤字.
标题:克鲁格曼是个撬边模子.和政府穿一条裤子的.这种白痴经济学家唯一干的事情就是鼓吹大政府
最后让政府来掠夺民众的财富.
标题:sorry for late response. Here is his flaw:
"In each case, production precedes consumption." Furthermore, it is way too early to talk about inflation now.
Also, I just tyr to be honest, I don’t agree with you on this:可见海归网的人还是识货的。 Why do I say so? Because I saw a few IDs, whom I consider very good on economic topics were not here anymore. The reason for that is very clear.
标题:Borrowing cost, carrying cost, etc.
标题:受宠若惊
标题:For what, bro?
标题:this post has been here for long without a response.
it seemed that either people in this forum who read my post didn’t want to reply or they simply didn’t truly understand. I hope it is the former.