←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.112s | source | bottom
Show context
slg ◴[] No.44419379[source]
I don't know why inflation is dismissed so quickly. The article lists the industry average price increase as 29.2% and the inflation value I got out of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculator[1] was 26.2%. So sure, "this isn’t just a case of inflation affecting the entire vehicle market" [emphasis mine], but it is mostly that.

[1] - https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

replies(1): >>44419788 #
dingaling ◴[] No.44419788[source]
Retail inflation is based on the prices of goods, including new cars.

So it's pointless to compare car prices to inflation because they are part of the basis of the measure. Hence why they track closely.

replies(5): >>44419835 #>>44419987 #>>44420171 #>>44420296 #>>44421423 #
anon7000 ◴[] No.44419835[source]
Then it’s pointless to compare nearly anything to inflation, which means inflation isn’t very useful. You can still find many product categories increasing in price more slowly than inflation. Some much higher than inflation. So it is useful to compare inflation
replies(1): >>44419848 #
ajkjk ◴[] No.44419848[source]
But the question we're asking is why the price of cars went up. "Inflation" isn't an answer. Inflation is what we call the price of cars going up. It still happens for a reason...
replies(4): >>44419935 #>>44420299 #>>44420333 #>>44421936 #
1. scotty79 ◴[] No.44420333[source]
Inflation is a result of too much money being created than what is needed by the growth of the economy. Average price increase that we use to estimate it is just a useful proxy.

Inflation is always the main contribution to price increase. It only makes sense to compare price raise above or below inflation if you want to unearth factors specific to any given product or industry.

replies(2): >>44422043 #>>44426440 #
2. habnds ◴[] No.44422043[source]
Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply. This is handled in economics with the idea of the "velocity of money" which conceptually captures the large range of factors by which prices can increase due to factors beyond money supply, for example an energy price shock or changing consumer and business expectations that result in changes in spending and investment patterns.
replies(2): >>44423135 #>>44431640 #
3. weberer ◴[] No.44423135[source]
In theory, sure. But in practice the money supply has nearly quadrupled since 2005.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m2.asp

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

replies(1): >>44428708 #
4. ajkjk ◴[] No.44426440[source]
I've never found that econ 101 logic credible. Even if money supply is ultimate the reason for prices going up, there's an intermediate step where somebody actually set a higher price. And there was a cause for their thinking. Not just "well there's more money going around so we can charge more " or "our parts and labor cost more so we've got to bump prices", but a synthesis of all that that decides the price to set, the types of cars to make, whether to sell and market a 'discount' model, etc.

So even though inflation may feed into that stuff, there's plenty of causality to inspect. Why aren't there cheaper cars? Not because there's more money, but because nobody decided to make and sell a cheaper car. That's the stuff that we should be asking about. Not waving our hands and saying 'sucks, inflation'. The inflation happens at the speed it does because of things like this.

The reason may well be: who would sell a car, or a car part, or their labor, for less when there's so much money going around? But we can still ask plenty of questions about that. Cause I'm pretty damn sure the labor isn't raking in the difference at a rate matching inflation. And it sure seems like there's plenty of room to compete on price, so if no one's doing that effectively, why not?

replies(1): >>44431630 #
5. habnds ◴[] No.44428708{3}[source]
$1 in Jan 2005 is only 1.69 today, not $4 because the velocity of money has decreased dramatically as it has pooled towards the top of the income/wealth spectrum where it doesn't get spent or productively invested.
replies(1): >>44464730 #
6. scotty79 ◴[] No.44431630[source]
> there's an intermediate step where somebody actually set a higher price

Yes. But the most common reason for setting up higher price is because you can, because there's more money flowing in the economy than it should be. Going into details is in the grand scheme of things about as useful as rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

> Why aren't there cheaper cars? Not because there's more money, but because nobody decided to make and sell a cheaper car. That's the stuff that we should be asking about.

Yes. But we should be asking why cars are 3% more expensive, because their prices rose by 29% while the inflation is "only" 26% (don't remember exact numbers), not why car prices rose 29%. If you don't deduct inflation you are interested in wrong things because large numbers make you think there's a drastic reason.

Does 3% even deserve and explanation? Isn't it fully explained by toxic advertising making consumer want heavier car year after year, that naturally cost more?

7. scotty79 ◴[] No.44431640[source]
> Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply.

Money supply always changes. But yes, inflation is possible without changing money supply, if for example economy shrinks or there's some process that reactivated dormant capital that people had just sitting around and not being used by the economy.

In the end it's always the same thing. More money than it should be. It's just that "should be" is very complex and "more money" only a little bit simpler.

8. scotty79 ◴[] No.44464730{4}[source]
Bulk of it is that, but some of it is that larger economy needs more money to run. So while there was 4 food money supply increase the legitimate demand also increased somewhat. Exact numbers might be hard to pinpoint because we tend to measure economy in dollars but still it wouldn't be $4 even if the rich didn't get disproportionately wealthy from this supply.