So you may have heard Ron Paul tearing into Bernanke over not having a definition of a dollar and destroying the currency ... but here's what nobody has said that came out of that exchange:
If you calculate inflation using the old CPI formula (current CPI excludes energy, food, and more) .... inflation RIGHT NOW is at 9%.
NINE F*CKING PERCENT. And we're not even to a point where the economists themselves have woken up and said "uh oh".
Even though the academic-media class isn't talking about it, normal people are. They feel the pinch in their day-to-day lives. The reaction is due on about November 6th, 2012. It won't be pretty.
(03-03-2011 01:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]So you may have heard Ron Paul tearing into Bernanke over not having a definition of a dollar and destroying the currency ... but here's what nobody has said that came out of that exchange:
If you calculate inflation using the old CPI formula (current CPI excludes energy, food, and more) .... inflation RIGHT NOW is at 9%.
NINE F*CKING PERCENT. And we're not even to a point where the economists themselves have woken up and said "uh oh".
Very interesting. Have you got a source for that? I'd like to be able to cite it.
(03-03-2011 09:42 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Vox Day is arguing that it's deflation.
You should chime in on the discussion
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/03/be-prepared.html
It's not that difficult to grasp really, if you don't use Keynesian theory.
The Austrians define inflation very simply: increasing the supply of money. We have TRIPLED the supply of money in the last 10 years, it is merely currently soaked up in the military industrial complex and big banking and junk mortgages. But the sponges are full, and beginning to leak. That's why you're seeing commodity prices soar. It's not that they're becoming more expensive ... it's that the dollar is becoming less valuable you know given the TRIPLING OF THE MONEY SUPPLY and all.
Because inflation has (mostly) been "under control" (sic) for the past 30 years, most Americans younger than 40 have no real concept of what it means to have price-increases consistently going up 8, 9, 10% (or more) per year for several years in a row. Ask someone who remembers the 1970s.
Also, people forget how difficult -- politically and econonically -- it was for the Reagan Administration to tame inflation. Reagan's critics seem to think inflation is just some force of nature that comes and goes as it pleases. But that is not true. Inflation/deflation are consequences of specific economic/fiscal acts by the government, and preventing it requires specific counter-actions.
(03-03-2011 09:58 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2011 09:42 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Vox Day is arguing that it's deflation.
You should chime in on the discussion
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/03/be-prepared.html
It's not that difficult to grasp really, if you don't use Keynesian theory.
The Austrians define inflation very simply: increasing the supply of money. We have TRIPLED the supply of money in the last 10 years, it is merely currently soaked up in the military industrial complex and big banking and junk mortgages. But the sponges are full, and beginning to leak. That's why you're seeing commodity prices soar. It's not that they're becoming more expensive ... it's that the dollar is becoming less valuable you know given the TRIPLING OF THE MONEY SUPPLY and all.
Haha. VD is very Austrian, and very much anti-Keynsian. His thesis (as I understand it) is that the credity money supply has shrunk as debts are decreasing. People aren't borrowing that printed money, so it's not in the economy. Debts have been decreasing, despite the Fed Gov't's best efforts to borrow more.
My perspective remains unchanged. Apparently it's "Rickardian."
Volker and Bernanke should tried as criminals. If the Fed is ever audited it may come to that. They have a lot to hide.
(03-03-2011 10:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Debts have been decreasing, despite the Fed Gov't's best efforts to borrow more.
My perspective remains unchanged. Apparently it's "Rickardian."
So you're arguing the private sector has shrunk its debt by more than 1.6 trillion this year alone to offset just Uncle Sam's appetite for debt?
Bull. While there was some contraction in the housing market, the pervasive attitude is still borrow, leverage, and borrow some more. We still have, as a country, a negative savings rate. Savings is the engine that drives capitalism. While we may be, privately, borrowing less, we're still going further into the hole. Show me anybody credible who says the US had a domestic savings rate that is positive this year ... or any of the last 10 really.
(03-03-2011 11:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2011 10:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Debts have been decreasing, despite the Fed Gov't's best efforts to borrow more.
My perspective remains unchanged. Apparently it's "Rickardian."
So you're arguing
No, VD is. He even wrote a book on it. That's why I invited you over. I thought you'd appreciate the conversation.
(03-03-2011 11:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2011 10:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Debts have been decreasing, despite the Fed Gov't's best efforts to borrow more.
My perspective remains unchanged. Apparently it's "Rickardian."
So you're arguing the private sector has shrunk its debt by more than 1.6 trillion this year alone to offset just Uncle Sam's appetite for debt?
Bull. While there was some contraction in the housing market, the pervasive attitude is still borrow, leverage, and borrow some more. We still have, as a country, a negative savings rate. Savings is the engine that drives capitalism. While we may be, privately, borrowing less, we're still going further into the hole. Show me anybody credible who says the US had a domestic savings rate that is positive this year ... or any of the last 10 really.
Well, consumerism drives capitalism about as much as anything. But obviously it's not good long-term, and we're seeing the results. By the way, why do they exclude energy, food, etc?
(03-04-2011 05:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, consumerism drives capitalism about as much as anything. But obviously it's not good long-term, and we're seeing the results. By the way, why do they exclude energy, food, etc?
Government has to report stats on their performance.
Government has virtually no oversight.
Government can merely redefine their own metrics to make their stats look better.
You see this all the time at schools. Too many kids failing? Lower the passing grade.
You see inflation too high? Lower the inflation standard.
(03-04-2011 11:10 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]You see this all the time at schools. Too many kids failing? Lower the passing grade.
Another trick is to "change the norms" on standardized tests, in order to make it appear that "test-scores" have improved. About 12 years (or so) back, the "norms were changed" on the SAT. Everybody had 100 points added to their result, compared to what it would have been before.
(03-03-2011 09:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2011 07:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Very interesting. Have you got a source for that? I'd like to be able to cite it.
![[Image: sgs-cpi.gif?hl=ad&t=]](http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif?hl=ad&t=)
http://www.shadowstats.com/
First let me agree with GTS, to calculate inflation less food and energy is a scam. I had to laugh though when you cited Shadowstats as your source. I've been refuted on this board while citing NOAA, NASA, CBO, Dept. of Labor and multiple universitiy studies. The same people that rejected those out of hand will accept shadowstats as the gospel
(03-05-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I had to laugh though when you cited Shadowstats as your source. I've been refuted on this board while citing NOAA, NASA, CBO, Dept. of Labor and multiple universitiy studies. The same people that rejected those out of hand will accept shadowstats as the gospel
People will support data that agrees with their own assumptions.
That said, when it comes to inflation, Shadowstats has it right. Government has it's own agenda. Anyone who accepts government at their word is a fool.
(03-05-2011 10:09 AM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I had to laugh though when you cited Shadowstats as your source. I've been refuted on this board while citing NOAA, NASA, CBO, Dept. of Labor and multiple universitiy studies. The same people that rejected those out of hand will accept shadowstats as the gospel
People will support data that agrees with their own assumptions.
That said, when it comes to inflation, Shadowstats has it right. Government has it's own agenda. Anyone who accepts government at their word is a fool.
The black helicopters will be here soon. You go with shadowstats and let me know how that works out. I largely trust the government although I rarely trust politicians.
(03-05-2011 06:22 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 10:09 AM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I had to laugh though when you cited Shadowstats as your source. I've been refuted on this board while citing NOAA, NASA, CBO, Dept. of Labor and multiple universitiy studies. The same people that rejected those out of hand will accept shadowstats as the gospel
People will support data that agrees with their own assumptions.
That said, when it comes to inflation, Shadowstats has it right. Government has it's own agenda. Anyone who accepts government at their word is a fool.
The black helicopters will be here soon. You go with shadowstats and let me know how that works out. I largely trust the government although I rarely trust politicians.
So you can also trust corporations, just not the executives that run it?
Government is defined by and made up of politicians, although somehow it becomes less than the sum of its parts.
(03-05-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]First let me agree with GTS, to calculate inflation less food and energy is a scam. I had to laugh though when you cited Shadowstats as your source. I've been refuted on this board while citing NOAA, NASA, CBO, Dept. of Labor and multiple universitiy studies. The same people that rejected those out of hand will accept shadowstats as the gospel.
Shadowstats is biased. So are those other sources. If it's a government agency, they are biased toward saving their jobs, and that comes way ahead of serving either truth or the public. If you can't see that--or want to be blind to it--I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise. But if you open your eyes and look objectively, you'll see it.