Prices of everything going up, uP, UP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
$9.99 for a 6 pack of Sierra Nevada Extra IPA.

And the state charges sales tax on top of all the alcohol taxes. Double taxation.

What a rip.

Didn't we throw tea overboard in 1773 to protest these sorts of taxes & prices?

Uggh.


My brew of choice is $20US per 6 pack at the moment...nothing under around $15-$16.

When I was in Cali last year, it was $16US at my local shop, and $10 in Guyserville - with 60c back on the bottle return.
 
We are nowhere close to central planning. If I have to say we are one of the nation with the least amount of any planning in the world (aside from military spending or foreign policy related spending).

However, there are certain amount of services and operations that are not feasible to the private sectors (for profit). Education is one, low cost postal service is another, roads, water and sewage, public safety, military, etc. Just because we have them doesn't means we are central planning.

Now the currency policy, that's usually market driven to a proven formula: a certain amount of inflation for a certain amount of growth. Until some "black swan" events that cause a perpetual collapse of the entire nation (like a run on the bank) then the government has to "rescue" or "bail out" before it spiral downward. This is done in every nation on earth due to the important stake. You can call that anything you want (i.e. cheating, scamming, cover your behind, default via inflation, etc), but it is not central planning.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: buster
http://blogs.forbes.com/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/


Quote:
However, that can’t happen in the real world because the actual mechanisms available are Fed purchases of government debt from the public, Fed loans to banks through the discount window, or Fed adjustment of reserve requirements so that the banks can make more loans from the same volume of deposits. All of these can raise M, but, not a single solitary one of them can occur without the conscious and voluntary cooperation of a private sector agent.

Are you kidding me? One has nothing to do with the other. Government most certainly can print more money than the private sector wants, and that is exactly how countries without "full employment" can and do have inflation. This guy is the one that needs a reality check.
Quote:
What is “money” in a modern, credit-based financial system? Is it that stuff you carry in your pocket, the 1′s and 0′s of the electronic entries in your bank account, the available balance on your credit card, your checking account, your savings account? In practice, this question is so difficult to answer that economists actually offer several possible definitions, just in case! Suffice it to say that for present purposes, the idea that we can precisely identify the current “supply of money” in our economy is suspect. This by itself causes problems for operationalizing the above equation.

Not being able to identify what your money actually is has problems, and he basically undermines the entire premise of MMT in that one paragraph. And it's no surprise that the actions of billions of people can't be fully described by a simple equation.

Just getting a working definition for those various factors would be nearly impossible. There are many different things that go into prices, but money supply is a major factor. If it is parked in a bank and not being used to back new loans, then it won't effect prices, and that is why we don't have large, general inflation at the moment. But in the future?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: buster

What is “money” in a modern, credit-based financial system? Is it that stuff you carry in your pocket, the 1′s and 0′s of the electronic entries in your bank account, the available balance on your credit card, your checking account, your savings account? In practice, this question is so difficult to answer that economists actually offer several possible definitions, just in case! Suffice it to say that for present purposes, the idea that we can precisely identify the current “supply of money” in our economy is suspect. This by itself causes problems for operationalizing the above equation.

Not being able to identify what your money actually is has problems, and he basically undermines the entire premise of MMT in that one paragraph. And it's no surprise that the actions of billions of people can't be fully described by a simple equation.


You are mischaracterizing what he is talking about, and from there creating a strawman.

It is a fact of our economic system - and nothing inherent in MMT itself - that money has many definitions depending on the context it is used in. He's just pointing out the same thing my old macroeconomic textbook also pointed out in its first chapter, and which is a fact of the economic system itself that he merely points out. Its not an MMT unique thing and nothing to do with MMT theory.

Your last sentence actually says the same thing his last sentence does. He is stating that its very difficult to distill real world money operations down to pure mathematical equations. They're a useful tool, and one that goes further in describing and understanding the picture they're used to describe, than any model could that is absent those equations. He simply acknowledges the fact that they aren't perfect, and that, consequently, no purely mathematical model is going to be perfect.

That doesn't mean it isn't a useful too in arriving at an approximation we'd be at a loss to without them. It simply means, and this is what he's getting at, that they can't be relied on exclusively and that other factors need to be considered that can't be described mathematically.

I prefer an economist who acknowledges the imperfections in his system of choice over one convinced of the perfection of their own model that they simply ignore or dismiss the factors that it doesn't explain, or which don't fit neatly within it.

Economics, of all types, shares the same obstacle found in every one of the softer sciences (and economics, within the range of soft sciences, is arguably the closest thing within the fields to their pure science counterparts): they examine phenomena that, because of its sheer scale, cannot be examined using the types of experiments that pure science is able to make use of. Lacking experimentation as a realizable tool, economists are left with observation and theories aimed at describing those observations.

The inherent problem is that, owing to the reliance on theory alone, as it must, those theories defy attempts to prove or disprove them. And different economists observe the same phenomena and arrive at contradictory theories to explain them. Over time, as the novel ways are found at contrasting the theory with observations inherent or derived from it, those that turn out to be flawed fall of favor and are abandoned. Others better adapt themselves to the phenomena and are improved over time.

MMT is still a working theory and a work in progress. If you expect black and white answers and are looking to economics of any flavor, you are looking in the wrong place. Because of what I explained above, those types of answers cannot be found in any of the social sciences, including economics - even though its, arguably, the closest thing to pure science within social science.

-Spyder
 
The author states:
Quote:
But, if we are to develop useful policies then we need a model better suited to the way the modern financial system works.

There’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, so let’s retain the equation.

He is trying to make his point VIA that equation. If one looks at the MMT people (and others), virtually all of their arguments are based on such flawed "science models". The level of information needed simply is too great.

Quote:
MMT is still a working theory and a work in progress.

Yet people still advocate hard decisions based on it.
 
Problem is that Economics can't become a hard science, as a lot of the inputs are psychological, and effects lag considerably from the point of change.

What do you advocate basing decisions on Tempest ?

And how much of a hard science is it ?
 
Think. People think. Don't follow those fools like sheep.

The first fiat money (paper) was the Yuan Dynasty. It worked for a while but there came a time when they needed more so they printed more. Just like today. This brought about something called hyperinflation - like today but not we are bit quite at the hyper level yet. In 1455 the Ming dynasty stopped using paper money. The only way to end hyperinflation. History is going to repeat itself.

Protect yourself and yours and don't believe that all is well because some idiot proffers an equation for velocity of money supply.
 
Originally Posted By: dave munson
Think. People think. Don't follow those fools like sheep.

The first fiat money (paper) was the Yuan Dynasty. It worked for a while but there came a time when they needed more so they printed more. Just like today. This brought about something called hyperinflation - like today but not we are bit quite at the hyper level yet. In 1455 the Ming dynasty stopped using paper money. The only way to end hyperinflation. History is going to repeat itself.

Protect yourself and yours and don't believe that all is well because some idiot proffers an equation for velocity of money supply.


There is no inherent problem with the fiat money system. It actually solved a lot of problems that developed before the gold standard was dropped in favor of the fiat system.

Of course government can flood the market with bills, but the very thing people decry as a flaw in the fiat system, that they can do this, is its own built in correcting system. If government floods the market with surplus bills, the value drops and rapid inflation develops. That's why responsible governments don't do this.

FWIW the fiat system is pretty much the standard around the world. If you're seeing a problem developing in the US as a result of excess currency flooding the market, you really need to think outside the box a moment and look beyond your own borders to see that other countries who are also using the fiat system are not having the same problem.

Its an easy scape goat, but you have cause and effect mixed up as you're seeing an effect but missing the real causes completely.

If your line of reasoning were true, countries all over the world that are on the fiat system would be experiencing problems such as currency devaluation. They're not.

Aside from moving away from the fiat system, and bringing back the problems it was implemented to eliminate, it does nothing to address root causation, which is therefore not going to magically disappear just because the current currency is replaced with something else.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: dave munson
Think. People think. Don't follow those fools like sheep.

The first fiat money (paper) was the Yuan Dynasty. It worked for a while but there came a time when they needed more so they printed more. Just like today. This brought about something called hyperinflation - like today but not we are bit quite at the hyper level yet. In 1455 the Ming dynasty stopped using paper money. The only way to end hyperinflation. History is going to repeat itself.

Protect yourself and yours and don't believe that all is well because some idiot proffers an equation for velocity of money supply.


Most people these days run on reverse funny money (mortgage) so they are actually benefiting from this as inflation rise. This causes the false sense of "home price will keep rising" but in reality everything else drop in value.
 
+1 Panda

I know kids in their early 20s taking on ridiculous debt (half a million at 23 ???), having been "advised" that the debt will get cheaper through inflation, and that the property value will grow making it forever easier (as long as they can find a tenant).

As to gold, it's still fiat IMO.

That most useless ('though shiney) element seems to have people enamoured the way that a blue plastic milk bottle cap enamours a bowerbird...

It has no intrinsic value, and only the removal of the gold standard to what we have now makes it any more worthy as currency.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to gold, it's still fiat IMO.

That most useless ('though shiney) element seems to have people enamoured the way that a blue plastic milk bottle cap enamours a bowerbird...


There's that.
grin.gif


"This is gold, Mr Bond. All my life, I have been in love with it's color, it's brilliance, it's divine heaviness."

-Auric Goldfinger

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It has no intrinsic value



Well, gold has some neat properties that make it very desirable. It's malleable, resists corrosion, is a great conductor, can be pounded into gold leaf. It is used not only in electronic components, but in medicine and dentistry (still the longest lasting and best sealing material for crowns, plus it has antibacterial properties), in chemistry as a catalyst, and gold is used in nanotechnology. For example gold is used for nanorods that enable breast cancer detection. Gold is also used as a pigment.

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=14779.php
 
The problem is that its also a commodity whose value is constantly changing. If people can't figure out for themselves why its not desirable to peg the value of their currency to its whims, even as they watch the effect surging oil commodity prices are having on the economy and the role speculation plays in that, then there's no way to spell it out to them.

Especially when they assume quantitative easing is the problem with fiat currency, while failing to grasp completely why its used and how it has to be used responsibly; and that there is no contradiction in that or in the fiat money system.

Expansion and contraction of the money supply is a tool that's existed for well over half a century and has been used to regulate and normalize the economy. This is just the latest buzz word people like to toss around as they look for the simplest of explanations to explain the current economic reality, and in doing so miss the mark completely.

Actually, screw the mark, they're nowhere even close to the real target. Here is a better symptom of it distilled to its condensed form:

Quote:

Why is the national debt a problem? Borrowing because we can’t pay for commitments we’ve already made—for example, social security, national defense, and Medicare—means we’re passing our costs down to our children, and burdening them with a growing mountain of debt. This has serious consequences:

• Each year, we’re paying more interest on the debt than the year before. Unless current trends change, the interest payment will be more than $1 trillion by 2020—or 20% of all federal revenue. That money is needed elsewhere.

• Most economists believe that, if the deficit keeps growing as a percentage of GDP, economic growth will slow, and that would have a sharp impact on employment rates and our standard of living.

• The more we owe, the harder it will become to find lenders to keep financing us. When we do find lenders, they’re likely to demand higher interest rates… which would increase the deficit even more.

• The debt has reached record levels just as the first baby boomers are turning 65. Spending on Social Security and Medicare will soon consume an even bigger chunk of federal revenue.

• Since May, 2010, China has held a larger portion of our national debt than any other country. By buying Treasury bonds, China keeps the value of the dollar high in relation to the yuan—making it cheaper for Americans to buy Chinese imports and more expensive for the Chinese to buy anything made in the U.S., and thereby ensuring that the already large trade deficit between our two countries will keep growing.

• At some point, our debts must be paid. This will result in a lower standard of living for most Americans.


http://news-basics.com/2010/deficit-and-debt/

The current expansion of the money supply serves as only a useful tool to distract attention away from the fact that the US national debt has nearly doubled since 2000, and keeps attention away from the underlying questions as to why its grown so big so fast, why is nothing being done to address this, and what happens when the inevitable day comes that US T-bills are no longer the safe investment vehicles they're seen as being today as less risky alternatives replace them. Which will require higher interest rates to attract investors, and mean a larger portion of GDP is spent just to pay the interest.

Note too that not too long ago only 25% of T-bills were held by foreign investors. Today its closer to 50%. That means 50% of the interest paid out to service that debt is money coming out of tax payer pockets and going directly into the hands of foreign nations (and where China is concerned, foreign government).

But hey, if you think eliminating the fiat system will make that debt go away or lower the interest, then I have no counter to whatever line of reasoning you're using to make that leap.

-Spyder
 
There's a tipping point where the increasing debt can never be paid off...

At that point, any measure except reneging, or inflating (only if the debt is in your currency) is the only option.

Which makes me wonder again which choice of the two is the favoured.
 
As it stands now, I liken it to someone taking out a second mortgage back in 2000, during a recession, while reducing their hours to part-time, and then getting new credit cards to make the payments on it.

Interest rates were kept artificially low to attract investors by dipping into the then self-sustaining social security fund. Now the first of the boomers are about to begin retiring, and every year that number will increase, creating another massive drain that will likely be floated by increased borrowing.

There have already been measures proposed at reigning it in, but there is no will to do it as it requires more than just fiscal restraint, but the elimination of existing tax cuts and either a new tax or a significant increase in existing taxes.

Some economists downplay it and say it will, more or less (somehow) resolve itself (these are the same economists who argued that the trickle down fairy dust from the tax cuts in the first half of the prior decade would not add to the national debt). Others who aren't drinking from the same well and aren't so optimistic if measures aren't adopted soon. I side with the latter. Argentina, Ireland, and Greece all ran into collapse situations, and in each economy there was no clear "tipping point" where a correlation between GDP vs spending on national debt could be found to determine at exactly what point the threshold is crossed.

The government's own Congressional Budget Office released a white paper last year on the subject that is well worth the read. Its aptly titled "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis"

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf
 
Last edited:
Actually, we do experience currency devaluation. It's simply gradual, so it's not considered a problem.

Now you can call it inflation, but to the typical consumer, they don't really care if the price has gone up, or the value of the currency has gone down. They simply realize that it takes more currency to buy the same basket of goods and services.

As folks have mentioned, it makes debt more palatable since you are paying off the debt with currency that has less buying power.

This is why I think the bigger fear was DEFLATION. If you currency buys more than it did 10 years ago, you are paying off your mortgage with currency worth more than when you borrowed the money.

If your income adjusts to reflect the higher value of the currency, the amount of currency needed to service the debt becomes greater in terms of percentage of income. I.E. the currency figure stays the same, but because you are getting less currency as income, it rises as a percentage of debt.

Concrete example: If you are making $5000/month and your mortgage is $1000/month, and you experience deflation such that your income drops to $4000/month. You've gone from spending 20% of your income on servicing the mortgage debt to spending 25% of that income.

Add to that the real fears about defaulting on the debt if the value of the mortgaged property drops in a like fashion and you have real problems.

But a moderate amount of inflation encourages borrowing. Too much and interest rates sky rocket like we saw in the late 70's early 80's, IIRC.

But inflation is still effectively a declining value of the currency. But small enough that folks earning don't generally mind.

Folks living on their accumulated wealth do mind inflation, as they are no longer earning, and inflation erodes the value of their nest egg.

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: dave munson
Think. People think. Don't follow those fools like sheep.

The first fiat money (paper) was the Yuan Dynasty. It worked for a while but there came a time when they needed more so they printed more. Just like today. This brought about something called hyperinflation - like today but not we are bit quite at the hyper level yet. In 1455 the Ming dynasty stopped using paper money. The only way to end hyperinflation. History is going to repeat itself.

Protect yourself and yours and don't believe that all is well because some idiot proffers an equation for velocity of money supply.


There is no inherent problem with the fiat money system. It actually solved a lot of problems that developed before the gold standard was dropped in favor of the fiat system.

Of course government can flood the market with bills, but the very thing people decry as a flaw in the fiat system, that they can do this, is its own built in correcting system. If government floods the market with surplus bills, the value drops and rapid inflation develops. That's why responsible governments don't do this.

FWIW the fiat system is pretty much the standard around the world. If you're seeing a problem developing in the US as a result of excess currency flooding the market, you really need to think outside the box a moment and look beyond your own borders to see that other countries who are also using the fiat system are not having the same problem.

Its an easy scape goat, but you have cause and effect mixed up as you're seeing an effect but missing the real causes completely.

If your line of reasoning were true, countries all over the world that are on the fiat system would be experiencing problems such as currency devaluation. They're not.

Aside from moving away from the fiat system, and bringing back the problems it was implemented to eliminate, it does nothing to address root causation, which is therefore not going to magically disappear just because the current currency is replaced with something else.

-Spyder
 
The tipping point for us may be sooner, not because of our activity, but because so many in the world are invested in US debt. I suspect given the relative importance of our financial health to the world economy, the tipping point is sooner.

If folks start pulling out, or demanding higher rates on our debt, then what happens? As has been suggested, it's a downward spiral.

However, I tend to believe the solution is more spending cuts than it is more taxation. As the problem looming is more about the exponential growth in entitlement liabilities than it is tax cuts.

Even if you restore the taxes, that's not going to fix the exponential growth of entitlements. So that's the first thing we need to address, as the solutions to that become exponentially more difficult as you delay the solution.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The tipping point for us may be sooner, not because of our activity, but because so many in the world are invested in US debt. I suspect given the relative importance of our financial health to the world economy, the tipping point is sooner.

If folks start pulling out, or demanding higher rates on our debt, then what happens? As has been suggested, it's a downward spiral.

However, I tend to believe the solution is more spending cuts than it is more taxation. As the problem looming is more about the exponential growth in entitlement liabilities than it is tax cuts.

Even if you restore the taxes, that's not going to fix the exponential growth of entitlements. So that's the first thing we need to address, as the solutions to that become exponentially more difficult as you delay the solution.


I agree. Bottom line is that this is a problem that largely flies under the public radar, and so long as it does it worsens as the easy path of just passing the buck onto the next generation continues, since any measure aimed at addressing the problem is going to find opposition somewhere; easier to go with the flow and continue the trend while ignoring the problem, than to confront it and the opposition that will arise to any measures proposed to deal with it.

Yet ignoring the reality isn't going to make it go away. Its just passing the buck, plain and simple.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: Spyder7


Interest rates were kept artificially low to attract investors by dipping into the then self-sustaining social security fund. Now the first of the boomers are about to begin retiring, and every year that number will increase, creating another massive drain that will likely be floated by increased borrowing.

Sooner or later someone will have to admit SS was never tapped with borrowing... but rather raiding, just to cover daily expenses. I don't mind this as much as the cane-shaking geezers; may be my youthful distrust of the government. SS payroll tax is flat (up to the income level where they stop collecting it) and has few exemptions, something the "regular" income tax can model after.
Quote:


There have already been measures proposed at reigning it in, but there is no will to do it as it requires more than just fiscal restraint, but the elimination of existing tax cuts and either a new tax or a significant increase in existing taxes.


They need to immediately start shafting the retirees. They have a golden standard of living, particularly medical care, that they did not pay fully for. Yes they paid for retirees in the 1960s and 70s but THOSE retirees got nowhere near the benefits of the current crop. Will it happen? Doubtful. I know by the time I retire in 30+ years I'll get shafted, so I'd just like to spread the pain along to those who will be or already are doing it to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom