Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?

[Vilifier of Zombies]

http://cdn.moneycrashers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/money-bill-inflation.jpg

[Conley]

Hmm, not sure. If someone owed a lot, inflation would be in their favor, right? I don't have much debt, and inflation here doesn't seem to be a major factor. I would really like to see interest rates rise.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Well, I could keep it even, say in a Federal prison environment, right after smoking has been banned, cigarettes no longer being the gold standard, would the prisoner be better or worse off as a consequence of inflation, id est, stamps, cans of mackerels - commodity vs fiat vs capital vs leverage vs open markets vs goods and services?

[Vilifier of Zombies]

A Federal prison, not a rinky dink prison during the last decade in Zimbabwe, where hyperinflation dismantled it's currency to smithereens.

[Conley]

Well, I could keep it even, say in a Federal prison environment, right after smoking has been banned, cigarettes no longer being the gold standard, would the prisoner be better or worse off as a consequence of inflation, id est, stamps, cans of mackerels - commodity vs fiat vs capital vs leverage vs open markets vs goods and services?

What is the currency undergoing inflation? It seems like you have a barter system set up with no currency.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

What is the currency being inflated?

Specifically right now? I don't think so, there are a lot crackpot conspiracy nuts out there saying the dollar is about to be hyper-inflated, but they're always saying that kind of stuff. I do think however that it's gonna be inflated a smidgen in near future.

My point was trying to keep my question even or dumbed down, I figured I would change the dynamics to that of a prison environment post cigarette ban, since prisons tend to quickly adapt to having a crude commodity influenced market within it's walls instead of the hustle and bustle of something as complicated as the US economy.

[Chris]

Worse off. Inflation, the product largely of government intervention in the free market via bail outs, stimuli, quantitative easing and such, only serves to cheapen the dollar and lower its purchasing power for consumers. The price of gas is high, for example, not because the price of oil is high, it's not, but because of inflation.

[Dagny]

If by 'inflation', you mean the futures market, then yes...gas is high due to inflation.

Backwards. Inflation will occur, as a result of artificially high gas prices.

[Dagny]

Specifically right now? I don't think so, there are a lot crackpot conspiracy nuts out there saying the dollar is about to be hyper-inflated, but they're always saying that kind of stuff. I do think however that it's gonna be inflated a smidgen in near future.

My point was trying to keep my question even or dumbed down, I figured I would change the dynamics to that of a prison environment post cigarette ban, since prisons tend to quickly adapt to having a crude commodity influenced market within it's walls instead of the hustle and bustle of something as complicated as the US economy.So does that mean the people with money will suffer more as a result of inflation?

[Vilifier of Zombies]

So does that mean the people with money will suffer more as a result of inflation?

Absolutely not.

[keyser soze]

They benefit regardless...

[Conley]

Inflation is just one small contributor to gas prices. Inflation should also be of benefit to those in debt, as long as the debt is a set amount without or without constant interest.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Worse off. Inflation, the product largely of government intervention in the free market via bail outs, stimuli, quantitative easing and such, only serves to cheapen the dollar and lower its purchasing power for consumers. The price of gas is high, for example, not because the price of oil is high, it's not, but because of inflation.

Only nominal variables are affected by the changes in the quantity of money as well as inflation in income goes hand in hand with inflation in prices.

[Dagny]

Absolutely not.
Using your cigarette analogy, when the 'money' is worthless, those holding all of it have.....nothing.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Using your cigarette analogy, when the 'money' is worthless, those holding all of it have.....nothing.

That's right, there's still mackerels, stamps, hair-cuts, or any other sundry item...I was reading about cans of mackerel replacing cigarettes as prison currency in a Federal prison once the no smoking ban was put in place, that's not right, before the smoking ban was put in place...

[Peter1469]

Inflation helps the well off people who spend most of their money as they make it. They get to have a good time today and they don't have a large savings pool losing value.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Inflation helps the well off people who spend most of their money as they make it. They get to have a good time today and they don't have a large savings pool losing value.



I think so long as there's an income coming in they're better off, factor in the principle of monetary neutrality, real incomes are determined by real variables, such as physical capital, human capital, natural resources, and the available production technology, nominal incomes are determined by those factors and the overall price levels.

[Chris]

Only nominal variables are affected by the changes in the quantity of money as well as inflation in income goes hand in hand with inflation in prices.
Dollars are affected, not theoretical nominal variables, whatever you might even mean by that term.

Why are gas prices rising in the US? They're not rising on the global market. As measured against gold, they've hardly risen at all, but measured against the dollar they have. That translates as less purchasing power for consumers. Isn't the government supposed to protect us rather than harm us?

[Chris]

Here's a decent explanation: Gasoline Prices Are Not Rising, the Dollar Is Falling (http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/)
...What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.

As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.

In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.

During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times....

That is because of inflation.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Dollars are affected, not theoretical nominal variables, whatever you might even mean by that term.

Why are gas prices rising in the US? They're not rising on the global market. As measured against gold, they've hardly risen at all, but measured against the dollar they have. That translates as less purchasing power for consumers. Isn't the government supposed to protect us rather than harm us?

Part of why I started this thread by asking a question instead of stating an opinion or some other arbitrary means was to get a sense of some of the other posters aptitude for Economics, I figured I would simply ask a basic Econ 101 question, in this instance, when I'd took Econ 101 or 201 (not sure which class exactly, I took 'em back to back, with that said it's been awhile), I've always remembered this question because when it was asked, I got it wrong, I thought for sure we'd be worse off.

Nominal variables relates to the principles of monetary neutrality.

There's always gonna be certain things that're a cause for worry with inflation, id est, the price of oil, corn, et cetera, they're not the whole picture though, GDP Deflator/CPI when used in combination lists an assortment of price variables, what's important is everything combined, not just one or two detractors.

[Chris]

I began this room for similar purposes, asking questions, stating opinions, basic economics. I've never taken a course in economics.

So, besides the obvious detrimental factors of inflation, what are the beneficial factors that put together with detriments, make for monetary neutrality? And if the entire effort is neutral, whay make the effort at all?

[Vilifier of Zombies]

I began this room for similar purposes, asking questions, stating opinions, basic economics. I've never taken a course in economics.

So, besides the obvious detrimental factors of inflation, what are the beneficial factors that put together with detriments, make for monetary neutrality? And if the entire effort is neutral, whay make the effort at all?


Changes in the supply of money affect nominal variables but not so much the real ones. When the Fed doubles the money supply, the price level doubles, the dollar wage doubles, and all the other dollar values double. Real variables, such as production, employment, real wages, and real interest rates, are unchanged, in the long run it's not a factor, in the short run it'll cause a lot of headaches, confusion, and mistakes. Probably because in that same said short span of time, monetary changes do affect real variables to some degree or another.

[Chris]

But they don't double, they are worth less. Simple law of supply and demand.

[Peter1469]

If I am reading you correctly it is similar to the real estate market: if in 2005 I sold my house in the DC area and realized a $250,000 gain but then bought a bigger house in the DC area, that large gain is eaten up in the transaction. It is a wash. The value of my old house increased roughly at the same rate as the new one did. However, if I took my $250,000 gain and moved to West Virginia that money now means something big.

Another way to look at your response is to say that so long as I am buying local services and goods, changes in the money supply are going to wash out. But if I wanted to invest in real estate in Germany (where real estate has not really fallen much), or in gold, my money will not go as far as it did prior to the changes in the supply of dollars.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

But they don't double, they are worth less. Simple law of supply and demand.

Not quite given the rate at which money changes hands, or the quantity of money and the rate at which it changes hands.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

If I am reading you correctly it is similar to the real estate market: if in 2005 I sold my house in the DC area and realized a $250,000 gain but then bought a bigger house in the DC area, that large gain is eaten up in the transaction. It is a wash. The value of my old house increased roughly at the same rate as the new one did. However, if I took my $250,000 gain and moved to West Virginia that money now means something big.

Another way to look at your response is to say that so long as I am buying local services and goods, changes in the money supply are going to wash out. But if I wanted to invest in real estate in Germany (where real estate has not really fallen much), or in gold, my money will not go as far as it did prior to the changes in the supply of dollars.

In the long run it evens out I suppose is a better way to look at it.

[Chris]

Not quite given the rate at which money changes hands, or the quantity of money and the rate at which it changes hands.

I understand that the amount of money increases, but there's no wealth generated, and no increase in value of the total, more money thus means each dollar is worth less. To me the nominal values is the number of dollars, the real value goes down.

[Chris]

If I am reading you correctly it is similar to the real estate market: if in 2005 I sold my house in the DC area and realized a $250,000 gain but then bought a bigger house in the DC area, that large gain is eaten up in the transaction. It is a wash. The value of my old house increased roughly at the same rate as the new one did. However, if I took my $250,000 gain and moved to West Virginia that money now means something big.

Another way to look at your response is to say that so long as I am buying local services and goods, changes in the money supply are going to wash out. But if I wanted to invest in real estate in Germany (where real estate has not really fallen much), or in gold, my money will not go as far as it did prior to the changes in the supply of dollars.

And the fact is, economics is global, we trade and exchanges goods from all over. Thus the cost of gasoline is driven up by inflation.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

And the fact is, economics is global, we trade and exchanges goods from all over. Thus the cost of gasoline is driven up by inflation.

Depends, that's why we'll use both the GDP Deflator and the Consumer Price Index in combination to determine inflation.

The price of gas in Iraq is about thirty cents to the gallon...

[Chris]

You're using a lot of big words. Those words don't tell us if you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation.

[Conley]

Iraq has an inflation problem with the Dinar, poor refining capabilities compared to the US, and yet gasoline prices are very low.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

You're using a lot of big words. Those words don't tell us if you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation.

I wasn't aware I posted any big words Chris. Point out the "big words," and I'll discuss 'em.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Iraq has an inflation problem with the Dinar, poor refining capabilities compared to the US, and yet gasoline prices are very low.

Exactly.

[Chris]

I wasn't aware I posted any big words Chris. Point out the "big words," and I'll discuss 'em.

You string together in lists words like "nominal variables," " monetary neutrality," "real incomes," "real variables," "physical capital," "human capital," "natural resources," "GDP Deflator," and more. Here's one example: "Changes in the supply of money affect nominal variables but not so much the real ones. When the Fed doubles the money supply, the price level doubles, the dollar wage doubles, and all the other dollar values double. Real variables, such as production, employment, real wages, and real interest rates, are unchanged, in the long run it's not a factor, in the short run it'll cause a lot of headaches, confusion, and mistakes. Probably because in that same said short span of time, monetary changes do affect real variables to some degree or another."

Don't just string them together. Use them in meaningful sentences.

[Chris]

Iraq has an inflation problem with the Dinar, poor refining capabilities compared to the US, and yet gasoline prices are very low.

Low transportation costs? Government price control? US subsidies? Need to look at a lot more.


Villifier: "The price of gas in Iraq is about thirty cents to the gallon..."

http://www.expatistan.com/price/gas/amman: 0.740 dinar for 1/4 gal, translates to over $4US.

http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/san-antonio/baghdad? 1 liter (1/4 gallon) of gas - $1.27, so nearly $5.00/gal.

Not inflated? Higher than here.

[Conley]

Low transportation costs? Government price control? US subsidies? Need to look at a lot more.


Villifier: "The price of gas in Iraq is about thirty cents to the gallon..."

http://www.expatistan.com/price/gas/amman: 0.740 dinar for 1/4 gal, translates to over $4US.

Most definitely need to look at a lot more. That was the point I was trying to make when you wrote "The price of gas is high, for example, not because the price of oil is high, it's not, but because of inflation." earlier in the thread. Perhaps we are in agreement.

[Conley]

Low transportation costs? Government price control? US subsidies? Need to look at a lot more.


Villifier: "The price of gas in Iraq is about thirty cents to the gallon..."

http://www.expatistan.com/price/gas/amman: 0.740 dinar for 1/4 gal, translates to over $4US.

http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/san-antonio/baghdad? 1 liter (1/4 gallon) of gas - $1.27, so nearly $5.00/gal.

Not inflated? Higher than here.

Your first link doesn't work, and if that's referring to Amman, Jordan then it's not a good source.

[Conley]

The Pump price for gasoline (US dollar per liter) in Iraq was last reported at 0.78 in 2010, according to a World Bank report released in 2011. Fuel prices refer to the pump prices of the most widely sold grade of gasoline.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iraq/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html

.78 x 3.8 so about $2.96

[Vilifier of Zombies]

You string together in lists words like "nominal variables," " monetary neutrality," "real incomes," "real variables," "physical capital," "human capital," "natural resources," "GDP Deflator," and more. Here's one example: "Changes in the supply of money affect nominal variables but not so much the real ones. When the Fed doubles the money supply, the price level doubles, the dollar wage doubles, and all the other dollar values double. Real variables, such as production, employment, real wages, and real interest rates, are unchanged, in the long run it's not a factor, in the short run it'll cause a lot of headaches, confusion, and mistakes. Probably because in that same said short span of time, monetary changes do affect real variables to some degree or another."

Don't just string them together. Use them in meaningful sentences.

Inflation, we determine our inflation by using the GDP Deflator and the Consumer Price index, I don't know how else to explain it...if either get the best of you, there's always Google or Wikipedia.

Nominal variables, monetary neutrality, real/nominal...whatever, are economic terms, we're posting on an Economic subforum in an Economic themed thread.

[Chris]

Inflation, we determine our inflation by using the GDP Deflator and the Consumer Price index, I don't know how else to explain it...if either get the best of you, there's always Google or Wikipedia.

Nominal variables, monetary neutrality, real/nominal...whatever, are economic terms, we're posting on an Economic subforum in an Economic themed thread.
Well, there you go just listing terms again. Put them in meaningful sentences.

Sorry if I mistook your intent to discuss "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?" Your econ 101/102 terms don't relate to that.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Well, there you go just listing terms again. Put them in meaningful sentences.

Sorry if I mistook your intent to discuss "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?" Your econ 101/102 terms don't relate to that.



Post an example of how we determine inflation without using any economics terms or "big words," as you'd say. If it's worthy, maybe that'll work as standard from now on.

"Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflations" was a question from an Economics class, my original answer wasn't that far off from what you're posting, turns out I was wrong, what I'm posting is incidentally, Economics terms included, are factors of why my orignal answer was wrong.

My intent was to gauge other posters levels of understanding about basic Economics, hence asking a question as opposed to stating a statement, I even posted as much:


Part of why I started this thread by asking a question instead of stating an opinion or some other arbitrary means was to get a sense of some of the other posters aptitude for Economics

Those Economics terms do relate to it, I apologize if there's any confusion....even though the thread's intent was to gauge other poster's level of understanding about Economics, I don't mind discussing the question, however it'll be easier if we're both on the same page.

http://www.economicswisconsin.org/guide/glossary.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/ssc/106980-economics-terms-and-concepts.html

http://www.credoreference.com/topic/inflation

[Peter1469]

And the fact is, economics is global, we trade and exchanges goods from all over. Thus the cost of gasoline is driven up by inflation.

To be accurate you would say that the dollar purchases less gasoline because of inflation, or less gold, or less whatever....

And the price of real estate in the DC area is not affected by any global market, so not all economics is global.

[Peter1469]

Here is the Austrian version of inflation and its harm to us: http://mises.org/efandi/ch18.asp Admittedly it is not identical to Keynesian inflation.

[Peter1469]

Inflation, we determine our inflation by using the GDP Deflator and the Consumer Price index, I don't know how else to explain it...if either get the best of you, there's always Google or Wikipedia.

Nominal variables, monetary neutrality, real/nominal...whatever, are economic terms, we're posting on an Economic subforum in an Economic themed thread.

What good are these Keynesian formulas? They are clearly flawed. One example: GDP. GDP = private consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_(economics)) + gross investment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investment) + government spending (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) + (exports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export) − imports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import)) Cite to wiki.

I would offer that this would fix it: GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports) - government deficit spending.

This would be a much more valid model to capture the effects of spending and consumption and debt on the economy.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

What good are these Keynesian formulas? They are clearly flawed. One example: GDP. GDP = private consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_(economics)) + gross investment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investment) + government spending (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) + (exports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export) − imports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import)) Cite to wiki.

I would offer that this would fix it: GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports) - government deficit spending.

This would be a much more valid model to capture the effects of spending and consumption and debt on the economy.

GDP is the market value of all goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

Real GDP measure the economy's production of goods and services, it reflets the economy's ability to satisfy people's needs and desires.

Nominal GDP uses current prices to place a value on the economy's production of goods and services.


GDP is an abbreviation of Gross Domestic Product which is the overall value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in specified period. GDP has two types the: Nominal GDP and the Real GDP. The ratio of the two values is the GDP deflator. GDP Deflator = (Nominal GDP/Real GDP) x 100

CPI, which is short for Consumer Price Index, indicates the prices of a representative basket of commodities procured by the consumers. It uses a fixed basket of goods and services and is a widely used measure of the cost of living faced by consumers of a nation. Like the GDP deflator, it also compares prices of the current period to a base period.

Read more: Difference Between CPI and GDP Deflator | Difference Between | CPI vs GDP Deflator http://www.differencebetween.net/business/finance-business-2/difference-between-cpi-and-gdp-deflator/#ixzz1rQOjqXNs

I've likened GDP to crackrocks to a crackhead, we're hooked, we're not gonna get off it anytime soon, even if it kills us, sure there's flaws, GDP has no memory, it doesn't account for durability, it fails to account for calamity - instead it'll treat it as a net gain, et cetera.

That's not saying there aren't plenty of flaws with Austrian Economics either, I find it too vague, it'll either leave out or disregard important segments that ought not to be left out, kinda like Neoclassical Economics without all the pizazz...

I liked the idea of a Keynesian effective demand hybrid heterodox production model, as far as benchmarks on an economy go.

http://www.economia.unam.mx/publicaciones/nueva/econinforma/pdfs/367/01fredericlee.pdf

http://www.economicsconcepts.com/keynesian_theory_of_income_and_employment.htm

[Peter1469]

Thanks for the links. I will check them out. BTW what did you think of my modification to the GDP formula?

[Chris]

Post an example of how we determine inflation without using any economics terms or "big words," as you'd say. If it's worthy, maybe that'll work as standard from now on.

"Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflations" was a question from an Economics class, my original answer wasn't that far off from what you're posting, turns out I was wrong, what I'm posting is incidentally, Economics terms included, are factors of why my orignal answer was wrong.

My intent was to gauge other posters levels of understanding about basic Economics, hence asking a question as opposed to stating a statement, I even posted as much:



Those Economics terms do relate to it, I apologize if there's any confusion....even though the thread's intent was to gauge other poster's level of understanding about Economics, I don't mind discussing the question, however it'll be easier if we're both on the same page.

http://www.economicswisconsin.org/guide/glossary.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/ssc/106980-economics-terms-and-concepts.html

http://www.credoreference.com/topic/inflation

"Post an example of how we determine inflation without using any economics terms or "big words," as you'd say. If it's worthy, maybe that'll work as standard from now on."

Already have. Remember, you asked not how in some Keynesian economic theory inflation has an effect but "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

"My intent was to gauge other posters levels of understanding about basic Economics..."

Now you asked "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

"Those Economics terms do relate to it, I apologize if there's any confusion"

I'm not arguing whether the terms apply or not, I'm arguing that merely stringing them together in lists as you have is utterly meaningless. Giving definitions doesn't do that either. I have asked you to use them in meaningful sentences. Several times.

"the thread's intent was to gauge other poster's level of understanding about Economics"

I think you've hoisted your own petard.

[Chris]

To be accurate you would say that the dollar purchases less gasoline because of inflation, or less gold, or less whatever....

And the price of real estate in the DC area is not affected by any global market, so not all economics is global.

Yes, you could put it that way, same difference.

But even DC real estate is affected. Consider the recent discussion we had regarding Vancouver real estate where the Chinese are buying it up and driving prices beyond what the local market can afford.

I understand what you're saying about local markets, just don't see any in a vacuum.

[Chris]

"That's not saying there aren't plenty of flaws with Austrian Economics either, I find it too vague, it'll either leave out or disregard important segments that ought not to be left out, kinda like Neoclassical Economics without all the pizazz..."

You managed to say not a word about Austrian Economics or the piece Peter posted. Instead you move on to Keynesian abstractions: "a Keynesian effective demand hybrid heterodox production model" and manage to say nothing about it either.

[Chris]

Villifier, had you read the piece Peter posted, you'd see it speaks precisely to your and my argument about the pluses and minuses equaling out:
Everybody knows that inflation consists of a large increase in the available quantity of money and money substitutes such as bank credits. In a country like the United States, which transacts so much of its business by checks and through bank credits, the main vehicle of inflation is not so much the printing of additional paper money as the increase of deposit currency. Everybody also knows that a general rise of prices and wages is the unavoidable and inescapable result of inflation.
The rise in prices (e.g., gas prices) is what I referred to earlier as a minus. Asked for plus you went off on technical mumbo jumbo. What I was thinking was the obvious gain of taking a loan to term since inflation will, likely by pay increases, make that subjectively worh less, even with interest.

My point can also be expressed as simply, if it's a wash, in the log run, what's the value of government inflation policies? None.

[Peter1469]

Yes, you could put it that way, same difference.

But even DC real estate is affected. Consider the recent discussion we had regarding Vancouver real estate where the Chinese are buying it up and driving prices beyond what the local market can afford.

I understand what you're saying about local markets, just don't see any in a vacuum.


I understand your point. Certainly outside influences matter. But I still maintain that my point is valid for the purpose it was offered.

[Peter1469]

Villifier, had you read the piece Peter posted, you'd see it speaks precisely to your and my argument about the pluses and minuses equaling out:
The rise in prices (e.g., gas prices) is what I referred to earlier as a minus. Asked for plus you went off on technical mumbo jumbo. What I was thinking was the obvious gain of taking a loan to term since inflation will, likely by pay increases, make that subjectively worh less, even with interest.

My point can also be expressed as simply, if it's a wash, in the log run, what's the value of government inflation policies? None.

When you take a loan to term, you of course pay it off with increasingly less valuable dollars. But this goes back to my earlier point: what difference does this make when your paycheck is also in those same less valuable dollars.

As an example: I could buy a new http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/zipcode/index?next=vlptrim.build&action=configurator&destination=transmission&controller=deepLink&modelLineCode=Z&nCode=XGC20NIC141G0

I can pay cash down. But if I got a 5 year loan I would end up paying less money (in 2012 money) because of inflation. But what difference does it make? The money that I get in my paycheck each month will be just as affected by inflation.

Now if I could get paid in gold, and enter into loans in dollars- now that makes a difference.

[Chris]

I understand your point. Certainly outside influences matter. But I still maintain that my point is valid for the purpose it was offered.

OK, yes, I understand your point.

[Chris]

When you take a loan to term, you of course pay it off with increasingly less valuable dollars. But this goes back to my earlier point: what difference does this make when your paycheck is also in those same less valuable dollars.

As an example: I could buy a new http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/zipcode/index?next=vlptrim.build&action=configurator&destination=transmission&controller=deepLink&modelLineCode=Z&nCode=XGC20NIC141G0

I can pay cash down. But if I got a 5 year loan I would end up paying less money (in 2012 money) because of inflation. But what difference does it make? The money that I get in my paycheck each month will be just as affected by inflation.

Now if I could get paid in gold, and enter into loans in dollars- now that makes a difference.

Agree with that too. It comes out to be a wash. Unless you want to argue Keynesian multiplier effects, which, if you look at them, Ramey on Stimulus and Multipliers (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html), is just playing games with numbers, and as your formula above shows don't take into account all factors.

[Peter1469]

Agree with that too. It comes out to be a wash. Unless you want to argue Keynesian multiplier effects, which, if you look at them, Ramey on Stimulus and Multipliers (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html), is just playing games with numbers, and as your formula above shows don't take into account all factors.

The true multiplier effects are around 60 cents.

[Chris]

The true multiplier effects are around 60 cents.

On a dollar. A net loss.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

"Post an example of how we determine inflation without using any economics terms or "big words," as you'd say. If it's worthy, maybe that'll work as standard from now on."

Already have. Remember, you asked not how in some Keynesian economic theory inflation has an effect but "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

Nonsense, unless the economic term "quantitative easing" is used in another medium then you haven't. The definition of inflation doesn't change between different economic theories.


"My intent was to gauge other posters levels of understanding about basic Economics..."

Now you asked "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

"Those Economics terms do relate to it, I apologize if there's any confusion"

I'm not arguing whether the terms apply or not, I'm arguing that merely stringing them together in lists as you have is utterly meaningless. Giving definitions doesn't do that either. I have asked you to use them in meaningful sentences. Several times.

"the thread's intent was to gauge other poster's level of understanding about Economics"

I think you've hoisted your own petard.

Nope, there's no intent to insult or harm anyone much less myself.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don't teach a man to fish, and you feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." ~ Ron Swanson

Point being, it doesn't take much effort to look up a word, phrase, idiom, or even a concept, I've even provided you with a few links, the rest up to you.

Ironically you provided a link on this thread that used a lot of the same economic terms that I've used that you're bitching about without a disclaimer, which is more like you hoisting your own petard than me posting economic terms on an economic subforum in a thread regarding inflation.

[Peter1469]

The definition of inflation doesn't change between different economic theories.

Not true.

https://mises.org/daily/908

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Not true.

https://mises.org/daily/908

I think your link better describes the velocity of money and how it'll relate to inflation more so than a differing definition, in a sense the author isn't so much defining inflation (I know he's stating that he's redefined the word) but rather equating it with some of what he'd consider the less than savvy side effects of which...which delves into the aggregate expenditures/demand curve realm, more money, the greater the aggregate expenditure - less money, the less the aggregate expenditure...at least that's how I read it, something I've noticed over the years is that economists from one train of thought are always second guessing or stating that they're counterparts from opposing trains of thought are always wrong, I'd like to think that reality is probably somewhere in the middle, the extremes of any would be more problematic than beneficial.

Either way, I stand corrected, if the author thinks his redefined definition of the word is copasetic, then who am I judge...

[Peter1469]

I think your link better describes the velocity of money and how it'll relate to inflation more so than a differing definition, in a sense the author isn't so much defining inflation (I know he's stating that he's redefined the word) but rather equating it with some of what he'd consider the less than savvy side effects of which...which delves into the aggregate expenditures/demand curve realm, more money, the greater the aggregate expenditure - less money, the less the aggregate expenditure...at least that's how I read it, something I've noticed over the years is that economists from one train of thought are always second guessing or stating that they're counterparts from opposing trains of thought are always wrong, I'd like to think that reality is probably somewhere in the middle, the extremes of any would be more problematic than beneficial.

Either way, I stand corrected, if the author thinks his redefined definition of the word is copasetic, then who am I judge...

Good response. Thank you.

[Chris]

Nonsense, unless the economic term "quantitative easing" is used in another medium then you haven't. The definition of inflation doesn't change between different economic theories.



Nope, there's no intent to insult or harm anyone much less myself.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don't teach a man to fish, and you feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." ~ Ron Swanson

Point being, it doesn't take much effort to look up a word, phrase, idiom, or even a concept, I've even provided you with a few links, the rest up to you.

Ironically you provided a link on this thread that used a lot of the same economic terms that I've used that you're bitching about without a disclaimer, which is more like you hoisting your own petard than me posting economic terms on an economic subforum in a thread regarding inflation.

But it does take a lot to use those words in meaningful ways. Still waiting...

[Vilifier of Zombies]

But it does take a lot to use those words in meaningful ways. Still waiting...

Ironic.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Good response. Thank you.

You're welcome.

[Chris]

Ironic.

Indeed.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Indeed.

Economic terms on and economic forum in a thread about inflation.

Come up with new layman's terms for quantitative easing first, then start in on every other economic term found on the link you'd posted, we'll use those as meaningful substitutions instead...

[Chris]

Economic terms on and economic forum in a thread about inflation.

Come up with new layman's terms for quantitative easing first, then start in on every other economic term found on the link you'd posted, we'll use those as meaningful substitutions instead...

Why the need to twist what I said? Economic terms are fine, when put in meaningful sentences and paragraphs., in this case, ones that relate to the topic "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Why the need to twist what I said? Economic terms are fine, when put in meaningful sentences and paragraphs., in this case, ones that relate to the topic "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

What I'd posted, economic terms and all were in the proper context and were absolutely related to the topic of the thread. If you are not understanding what I'd posted and want clarification then just ask, it's not a problem, it sure beats someone thinking they're not meaningful...

[Chris]

You stopped making sense and started listing jargon when your arguments were shown wrong. Hell, you even got the price of gas in Iraq wrong.

Here, try and answer your own titular question. I have yet to see you do that. By page two you'd shifted to your troll: "Part of why I started this thread by asking a question instead of stating an opinion or some other arbitrary means was to get a sense of some of the other posters aptitude for Economics..."

[Vilifier of Zombies]

You stopped making sense and started listing jargon when your arguments were shown wrong. Hell, you even got the price of gas in Iraq wrong.

Here, try and answer your own titular question. I have yet to see you do that. By page two you'd shifted to your troll: "Part of why I started this thread by asking a question instead of stating an opinion or some other arbitrary means was to get a sense of some of the other posters aptitude for Economics..."



To you maybe they don't make sense or aren't meaningful, my replies/posts made plenty of sense, enough that for a large segment of economists out there, they're what's excepted, kinda like a standard.

That was the price of a gallon of gasoline when I was in Iraq...have you ever been to Iraq? Watched with your own eyes as kids will barter for anything and everything to anyone to pawn off a gallon of gasoline? So no, I really didn't get that wrong either, unless you expect me to be so specific with the price of gasoline on the street in Iraq from an up to the minute perspective, then I'd be wrong. I know Pete was there for the first Gulf War, I was there for second, I'm sure it didn't change all that much, he should be able to corroborate how much of the gasoline is sold there, it's about the same as someone trying to sell roses or oranges on the side of the road.

What do you think "gauging other's aptitude for Economics" means Chris? "Shifting to troll?"

[Peter1469]

To you maybe they don't make sense or aren't meaningful, my replies/posts made plenty of sense, enough that for a large segment of economists out there, they're what's excepted, kinda like a standard.

That was the price of a gallon of gasoline when I was in Iraq...have you ever been to Iraq? Watched with your own eyes as kids will barter for anything and everything to anyone to pawn off a gallong of gasoline? So no, I really didn't get that wrong either, unless you expect me to be so specific with the price of gasoline on the street in Iraq from an up to the minute perspective, then I'd be wrong. I know Pete was there for the first Gulf War, I was there for second, I'm sure it didn't change all that much, he should be able to corroborate how much of the gasoline is sold there, it's about the same as someone trying to sell roses or oranges on the side of the road.

What do you think "gauging other's aptitude for Economics" means Chris? "Shifting to troll?"

Was there for both.

1st time: 11B
2nd time: 27A

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Was there for both.

1st time: 11B
2nd time: 27A

Was it the same during the first Gulf War as it was for OIF, kids selling gallons of gas on the street as if they were selling a dozen roses or a bag of oranges here in the states for whatever they could get for it?

[Peter1469]

Was it the same during the first Gulf War as it was for OIF, kids selling gallons of gas on the street as if they were selling a dozen roses or a bag of oranges here in the states for whatever they could get for it?

During the Gulf War I was at the tip of the 18th ABN Corps out in the desert pushing into Iraq to draw the Republican Guard out of Kuwait. We didn't see any civilians. Only Iraqi military. Most of them were conscripts, but there were plenty of SoF troops. And then the Republican Guard Divisions attacked. I believe it was the Hammurabi Division that hit us.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

During the Gulf War I was at the tip of the 18th ABN Corps out in the desert pushing into Iraq to draw the Republican Guard out of Kuwait. We didn't see any civilians. Only Iraqi military. Most of them were conscripts, but there were plenty of SoF troops. And then the Republican Guard Divisions attacked. I believe it was the Hammurabi Division that hit us.

I have a classmate that was in 3rd ACR during the first Gulf war, he's got all sorts of Republican Guard memorabilia.

What about when you'd went back for OIF, did you get out and about much?

[Chris]

To you maybe they don't make sense or aren't meaningful, my replies/posts made plenty of sense, enough that for a large segment of economists out there, they're what's excepted, kinda like a standard.

That was the price of a gallon of gasoline when I was in Iraq...have you ever been to Iraq? Watched with your own eyes as kids will barter for anything and everything to anyone to pawn off a gallong of gasoline? So no, I really didn't get that wrong either, unless you expect me to be so specific with the price of gasoline on the street in Iraq from an up to the minute perspective, then I'd be wrong. I know Pete was there for the first Gulf War, I was there for second, I'm sure it didn't change all that much, he should be able to corroborate how much of the gasoline is sold there, it's about the same as someone trying to sell roses or oranges on the side of the road.

What do you think "gauging other's aptitude for Economics" means Chris? "Shifting to troll?"

Simply listing terms and providing links to definitions is not making sense. Once again, the terms are fine, use them in meaningful sentences.

You claim was that was the price of gas in Iraq now. You used that to try and show inflation doesn't affect the value of currency. The price you gave was shown incorrect. Prices there are inflated.


"What do you think "gauging other's aptitude for Economics" means Chris? "Shifting to troll?""

Did you come here to ask a question or did you come to gauge? One thing's for sure you have not answered your own question yet. Part of the reason for that is the abstractions of Keynesian macoeconomics doesn't speak to the effects of inflation on the individual "you".

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Simply listing terms and providing links to definitions is not making sense. Once again, the terms are fine, use them in meaningful sentences.

You claim was that was the price of gas in Iraq now. You used that to try and show inflation doesn't affect the value of currency. The price you gave was shown incorrect. Prices there are inflated.


"What do you think "gauging other's aptitude for Economics" means Chris? "Shifting to troll?""

Did you come here to ask a question or did you come to gauge? One thing's for sure you have not answered your own question yet. Part of the reason for that is the abstractions of Keynesian macoeconomics doesn't speak to the effects of inflation on the individual "you".

If you can't make sense of what's been posted, that's on you, what I've posted in reply to you, specifically at the beginning of the thread was already dumbed down to begin with.

"Only nominal variables are affected by the changes in the quantity of money as well as inflation in income goes hand in hand with inflation in prices."

It's not rocket science Chris, if you're having trouble understanding the merits of this post, then maybe you would be better off discussing another topic other than Economics.

The gauge is a question, I thought that point was clearly made already, do you have a selective reading problem coupled with bitching about what you don't understand character traits? It's kinda like a nagging wife, girlfriend, whatever but different...however slightly...

I have answered my own question over several different posts on the thread. You're making asinine statements based on what, I don't know.

I didn't post a fuck'n up to the minute update in the price of gas in Iraq, I simply posted what the price was as I knew it to be, go back and read the god damned post if you have to, nowhere did I time stamp that bitch.

Point is, the price is all over the place in Iraq, it's certainly not higher than 70 cents and I've even heard of it being as low as 5 cents, so it's not that I was wrong Chris...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001949017_cheapgas06.html

[Peter1469]

I have a classmate that was in 3rd ACR during the first Gulf war, he's got all sorts of Republican Guard memorabilia.

What about when you'd went back for OIF, did you get out and about much?

Not much. I flew around a bit. I walked off post to the local town with the deputy commander and with a gun truck following us. talked to the Sons of Iraq dudes guarding the intersections.

[Chris]

If you can't make sense of what's been posted, that's on you, what I've posted in reply to you, specifically at the beginning of the thread was already dumbed down to begin with.

"Only nominal variables are affected by the changes in the quantity of money as well as inflation in income goes hand in hand with inflation in prices."

It's not rocket science Chris, if you're having trouble understanding the merits of this post, then maybe you would be better off discussing another topic other than Economics.

The gauge is a question, I thought that point was clearly made already, do you have a selective reading problem coupled with bitching about what you don't understand character traits? It's kinda like a nagging wife, girlfriend, whatever but different...however slightly...

I have answered my own question over several different posts on the thread. You're making asinine statements based on what, I don't know.

I didn't post a fuck'n up to the minute update in the price of gas in Iraq, I simply posted what the price was as I knew it to be, go back and read the god damned post if you have to, nowhere did I time stamp that bitch.

Point is, the price is all over the place in Iraq, it's certainly not higher than 70 cents and I've even heard of it being as low as 5 cents, so it's not that I was wrong Chris...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001949017_cheapgas06.html

And there you go trying to twist what I've said. When you put words in list, even if you provide definitions, they mean little. In order to use those words to answer your own question you need to put them in sentences that make sense.

"Only nominal variables are affected by the changes in the quantity of money as well as inflation in income goes hand in hand with inflation in prices."

That was an example of an sentence of yours not merely a list of terms. And that assertion was disputed. The arguments against it ignored by you.


I see you're getting angry, is that supposed to impress someone?



So when are you going to answer your titular question, vill, use some of those economic terms in sentences to explain how Keynesian macroeconomics addresses the individual you of your question?

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Not much. I flew around a bit. I walked off post to the local town with the deputy commander and with a gun truck following us. talked to the Sons of Iraq dudes guarding the intersections.

I'd worked for CSM Jack Tilly for awhile, I remember every time we flew somewhere, I had to go and get JAG's approval first, even the CG's Chief of Staff had to do the same every time the CG wanted to fly instead of drive...this was in the mid 90's, I think the Army got a bad rap some time before, joyrides or something frivolous in nature...what I always thought was weird was that that same JAG attorney, always flew if he had to go somewhere in Bosnia, well, more slick than weird, he knew how to work the system to his favor.

...when I got out of the Army I got a job at Microsoft, which worked out because I was also a full time student, even better was that the JAG attorney I'd always had to get approval from in 1 AD up and retired from the Army only to become the director for the department that I'd worked in, I could do no wrong, I ended up playing a lot of foosball (which at that time, was a big deal on the Microsoft campus in Bellevue, there were plenty of competitions between various departments), when my wife got orders for West Point I almost broke down in tears...

It was easier for me as an Infantry Captain to get air support after 911 in Afghanistan than it was for a two star Division Commander in Germany during the mid 90's.

Did you ever see the kids selling gas by the gallon on the side of the street?

[Peter1469]

I'd worked for CSM Jack Tilly for awhile, I remember every time we flew somewhere, I had to go and get JAG's approval first, even the CG's Chief of Staff had to do the same every time the CG wanted to fly instead of drive...this was in the mid 90's, I think the Army got a bad rap some time before, joyrides or something frivolous in nature...what I always thought was weird was that that same JAG attorney, always flew if he had to go somewhere in Bosnia, well, more slick than weird, he knew how to work the system to his favor.

...when I got out of the Army I got a job at Microsoft, which worked out because I was also a full time student, even better was that the JAG attorney I'd always had to get approval from in 1 AD up and retired from the Army only to become the director for the department that I'd worked in, I could do no wrong, I ended up playing a lot of foosball (which at that time, was a big deal on the Microsoft campus in Bellevue, there were plenty of competitions between various departments), when my wife got orders for West Point I almost broke down in tears...

It was easier for me as an Infantry Captain to get air support after 911 in Afghanistan than it was for a two star Division Commander in Germany during the mid 90's.

Did you ever see the kids selling gas by the gallon on the side of the street?

No I didn't see kids selling gas.

I don't doubt the air support thing though. We have lots of air power on station.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

No I didn't see kids selling gas.

I don't doubt the air support thing though. We have lots of air power on station.

I saw them all the time on Airport Road in Baghdad, I was only in Iraq for a little over three months though, mostly QRF missions.

A simple ride back from Hohenfels was dependent on why we were going back, the details, it had to be justified, in Afghanistan I didn't need a reason to request air support, I just had to ask, nine times out of ten I got what I wanted regardless of why, even if it were just catching a ride because it was more convenient.

It was awhile back, I vaguely recall that the reason why it was such a pain in the ass was something to do with frivolous helicopter rides in the early 90's, that the media got wind of it and more than a few Generals were getting slammed by the press or something of the sort...I don't think CSM Tilly really cared about it one way or the other, if we got the go ahead, all the better, if not, no big deal, his replacement on the other hand was quite the opposite, CSM Brown had just come from being the CSM of the Aviation Brigade at Drum, that guy didn't take bad news very well, that flying back from Graff to Bad Kreuznac to see his wife off wasn't allowed, more than a few times I'd tricked the JAG to come up and explain for himself why he wouldn't be allowed to fly.

I was reading something the other day about a Reserve (or National Guard, I can't remember which one) JA who moonlights as a UH-72 pilot, because it's Hawaii (to be able to get around to the various units on different islands) and he'd already had a commercial or private helicopter pilot's license, the Army sent him (more than likely at his request) to flight school to get rated. As cool as it would be, I remember commercial airline tickets from island to island being relatively cheap, certainly cheaper than the fuel and maintenance of a helicopter...I suspect that there must've been some sort of drug deal going on in order for that JA to not only attend flight school and get flight pay on top of JACP but to get a helicopter and crew out of it as well...I can only imagine that Reserve or National Guard pilots (as well as some active duty pilots), when not deployed, are chomping at the bit to get whatever flight time they can, the moonlighting pilot attorney/ Lieutenant Colonel just has to file a flight plan and he's off, probably on TDY.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

And there you go trying to twist what I've said. When you put words in list, even if you provide definitions, they mean little. In order to use those words to answer your own question you need to put them in sentences that make sense.

"Only nominal variables are affected by the changes in the quantity of money as well as inflation in income goes hand in hand with inflation in prices."

That was an example of an sentence of yours not merely a list of terms. And that assertion was disputed. The arguments against it ignored by you.

Nope. It's a complete meaningful sentence. I could've posted "supposed factors are affected by the changes in the amount of money," that we're posting on an Economics subforum and the language used when discussing economics has it's own terms you don't get to dictate how I post my replies, you can either except them for what they are or not.

I didn't take it as being disputed, if you did, you didn't put up that much of an argument against what I'd posted. If you're referring to the article you'd posted, the one where the author, a mechanical engineer, not an economist, where he's denigrating Bernanke who was a tenured professor of economics then you're gonna have to do a whole lot more than that if you're gonna dispute what I've posted.


I see you're getting angry, is that supposed to impress someone?

No I'm not angry. What's the price of a gallon of gasoline right this very minute on the streets of Iraq Chris?


So when are you going to answer your titular question, vill, use some of those economic terms in sentences to explain how Keynesian macroeconomics addresses the individual you of your question?

Basic macroeconomics Chris. Go back and reread the thread. Or better yet, take a few economics classes then revisit this thread. So far, specifically with you, the question posted as a gauge has worked...food for thought.

[MMC]

Here ya go Chris.....

Diesal in US Dollars - O.98 a liter.

Unleaded in US Dollars - 0.93 a liter.

Diesal in US Dollars - 0.67 a liter.

http://www.mytravelcost.com/Iraq/gas-prices/


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iraq/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html




http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=/iraq/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html&d1=19670101&d2=20120418

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Here ya go Chris.....

Diesal in US Dollars - O.98 a liter.

Unleaded in US Dollars - 0.93 a liter.

Diesal in US Dollars - 0.67 a liter.

http://www.mytravelcost.com/Iraq/gas-prices/


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iraq/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html



Here's another link that says it's 66 cents, http://www.numbeo.com/gas-prices/cou...p?country=Iraq

What's interesting MMC is that data that you'd posted is from 2010, wich was weird because that site linked it's source which posted a different price of 72 cents...

And another that says the price went from 5 to 40 cents with an end goal getting Iraq to the Middle East average of 95 cents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122700929.html in 2005.

[MMC]

Yeah I saw that.....myself I was looking for what they were charging by the gallon now. As you can see with those links that also includes the Euro. Most of the time they show by the Liter.

[Chris]

That was an example of an sentence of yours not merely a list of terms.

Nope. It's a complete meaningful sentence.
That is what I said, vill, that it was not just a list of terms, but something meaningful people responded to.


I didn't take it as being disputed
You ignored it. That when I suspected you might have picked up the terminology out of a textbook etc.


So when are you going to answer your titular question, vill, use some of those economic terms in sentences to explain how Keynesian macroeconomics addresses the individual you of your question?

Basic macroeconomics Chris.
Great, then answer the question.

[Chris]

Here ya go Chris.....

Diesal in US Dollars - O.98 a liter.

Unleaded in US Dollars - 0.93 a liter.

Diesal in US Dollars - 0.67 a liter.

http://www.mytravelcost.com/Iraq/gas-prices/


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iraq/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html




http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=/iraq/pump-price-for-gasoline-us-dollar-per-liter-wb-data.html&d1=19670101&d2=20120418

We already knew that from what I reported. Recall, you said the price was low and conley said inflation was high. And you took that as disputing inflation as cause. Then I pointed out current prices are high, supporting inflation as cause. You've now lent graphical support to that argument. Recall, inflation cheapens the value of currency, thus you must spend more to get the same value, here, in gas.

That is a direct answer to your titular question, "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

Waiting for your answer to that. Macro won't explain how inflation affects the individual, macro is too abstract.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

That is what I said, vill, that it was not just a list of terms, but something meaningful people responded to.


You ignored it. That when I suspected you might have picked up the terminology out of a textbook etc.

I thought it was stupid, I read it then dismissed it for what it was which is different from ignoring it.

Well I learned from a text book as well as taking classes, that was the whole idea of attending class...do you know how much text books cost these days and that reading them was part of the curriculum. I suspect you haven't picked up any Economic terminology from economic textbooks...



Great, then answer the question.

lol, I already have.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

We already knew that from what I reported. Recall, you said the price was low and conley said inflation was high. And you took that as disputing inflation as cause. Then I pointed out current prices are high, supporting inflation as cause. You've now lent graphical support to that argument. Recall, inflation cheapens the value of currency, thus you must spend more to get the same value, here, in gas.

That is a direct answer to your titular question, "Are you as an individual better or worse off as a consequence of inflation?"

Waiting for your answer to that. Macro won't explain how inflation affects the individual, macro is too abstract.

You realize you'd quoted MMC don't you?

[Chris]

I thought it was stupid, I read it then dismissed it for what it was which is different from ignoring it.

Well I learned from a text book as well as taking classes, that was the whole idea of attending class...do you know how much text books cost these days and that reading them was part of the curriculum. I suspect you haven't picked up any Economic terminology from economic textbooks...




lol, I already have.

iow, you have no argument re the earlier discussion, and still no answer to your own question.

[Chris]

You realize you'd quoted MMC don't you?

Ah, thanks MMC.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

iow, you have no argument re the earlier discussion, and still no answer to your own question.

No, in other words you obviously don't really know all that much about economics in general.

[annata]

I took my bag into a grocer's store,
The price is higher than the time before,
Old man asked me why is it more.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Yeah I saw that.....myself I was looking for what they were charging by the gallon now. As you can see with those links that also includes the Euro. Most of the time they show by the Liter.

When I'd bought gas in Iraq, it was by the gallon...I'd procured an old from the 70's Yamaha 250 enduro from an Iraqi whom I suspect originally acquired it by nefarious means on the cheap, I got it to mosey around the airport, our hanger/home was kinda out of the way from everywhere else, more than a few times I'd had to go and get gasoline off the economy, which every single time I'd bartered for it, there was no set price - from this thread though, I've since learned that a lot has changed in just a few years...

[Chris]

No, in other words you obviously don't really know all that much about economics in general.

And there we have your trolling purpose stated clearly. Thank you for demonstrating what I've suspected. When you want to discuss economics, vill, there are a number of us interested in it to join you.

[Chris]

I took my bag into a grocer's store,
The price is higher than the time before,
Old man asked me why is it more.


And your answore?

[Vilifier of Zombies]

And there we have your trolling purpose stated clearly. Thank you for demonstrating what I've suspected. When you want to discuss economics, vill, there are a number of us interested in it to join you.

Nonsense. You trying to dictate how others post their replies isn't discussing economics.

[RollingWave]

Inflation is relative to income... if your income doesn't raise then inflation is obviously a real problem.

Taiwan has kepted inflation relatively in check, the average CPI over the last decade is about 2% per year, but during that span average income, espeically average wage income on the lower half of the population, is essentially flat or even going slightly backwards, so the people are still mostly hurting. espeically young wage earners.

Inflation was much higher in the 70s-90s , but income rose even faster so it didn't really matter.

The term is basically stagflation in economic terms, aka that there is inflation, but the income really isn't going up, in economic theory if everything else being equal inflation is suppose to be relatively neutural, but in practice it usually isn't.

[Chris]

in economic theory if everything else being equal inflation is suppose to be relatively neutural, but in practice it usually isn't.
In theory but in practice, yes.

Good examples. I know my and many other's situation is like Taiwan's where we see inflation and rising prices but not rising incomes, thus people complain about gas prices--you are worse off. Even in the 70s though what I recall is rising prices followed by delayed income increase-no data, just recall--so you are worse off for a time.

All things considered if in theory it's supposed to be a wash, in terms of whether you as an individual are better or worse off, what's the point. IN practice, you seem always worse off for a time, and never better off.

[annata]

And your answore?
it was just a throw away line.
I'm not an economist -if i had an answer i'd give it. All i know is inflation is real - unless you don't eat or drive, or buy anything.
Wages are under constant pressures, and costs for everythig are going up -$7 on my monthly cable.
a few more $$ for Terminex (im in Florida -a necessary expense), nicked and dimed ( or now 'dollared' ) to death.

I can always cut back, except i;ve been doing this for years, and there is little left to cut.

My BIG spending this year is going to a Tom Petty concert in about 2 weeks - that's it, not going to a Florida beach -why live here if i can't afford a few days at the beach? But i can't -so I wont

[MMC]

it was just a throw away line.
I'm not an economist -if i had an answer i'd give it. All i know is inflation is real - unless you don't eat or drive, or buy anything.
Wages are under constant pressures, and costs for everythig are going up -$7 on my monthly cable.
a few more $$ for Terminex (im in Florida -a necessary expense), nicked and dimed ( or now 'dollared' ) to death.

I can always cut back, except i;ve been doing this for years, and there is little left to cut.

My BIG spending this year is going to a Tom Petty concert in about 2 weeks - that's it, not going to a Florida beach -why live here if i can't afford a few days at the beach? But i can't -so I wont


Don't feel bad annata.....NY, Illinois, and California. We are getting nicked down to our pennies. Guess who's in charge and has been for the last 75 yrs or so? :shocked:

[Chris]

it was just a throw away line.
I'm not an economist -if i had an answer i'd give it. All i know is inflation is real - unless you don't eat or drive, or buy anything.
Wages are under constant pressures, and costs for everythig are going up -$7 on my monthly cable.
a few more $$ for Terminex (im in Florida -a necessary expense), nicked and dimed ( or now 'dollared' ) to death.

I can always cut back, except i;ve been doing this for years, and there is little left to cut.

My BIG spending this year is going to a Tom Petty concert in about 2 weeks - that's it, not going to a Florida beach -why live here if i can't afford a few days at the beach? But i can't -so I wont

And that, to me, was a great answer to the question raised.

I'm not an economist either, just trying to make sense of it.

Petty and the Heartbreaks are great. First heard of Boo in the Traveling Wilburys.

[annata]

And that, to me, was a great answer to the question raised.

I'm not an economist either, just trying to make sense of it.

Petty and the Heartbreaks are great. First heard of Boo in the Traveling Wilburys.
Ya. I had a DVD of the sesson of the Wilburys at Dave Stewart's house - it was so cool -they just hung out and did
it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_Wilburys

Tom Petty's involvement came by chance, as Harrison had left his guitar at Petty's house and Harrison went to get it and Petty came back with Harrison.
The record label, however, decided that the song that resulted, "Handle with Care (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Handle_with_Care_(song))", was too good to be released as a "single filler".The members enjoyed working together so much that they decided to create a full album together. Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Traveling_Wilburys_Vol._1), written by all the members, was recorded over a ten-day period in May 1988, and released on October 18. The album was recorded in the house and garden of Eurythmics member Dave Stewart (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/David_A._Stewart). The "Wilburys" joke was extended further, with the band members credited under various pseudonyms and pretending to be half-brothers – sons of a fictional Charles Truscott Wilbury, Sr.
Lost it somewhere, prolly can get it from Wolfgangs Vault if i wanted to pay a grand or so

[RollingWave]

In theory but in practice, yes.

Good examples. I know my and many other's situation is like Taiwan's where we see inflation and rising prices but not rising incomes, thus people complain about gas prices--you are worse off. Even in the 70s though what I recall is rising prices followed by delayed income increase-no data, just recall--so you are worse off for a time.

All things considered if in theory it's supposed to be a wash, in terms of whether you as an individual are better or worse off, what's the point. IN practice, you seem always worse off for a time, and never better off.
It's usually because wage tend to reflect much slower than price, price can change overnight, but wage usually don't change for at least a year or so.

It's a difficult problem to be sure, one could say the government shouldn't /couldn't do anything about it, but if inflation gets totally out of hand it will surely destablize the society in general and end up making everyone lose. again lack of full information is also a issue, if everyone's hiking their prices I might as well do it too even if my cost didn't go up.

One wonder if a law that require large commediteis to have a longer notice period before price changes would help (like say... if you announce price change today the effect can't take place until a week or two from that point), in market theory that's probably bad, but then again in market theory shoudlnt' we all be paid on a daily bases with adjustable rates too?

Taiwan has for the most part not made a huge deal of intervention on that front, occasionally government will fine companies who hike prices together in a cordinated matter, and also look around for companies stockpiling commodities to drive up prices, but otherwise it's mostly just monetary policy, Taiwan's interest rate is also low but not Japan / US low.

[Conley]

Good point - prices are far more volatile than wages.

[Chris]

It's usually because wage tend to reflect much slower than price, price can change overnight, but wage usually don't change for at least a year or so.

It's a difficult problem to be sure, one could say the government shouldn't /couldn't do anything about it, but if inflation gets totally out of hand it will surely destablize the society in general and end up making everyone lose. again lack of full information is also a issue, if everyone's hiking their prices I might as well do it too even if my cost didn't go up.

One wonder if a law that require large commediteis to have a longer notice period before price changes would help (like say... if you announce price change today the effect can't take place until a week or two from that point), in market theory that's probably bad, but then again in market theory shoudlnt' we all be paid on a daily bases with adjustable rates too?

Taiwan has for the most part not made a huge deal of intervention on that front, occasionally government will fine companies who hike prices together in a cordinated matter, and also look around for companies stockpiling commodities to drive up prices, but otherwise it's mostly just monetary policy, Taiwan's interest rate is also low but not Japan / US low.

There probably needs to be some regulation of cartels and monopolies who could control prices, but generally market competition should drive prices down.

Wages are more stable than prices likely because of contracts, though I'm sure it fluctuates for day workers, and I worked once for a start up that as it failed adjusted contracts constantly, even to a point we worked for free other than the gain if we had succeeded.

All of this is difficult and complicated and dynamic. As Friedrich von Hayek put it, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

[MMC]

There probably needs to be some regulation of cartels and monopolies who could control prices, but generally market competition should drive prices down.

Wages are more stable than prices likely because of contracts, though I'm sure it fluctuates for day workers, and I worked once for a start up that as it failed adjusted contracts constantly, even to a point we worked for free other than the gain if we had succeeded.

All of this is difficult and complicated and dynamic. As Friedrich von Hayek put it, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”



Hmmmm Chris.....he must not have been thinking of the Vikings at the time. :laugh:

[Vilifier of Zombies]

All of this is difficult and complicated and dynamic. As Friedrich von Hayek put it, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." ~ George Bernard Shaw

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today." ~ Laurence J. Peter