5 ms·

Couldn't you just post the link without tacking on a passive aggressive comment? Do you actually think Zimbabwe's actions are even in the same realm as the Fed

by dev_jim 16y ago

Couldn't you just post the link without tacking on a passive aggressive comment? Do you actually think Zimbabwe's actions are even in the same realm as the Fed's quantitative easing?

haploid 16y ago
I do. QE1, QE Lite, and QE2 might not be there, yet. But QE3, QE4, and QE5 are all but inevitable. It's just a matter of time.
- dev_jim 16y ago
  Would you stop with the fear mongering. It's financial illiterate comments like this that confuse the issue for everyone. btw, Core inflation rose 0.8% YoY. Zimbabwe here we come!!!
  - aj700 16y ago
    Quantitative easing is a little "printing" to restore growth. Running the presses as fast as possible is funding a kleptocracy through seignorage. One makes me bemoan the necessity of the state, one makes me see that it is necessary. I can be a communist or a objectivist, but my continent's population (Europe) have made it clear that they'll still vote for a flavour of social democracy every time.
  - pzxc 16y ago
    You are using the "official" inflation numbers. Do you really think they report it accurately, when so much depends on it -- not just confidence in the economy, but COLA adjustment for our massive social programs, etc. That is like asking an encyclopedia salesman if you should buy an encyclopedia. The official inflation numbers have all kinds of wonky adjustments in them. For one thing, food and energy are not included (because they are too "volatile" we are told), yet food and energy are the #1 expense for most American households. Also if something rises in price too fast, they use "substitution" (saying that people will buy something else instead of that) and therefore that products inflation is not included in the "official" number. It's no different than the games they play with the unemployment numbers -- not including people who have been out of work longer than unemployment covers them, people who have accepted part-time work when they really wanted full-time work, so-called "discouraged" workers who have stopped looking, etc. I don't know what products you buy, but I can tell you that where I am the price of milk, bread, and almost everything else I buy has gone up a helluva lot more than 0.8% per year in the last few years. The few products that haven't risen in price considerably, have gone to smaller product sizes/containers. Some products have done both. Now, I'm doing just fine so inflation isn't much a burden to me -- yet. But for millions of Americans who are either low-income or worse on a fixed-income, it is a very big deal. Quoting the fed's own numbers about inflation to say everything is alright is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse -- that is the true definition of a financially illiterate comment. Don't take their word for something as critical as this, research it yourself and use facts to support your position. And admit to yourself that they have an inherent bias, a conflict of interest, to make things seem rosier than they are, because it allows them to sell public debt, treasury bonds and short-term T-bills, to fund our massive deficits. If they actually reported the truth of everything suckers around the world wouldn't be as likely to let us keep spending trillions more a year than we earn like a teenager who doesn't understand how credit cards work. Call it fear-mongering if you like, I'd rather face the realities of our situation than stick my head in the sand. You have to admit you have a problem before you can address it.
    - j_baker 16y ago
      ...except that 0.8% inflation isn't a number that should inspire confidence in the economy. Some level of inflation is good. If the fed really wanted to paint a rosy picture, they'd give a number around 2%. "Don't take their word for something as critical as this, research it yourself and use facts to support your position." I find this statement interesting because I don't see a single verifiable fact in this entire comment. Since you've already researched it yourself, perhaps you could fill us in on what the "real" inflation rate is?
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - chwahoo 16y ago
      They aren't hiding anything. The data for food, fuel, etc. are all available. Prices for food and fuel are very volatile (in both directions) and there is a justifiable reason for excluding them when calculating the "core" CPI. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1011.pdf There are problems with every metric (and unemployment and the CPI are no exception), but it's hard to argue that inflation is a major concern at this point. It's my non-expert impression that QE has had limited (good or bad) effect because we're still trying to reconcile all the value that has evaporated from the economy (in the form of asset/stock prices). I'd be interested in seeing some pointers to metrics and/or commentary that support your concern.
    - dev_jim 16y ago
      What is it about inflation that brings the crazies out. > You are using the "official" inflation numbers. Should I use the "unofficial" numbers? > Do you really think they report it accurately, when so much depends on it -- not just confidence in the economy, but COLA adjustment for our massive social programs, etc. That is like asking an encyclopedia salesman if you should buy an encyclopedia. You're right, a tremendous amount DOES depend on them and that's why the statistics are scrutinized heavily. If the Government was systematically underreporting inflation through the CPI then you'd hear about it outside of the conspiracy theory websites. > The official inflation numbers have all kinds of wonky adjustments in them. Of course they do. Inflation is a very complex thing to measure. > For one thing, food and energy are not included (because they are too "volatile" we are told), Food and energy are included in the "official" inflation numbers. It's called the CPI which is used by the Government for adjusting SSN payments, tax brackets, etc. Btw, the CPI is at 1.1% - very very low. I quoted core inflation number which is used to estimate the rate of change in inflation. > yet food and energy are the #1 expense for most American households. Incorrect - Housing is. > Also if something rises in price too fast, they use "substitution" (saying that people will buy something else instead of that) and therefore that products inflation is not included in the "official" number. You should read a little bit more about how this works instead of just copying from a buy gold website. > It's no different than the games they play with the unemployment numbers -- not including people who have been out of work longer than unemployment covers them, people who have accepted part-time work when they really wanted full-time work, so-called "discouraged" workers who have stopped looking, etc. These numbers are all reported in the official statistics. It's all in the U-6 measurement which is released at the same time as the headline number, the U-3 measurement, that the news agencies pick up on. > I don't know what products you buy, but I can tell you that where I am the price of milk, bread, and almost everything else I buy has gone up a helluva lot more than 0.8% per year in the last few years. The few products that haven't risen in price considerably, have gone to smaller product sizes/containers. Some products have done both. Thanks for the anecdote - I'll stick to statistics thank you very much. And while food/energy prices have risen above the trend - housing has crashed 30% in the past few years. You can't just pick and choose which items to pay attention to. > Now, I'm doing just fine so inflation isn't much a burden to me -- yet. But for millions of Americans who are either low-income or worse on a fixed-income, it is a very big deal. What will help lower income Americans is a good economy. You cannot have a good economy with inflation running so low. > Quoting the fed's own numbers about inflation to say everything is alright is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse -- that is the true definition of a financially illiterate comment. Don't take their word for something as critical as this, research it yourself and use facts to support your position. A lot of people inside and outside the Fed research inflation. This is just hysterical if you think it's a massive coverup. > And admit to yourself that they have an inherent bias, a conflict of interest, to make things seem rosier than they are, because it allows them to sell public debt, treasury bonds and short-term T-bills, to fund our massive deficits. Stop. This is the must illuminating of statements you made - You really don't understand how the financial system works. The Fed does not sell public debt: That would be The Treasury. > If they actually reported the truth of everything suckers around the world wouldn't be as likely to let us keep spending trillions more a year than we earn like a teenager who doesn't understand how credit cards work. People buy U.S. Government Debt because it's backed by the taxpayers of the largest economy of the world. That's about as safe of an investment as there is. > Call it fear-mongering if you like, I'd rather face the realities of our situation than stick my head in the sand. You have to admit you have a problem before you can address it. Again. Inflation at 1.1%. Core inflation at 0.8%. There isn't a problem with inflation.
  - dandelany 16y ago
    While I agree with you in regards to fear mongering, the BLS has changed their CPI calculation algorithm several times since 1980, moving the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living. See: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts I'd be interested to hear your take on this change.
    - dev_jim 16y ago
      John Williams is in the business of creating great soundtracks (haha) and selling subscriptions to his newsletter on inflation. Immediately what stands out at me here is his graph. I'd like to see the dataset, but it looks like he is claiming substantial inflation over the past 30 years. I'd guess that it averages out to about 8% a year. That would imply prices have increased over 10x from 1980 vs. 2.66x in the official BLS statistics. What seems more realistic to you?
      - patrickgzill 16y ago
        1980 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, base price $13,292. 2011 Cadillac DTS, base (very base) price $46,280. Difference: 3.5 times . -- Assuming this page is accurate (http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80sfood.html http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80sfood.html), Prices look about 4-8 times as much (look at the Pennsylvania 1981 prices) ... butter is $4/lb, bread is $2/loaf or more , etc.
        haploid 16y ago
        Don't bother polluting this thread with facts. HN is clearly dominated by Keynesians. Your dissent will not be tolerated. I believe the standard response writ large upon Bernanke's beard would be something like "But but but the 2011 model has a navigation system and is expected to last an extra 5000 miles, so hedonics alone imputes an extra $30k in value above the 1980 model. No inflation! Run along."
        16y ago
  - haploid 16y ago
    This was exactly my point. Thus far we have not seen significant core inflation, hence why I said "QE1, QE Lite, and QE2 might not be there, yet." I later went on to suggest that additional rounds of QE probably will, however. Please explain to me how agreeing with your fundamental observation, that QE2 has not yet sparked significant inflation, is financially illiterate.
richcollins 16y ago
Different in scale (for now), not in kind.

by dev_jim 16y ago

Couldn't you just post the link without tacking on a passive aggressive comment? Do you actually think Zimbabwe's actions are even in the same realm as the Fed's quantitative easing?

haploid 16y ago

I do. QE1, QE Lite, and QE2 might not be there, yet. But QE3, QE4, and QE5 are all but inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

dev_jim 16y ago
Would you stop with the fear mongering. It's financial illiterate comments like this that confuse the issue for everyone. btw, Core inflation rose 0.8% YoY. Zimbabwe here we come!!!
- aj700 16y ago
  Quantitative easing is a little "printing" to restore growth. Running the presses as fast as possible is funding a kleptocracy through seignorage. One makes me bemoan the necessity of the state, one makes me see that it is necessary. I can be a communist or a objectivist, but my continent's population (Europe) have made it clear that they'll still vote for a flavour of social democracy every time.
- pzxc 16y ago
  You are using the "official" inflation numbers. Do you really think they report it accurately, when so much depends on it -- not just confidence in the economy, but COLA adjustment for our massive social programs, etc. That is like asking an encyclopedia salesman if you should buy an encyclopedia. The official inflation numbers have all kinds of wonky adjustments in them. For one thing, food and energy are not included (because they are too "volatile" we are told), yet food and energy are the #1 expense for most American households. Also if something rises in price too fast, they use "substitution" (saying that people will buy something else instead of that) and therefore that products inflation is not included in the "official" number. It's no different than the games they play with the unemployment numbers -- not including people who have been out of work longer than unemployment covers them, people who have accepted part-time work when they really wanted full-time work, so-called "discouraged" workers who have stopped looking, etc. I don't know what products you buy, but I can tell you that where I am the price of milk, bread, and almost everything else I buy has gone up a helluva lot more than 0.8% per year in the last few years. The few products that haven't risen in price considerably, have gone to smaller product sizes/containers. Some products have done both. Now, I'm doing just fine so inflation isn't much a burden to me -- yet. But for millions of Americans who are either low-income or worse on a fixed-income, it is a very big deal. Quoting the fed's own numbers about inflation to say everything is alright is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse -- that is the true definition of a financially illiterate comment. Don't take their word for something as critical as this, research it yourself and use facts to support your position. And admit to yourself that they have an inherent bias, a conflict of interest, to make things seem rosier than they are, because it allows them to sell public debt, treasury bonds and short-term T-bills, to fund our massive deficits. If they actually reported the truth of everything suckers around the world wouldn't be as likely to let us keep spending trillions more a year than we earn like a teenager who doesn't understand how credit cards work. Call it fear-mongering if you like, I'd rather face the realities of our situation than stick my head in the sand. You have to admit you have a problem before you can address it.
  - j_baker 16y ago
    ...except that 0.8% inflation isn't a number that should inspire confidence in the economy. Some level of inflation is good. If the fed really wanted to paint a rosy picture, they'd give a number around 2%. "Don't take their word for something as critical as this, research it yourself and use facts to support your position." I find this statement interesting because I don't see a single verifiable fact in this entire comment. Since you've already researched it yourself, perhaps you could fill us in on what the "real" inflation rate is?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - chwahoo 16y ago
    They aren't hiding anything. The data for food, fuel, etc. are all available. Prices for food and fuel are very volatile (in both directions) and there is a justifiable reason for excluding them when calculating the "core" CPI. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1011.pdf There are problems with every metric (and unemployment and the CPI are no exception), but it's hard to argue that inflation is a major concern at this point. It's my non-expert impression that QE has had limited (good or bad) effect because we're still trying to reconcile all the value that has evaporated from the economy (in the form of asset/stock prices). I'd be interested in seeing some pointers to metrics and/or commentary that support your concern.
  - dev_jim 16y ago
    What is it about inflation that brings the crazies out. > You are using the "official" inflation numbers. Should I use the "unofficial" numbers? > Do you really think they report it accurately, when so much depends on it -- not just confidence in the economy, but COLA adjustment for our massive social programs, etc. That is like asking an encyclopedia salesman if you should buy an encyclopedia. You're right, a tremendous amount DOES depend on them and that's why the statistics are scrutinized heavily. If the Government was systematically underreporting inflation through the CPI then you'd hear about it outside of the conspiracy theory websites. > The official inflation numbers have all kinds of wonky adjustments in them. Of course they do. Inflation is a very complex thing to measure. > For one thing, food and energy are not included (because they are too "volatile" we are told), Food and energy are included in the "official" inflation numbers. It's called the CPI which is used by the Government for adjusting SSN payments, tax brackets, etc. Btw, the CPI is at 1.1% - very very low. I quoted core inflation number which is used to estimate the rate of change in inflation. > yet food and energy are the #1 expense for most American households. Incorrect - Housing is. > Also if something rises in price too fast, they use "substitution" (saying that people will buy something else instead of that) and therefore that products inflation is not included in the "official" number. You should read a little bit more about how this works instead of just copying from a buy gold website. > It's no different than the games they play with the unemployment numbers -- not including people who have been out of work longer than unemployment covers them, people who have accepted part-time work when they really wanted full-time work, so-called "discouraged" workers who have stopped looking, etc. These numbers are all reported in the official statistics. It's all in the U-6 measurement which is released at the same time as the headline number, the U-3 measurement, that the news agencies pick up on. > I don't know what products you buy, but I can tell you that where I am the price of milk, bread, and almost everything else I buy has gone up a helluva lot more than 0.8% per year in the last few years. The few products that haven't risen in price considerably, have gone to smaller product sizes/containers. Some products have done both. Thanks for the anecdote - I'll stick to statistics thank you very much. And while food/energy prices have risen above the trend - housing has crashed 30% in the past few years. You can't just pick and choose which items to pay attention to. > Now, I'm doing just fine so inflation isn't much a burden to me -- yet. But for millions of Americans who are either low-income or worse on a fixed-income, it is a very big deal. What will help lower income Americans is a good economy. You cannot have a good economy with inflation running so low. > Quoting the fed's own numbers about inflation to say everything is alright is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse -- that is the true definition of a financially illiterate comment. Don't take their word for something as critical as this, research it yourself and use facts to support your position. A lot of people inside and outside the Fed research inflation. This is just hysterical if you think it's a massive coverup. > And admit to yourself that they have an inherent bias, a conflict of interest, to make things seem rosier than they are, because it allows them to sell public debt, treasury bonds and short-term T-bills, to fund our massive deficits. Stop. This is the must illuminating of statements you made - You really don't understand how the financial system works. The Fed does not sell public debt: That would be The Treasury. > If they actually reported the truth of everything suckers around the world wouldn't be as likely to let us keep spending trillions more a year than we earn like a teenager who doesn't understand how credit cards work. People buy U.S. Government Debt because it's backed by the taxpayers of the largest economy of the world. That's about as safe of an investment as there is. > Call it fear-mongering if you like, I'd rather face the realities of our situation than stick my head in the sand. You have to admit you have a problem before you can address it. Again. Inflation at 1.1%. Core inflation at 0.8%. There isn't a problem with inflation.
- dandelany 16y ago
  While I agree with you in regards to fear mongering, the BLS has changed their CPI calculation algorithm several times since 1980, moving the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living. See: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts I'd be interested to hear your take on this change.
  - dev_jim 16y ago
    John Williams is in the business of creating great soundtracks (haha) and selling subscriptions to his newsletter on inflation. Immediately what stands out at me here is his graph. I'd like to see the dataset, but it looks like he is claiming substantial inflation over the past 30 years. I'd guess that it averages out to about 8% a year. That would imply prices have increased over 10x from 1980 vs. 2.66x in the official BLS statistics. What seems more realistic to you?
    - patrickgzill 16y ago
      1980 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, base price $13,292. 2011 Cadillac DTS, base (very base) price $46,280. Difference: 3.5 times . -- Assuming this page is accurate (http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80sfood.html http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80sfood.html), Prices look about 4-8 times as much (look at the Pennsylvania 1981 prices) ... butter is $4/lb, bread is $2/loaf or more , etc.
      - haploid 16y ago
        Don't bother polluting this thread with facts. HN is clearly dominated by Keynesians. Your dissent will not be tolerated. I believe the standard response writ large upon Bernanke's beard would be something like "But but but the 2011 model has a navigation system and is expected to last an extra 5000 miles, so hedonics alone imputes an extra $30k in value above the 1980 model. No inflation! Run along."
        16y ago
- haploid 16y ago
  This was exactly my point. Thus far we have not seen significant core inflation, hence why I said "QE1, QE Lite, and QE2 might not be there, yet." I later went on to suggest that additional rounds of QE probably will, however. Please explain to me how agreeing with your fundamental observation, that QE2 has not yet sparked significant inflation, is financially illiterate.

richcollins 16y ago

Different in scale (for now), not in kind.