3 ms·
You are arguing that this is sometimes true. The author was clearly arguing that it is generally true: "We now live in a different economic universe than we di
by marcusverus 7y ago
You are arguing that this is sometimes true. The author was clearly arguing that it is generally true:
"We now live in a different economic universe than we did before the crash. Falling unemployment no longer drives up wages. Printing money no longer causes inflation."
He is stating that we are in a different universe, with the clear implication being that the following items, which he does not qualify, are the new reality.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 7y agoI cannot stress enough that the author, David Graeber, is a professor of anthropology.
- corporate_shi11 7y agoHe is referring to QE not causing inflation. The truth is that it did cause inflation, but in asset prices not consumer goods.
- bildung 7y agoBut gains in asset prices are not inflation. Inflation is per definition the rise of prices in consumer goods.
- corporate_shi11 7y agoThe CPI inflation metric certainly does exist, but the idea of inflation can apply to any basket of goods.
- bildung 7y agoBut is have to be consumables that are put into the basket. Inflation/deflation doesn't make sense otherwise. If an asset gains in nominal value, that means nominated in that asset, the consumables fell in price, i.e. we observe deflation. If the valuations of housing and stocks rise, this isn't inflation: If I owned them then I can sell these and buy more consumables than before, not less.
- bjourne 7y agoThat the author is right follows from simple logic. Assume A implies B. Observe A but not B. Conclude that A implies B is false. Replace A with "printing money" and B with "increased inflation."