3 ms·

> Current debate about inflation isn’t really about whether it’s likely: it isn’t See the first chart. Nowhere on the chart is inflation not happening.

by mrkeen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nicklecompte 6y ago
Obviously the author means inflation exceeding the 2% target that various central banks agree is necessary for a healthy economy: > Since the 1990s central banks have been given the target of keeping inflation low. 2% has been the goal. But in practice as this diagram shows, the trend was already strongly downward before central banks were given this goal. If you want to argue that 2% is too high then feel free to do that. But it’s not helpful (to you or other commenters) to take the most facile and ignorant reading of the article possible, and then wonder why the first chart “contradicts” the author.
- djcjr 6y ago
  You are asserting that he and other commenters to follow are taking "the most facile and ignorant reading of the article possible" on what grounds?
throw0101a 6y ago
You are being overly literal. When people colloquially say "inflation is bad" or "will be a problem", they mean "high inflation", for some meaning of 'high', like >4% or some such. US inflation was around 3% during in 1990s, and yet there was an economic boom at that time. See also 1950s. And yet people are freaking out because there's an uptick in US 10 year bonds at the moment… to 1.6%… which is where things were in January 2020 (pre-pandemic). If a massive US spending bill only (only!) gets us to where things were before the economic conflagration, then it shows how much in the economic hole things are, and how much things need to be filled in to get back onto stable economic footing.
daniel-s 6y ago
I don't like when people argue someone by looking for a technicality, or anything else that's not addressing the main point of what someone said. We all understand what he meant. His main argument has a lot to criticise, stick to that.
- mrkeen 6y ago
  It wasn't a technicality, it was the first sentence. And it threw me so wildly that I did not understand the rest of what he said.

> Current debate about inflation isn’t really about whether it’s likely: it isn’t See the first chart. Nowhere on the chart is inflation not happening.

by mrkeen 6y ago

> Current debate about inflation isn’t really about whether it’s likely: it isn’t See the first chart. Nowhere on the chart is inflation not happening.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nicklecompte 6y ago

Obviously the author means inflation exceeding the 2% target that various central banks agree is necessary for a healthy economy: > Since the 1990s central banks have been given the target of keeping inflation low. 2% has been the goal. But in practice as this diagram shows, the trend was already strongly downward before central banks were given this goal. If you want to argue that 2% is too high then feel free to do that. But it’s not helpful (to you or other commenters) to take the most facile and ignorant reading of the article possible, and then wonder why the first chart “contradicts” the author.

djcjr 6y ago
You are asserting that he and other commenters to follow are taking "the most facile and ignorant reading of the article possible" on what grounds?

throw0101a 6y ago

You are being overly literal. When people colloquially say "inflation is bad" or "will be a problem", they mean "high inflation", for some meaning of 'high', like >4% or some such. US inflation was around 3% during in 1990s, and yet there was an economic boom at that time. See also 1950s. And yet people are freaking out because there's an uptick in US 10 year bonds at the moment… to 1.6%… which is where things were in January 2020 (pre-pandemic). If a massive US spending bill only (only!) gets us to where things were before the economic conflagration, then it shows how much in the economic hole things are, and how much things need to be filled in to get back onto stable economic footing.

daniel-s 6y ago

I don't like when people argue someone by looking for a technicality, or anything else that's not addressing the main point of what someone said. We all understand what he meant. His main argument has a lot to criticise, stick to that.

mrkeen 6y ago
It wasn't a technicality, it was the first sentence. And it threw me so wildly that I did not understand the rest of what he said.