3 ms·
Why would you link to GDP PER CAPITA? Are you ignoring that population has grown since 2000? GDP since 2000 went from 10.5T to 24T (2.285x). Adjusted for 3% in
by onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Why would you link to GDP PER CAPITA? Are you ignoring that population has grown since 2000?
GDP since 2000 went from 10.5T to 24T (2.285x). Adjusted for 3% inflation, that's a 26% increase.
Your point remains.
4% inflation would mean a 4% increase over 20 years.
5% inflation would mean a 14% DECREASE over 20 years.
6% inflation would mean a 29% DECREASE over 20 years.
7% inflation would mean a 41% DECREASE over 20 years.
8% inflation would mean a 51% DECREASE over 20 years.
The problem is - the way people experience inflation is dramatically impacted by whether they had a 30-year fixed mortgage.
If your house PRICE went up 400% since 2000 and your housing cost went DOWN 20% since 2000 - inflation would obviously seem low.
If your rent went up 400% since 2000, it obviously feels different.
67% of people are homeowners - and the Fed's measure of inflation seems largely targeted to this group of people. The true rate of inflation is almost certainly higher - but probably nowhere close to ShadowStats.
- gruez 5y ago> Why would you link to GDP PER CAPITA? Are you ignoring that population has grown since 2000? 1. using country level GDP gets you a 63% drop, hardly any better 2. The argument I was making was with respect to living standards (ie. there's no way that our income/living standards dropped 67% in 20 years). In that context it makes sense to use GDP per capita rather than GDP for the entire country. If US population grew 50% over some time period, and GDP only grew 25%, that's actually bad because that means the average person is actually worse off than before.