4 ms·

Seeing as initially, inflation was primarily driven by Covid-related supply chain issues, which itself would have been 'transitory', I think it was quite reason

by mckirk 4y ago

Seeing as initially, inflation was primarily driven by Covid-related supply chain issues, which itself would have been 'transitory', I think it was quite reasonable to call the resulting inflation 'transitory' as well. Crucially, inflation is in part also a social phenomenon, as far as I understand it: if I expect prices to rise, I have to try and price that in, resulting in rising prices. Therefore, the initial attempt of keeping people's inflation expectations in check might have done us all a favor, because it could have worked out. The situation changed when a war broke out in Europe at the end of February, and I don't think it's fair to hold Yellen et al accountable for not taking that into account beforehand.

andrew_ 4y ago
While I do believe supply chain issues had a lot to do with triggering, I cannot look past the invention of 1.5 trillion dollars that were injected into the economy, nor can I look past the hit to labor resulting from government policies around covid . The use of "temporary" or "transitory" was political damage control, the tail wagging the dog. I view your comment as more of the kind of spin that we're seeing in the media right now; conveniently ignoring larger and more obvious sources of trouble, in order to deflect and downplay the seriousness of the situation.
- disantlor 4y ago
  But you DO look past the purpose of that injection of money, which was to protect jobs/economy. Whether it could have been implemented is one thing to be debated; to assume/pretend it had absolutely no positive effect, and that we would have been off than we are currently without it, seems disingenuous.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    To the argument within my comment, the purpose of the money is of no consequence. It is merely fact that the money was injected. The moral consequences or beneficiary of that money don't have bearing on the fact that the money was injected, and would have negative long-term effect.
    - disantlor 4y ago
      Right, and not injecting the money would have a negative long-term effect. I'm saying while it's difficult to be sure, it's at least reasonable to conclude that we traded a short term disaster for smaller long-term pain. Maybe you disagree, but I don't get why people are acting like this is sinister.
      - andrew_ 4y ago
        it would seem that you are basing aspects of argument on feelings, perceived individual benefit, and speculation. That's not a debate I'm interested in engaging in. I prefer to look at the facts as they are at present.
        librish 4y ago
        But how can you argue that we're living in a world that's worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus when you haven't lived in that world?
        andrew_ 4y ago
        I'm not and have not argued that. That's where I believe you may be leading with emotion.
        librish 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to accuse the person you're talking to be emotional. It's implies that your argument is logical and correct, and the other person's is incorrectly clouded. Can you clarify what your argument about the stimulus is then?
        andrew_ 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to continue to try and draw a person into an argument they've repeatedly stated they're not attempting to make nor have interest in joining. Stop trying to make fetch happen. I have no argument for, against, nor interest in engaging in the shaving of a yak that is bald. You're in a debate with a single participant.
- digdugdirk 4y ago
  Does your explanation for inflation have zero impact from general social sentiment? i.e. - Purely due to the levers of monetary and labour policies? If so, what is the explanation for inflation occurring in countries all over the globe, even those without monetary injections or business closures? If not, and there is some level of impact from individuals thinking "it feels like there's about to be inflation, so I'm going to act like there's inflation now", wouldn't there be a net benefit to that kind of messaging?

by mckirk 4y ago

andrew_ 4y ago

While I do believe supply chain issues had a lot to do with triggering, I cannot look past the invention of 1.5 trillion dollars that were injected into the economy, nor can I look past the hit to labor resulting from government policies around covid . The use of "temporary" or "transitory" was political damage control, the tail wagging the dog. I view your comment as more of the kind of spin that we're seeing in the media right now; conveniently ignoring larger and more obvious sources of trouble, in order to deflect and downplay the seriousness of the situation.

disantlor 4y ago
But you DO look past the purpose of that injection of money, which was to protect jobs/economy. Whether it could have been implemented is one thing to be debated; to assume/pretend it had absolutely no positive effect, and that we would have been off than we are currently without it, seems disingenuous.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  To the argument within my comment, the purpose of the money is of no consequence. It is merely fact that the money was injected. The moral consequences or beneficiary of that money don't have bearing on the fact that the money was injected, and would have negative long-term effect.
  - disantlor 4y ago
    Right, and not injecting the money would have a negative long-term effect. I'm saying while it's difficult to be sure, it's at least reasonable to conclude that we traded a short term disaster for smaller long-term pain. Maybe you disagree, but I don't get why people are acting like this is sinister.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      it would seem that you are basing aspects of argument on feelings, perceived individual benefit, and speculation. That's not a debate I'm interested in engaging in. I prefer to look at the facts as they are at present.
      - librish 4y ago
        But how can you argue that we're living in a world that's worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus when you haven't lived in that world?
        andrew_ 4y ago
        I'm not and have not argued that. That's where I believe you may be leading with emotion.
        librish 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to accuse the person you're talking to be emotional. It's implies that your argument is logical and correct, and the other person's is incorrectly clouded. Can you clarify what your argument about the stimulus is then?
        andrew_ 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to continue to try and draw a person into an argument they've repeatedly stated they're not attempting to make nor have interest in joining. Stop trying to make fetch happen. I have no argument for, against, nor interest in engaging in the shaving of a yak that is bald. You're in a debate with a single participant.
digdugdirk 4y ago
Does your explanation for inflation have zero impact from general social sentiment? i.e. - Purely due to the levers of monetary and labour policies? If so, what is the explanation for inflation occurring in countries all over the globe, even those without monetary injections or business closures? If not, and there is some level of impact from individuals thinking "it feels like there's about to be inflation, so I'm going to act like there's inflation now", wouldn't there be a net benefit to that kind of messaging?