7 ms·

It's easy to check BLS inflation against old ads for goods and see that BLS inflation is pretty spot on. I've yet to meet someone claiming "massive understated

It's easy to check BLS inflation against old ads for goods and see that BLS inflation is pretty spot on. I've yet to meet someone claiming "massive understated inflation" that has done this simple check honestly. As to the claim that "fiat currencies are fleeting," it is a fact every country of 200+ has one, so it's safer to say every non-fiat currency has failed. There's also significant empirical evidence such economies are on the whole less volatile than older ones limited by how fast one can dig material out of a hole. See a list of severity and frequency of US recessions, or study the Great Moderation, or simply look at the volatility of gold prices, to see how unstable non-fiat pricing is.

djtango 2y ago
Have you ever noticed how inflation metrics are always finding ways to ignore how housing and rent has gone up much faster than wages? Pretty much all the important things in life have gone up more than stated inflation. I don't care that I can get a cheap very environmentally unsustainable cardigan for less than ever before. Likewise for a watery nutrition-less tomato. Meanwhile education, housing and healthcare are the least affordable they've ever been. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
- randomdata 2y ago
  Inflation isn't a cost of living metric, it is an attempt to determine change in value of the currency. A change in value of, say, housing is independent to a change in value of the currency. And housing is undeniably more valuable than it once was for a long list of factors. If you want to understand cost of living, just look at your personal bookkeeping. It will paint the most accurate picture. There isn't much to be gained in reporting cost of living in the news – unless you think aliens on some far away planet will take interest a thousand years from now when the signal arrives at their location.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    CPI is the most commonly cited inflation metric, and it is actually a cost of living metric. We could also use the velocity of money plus money supply stats, but that is very hard to relate to. Housing might be somewhat more valuable than it used to be, but the extreme valuation swings we've seen in the last 20 years were due to monetary policy and macroeconomic conditions, and not actual demand. Or I should say, demand for housing is always proportional to population. It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It just can't be acted on.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > and it is actually a cost of living metric. It is not. A CPI measures the change in cost of a fixed basket of goods. A COLI measures a change in cost of a fixed level of "well-being". > It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It is like that. That's literally what defines demand. Perhaps you have confused "demand" with "desire"? They do share the same first couple of letters.
      - Teever 2y ago
        Why is economics stuff so hard? Like I swear to god I see variants of this thread almost every other day where someone is like 'i think that this economic thing is broken' and someone else comes along and is like 'no,no, you're just holding it wrong -- The thing you want to use to do this is...'. And despite witnessing this kind of encounter regularly I'm no more informed about economics. I've taken two first year econ courses and I still don't feel informed about it. Why is it that all too often economics discussions get further and further away from some objective measurement of reality and turn into semantics arguments over what obscurely named things like M1 and M2 or CPI actually even mean to me anyway? Is there like an authoritative source that defines all of these things and has a recent dataset of verified data to work work? Like what's the lib-economy or python package for economic stuff?
        randomdata 2y ago
        > Why is economics stuff so hard? The basics aren't hard. But also not particularly useful outside of the work of economists. That is no doubt the problem you keep seeing: 'i think that this economic thing is broken [because I cannot find any applicability in my daily life]'. Economics can become hard as it is ultimately a study of human (possibly animal) behaviour, and these creatures seem erratic to our limited understanding.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>It's easy to check BLS inflation against old ads for goods and see that BLS inflation is pretty spot on. I've yet to meet someone claiming "massive understated inflation" that has done this simple check honestly. When property values blow up 50% in a year or two and people pay $20k+ over sticker for cars, it's not "supply chain issues" nor 8% inflation dude. I have looked at old ads for stuff, and the difference is that now the same goods are manufactured for 1/10th the cost overseas and somehow cost way more anyway or at best roughly the same price as before. The BLS has a very complex scheme for understating inflation that involves substitutions, hypothetical costs, and other gimmicks. It wasn't always so fishy but the change was made to make the economy look better. I could argue with you at length about details but I can tell it will not be productive. >As to the claim that "fiat currencies are fleeting," it is a fact every country of 200+ has one, so it's safer to say every non-fiat currency has failed. Gold and silver are valuable everywhere and have been since they were first discovered many thousands of years ago. So your claim is utterly false. Every fiat currency that has existed has gone to zero, as well as any that were based on claims of redeemability. >See a list of severity and frequency of US recessions, or study the Great Moderation, or simply look at the volatility of gold prices, to see how unstable non-fiat pricing is. Gold prices are only volatile in terms of dollars, due to speculation in the futures market. The banks and governments play games with gold prices to discourage investors from seeking it. There are some cyclical or geopolitical factors in it too. But as JP Morgan said, "Gold is money. Everything else is credit." It can be manipulated but not nearly as much as fiat.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  > I have looked at old ads for stuff, and the difference is that now the same goods are manufactured for 1/10th the cost overseas and somehow cost way more anyway or at best roughly the same price as before If you believe this is the general reason, then you should invest in all these companies making 80+% profits and get the amazing returns. Oh yeah, those companies don't exit, maybe because the claimed reason doesn't exist. > Gold prices are only volatile in terms of dollars, due to speculation in the futures market That's nonsense. Gold has always been far more volatile than goods, which is precisely the reason the world saw the incontrovertible evidence during the Great Depression, which is why all of the 200+ countries on the planet left it as a standard. If it were some magical better way, then surely at least one of the 200+ countries would do it and win, but it has been clear nearly a century what a bad idea it is. > Every fiat currency that has existed has gone to zero, Well, there's 200ish of them that exist right now above zero. And guess what? Every single non-fiat currency has failed, since there are zero left. You can keep claiming otherwise but this is reality. > Gold and silver are valuable everywhere and have been since they were first discovered many thousands of years ago. So are cattle and a zillion other old goods. That does not make them a good currency or a basis for an economy. Tying your economy growth to the rate you can dig up gold is also a reason that those thousands of years saw economic growth at a fraction of a percent. When mankind realized the stupidity of limiting growth in all areas to the growth in digging up gold, and detached the two, economic growth greatly increased. You cannot invest in new production, inventions, and goods, without having capital. Limiting capital, i.e., gold supply, results in lower growth.

djtango 2y ago

Have you ever noticed how inflation metrics are always finding ways to ignore how housing and rent has gone up much faster than wages? Pretty much all the important things in life have gone up more than stated inflation. I don't care that I can get a cheap very environmentally unsustainable cardigan for less than ever before. Likewise for a watery nutrition-less tomato. Meanwhile education, housing and healthcare are the least affordable they've ever been. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

randomdata 2y ago
Inflation isn't a cost of living metric, it is an attempt to determine change in value of the currency. A change in value of, say, housing is independent to a change in value of the currency. And housing is undeniably more valuable than it once was for a long list of factors. If you want to understand cost of living, just look at your personal bookkeeping. It will paint the most accurate picture. There isn't much to be gained in reporting cost of living in the news – unless you think aliens on some far away planet will take interest a thousand years from now when the signal arrives at their location.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  CPI is the most commonly cited inflation metric, and it is actually a cost of living metric. We could also use the velocity of money plus money supply stats, but that is very hard to relate to. Housing might be somewhat more valuable than it used to be, but the extreme valuation swings we've seen in the last 20 years were due to monetary policy and macroeconomic conditions, and not actual demand. Or I should say, demand for housing is always proportional to population. It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It just can't be acted on.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > and it is actually a cost of living metric. It is not. A CPI measures the change in cost of a fixed basket of goods. A COLI measures a change in cost of a fixed level of "well-being". > It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It is like that. That's literally what defines demand. Perhaps you have confused "demand" with "desire"? They do share the same first couple of letters.
    - Teever 2y ago
      Why is economics stuff so hard? Like I swear to god I see variants of this thread almost every other day where someone is like 'i think that this economic thing is broken' and someone else comes along and is like 'no,no, you're just holding it wrong -- The thing you want to use to do this is...'. And despite witnessing this kind of encounter regularly I'm no more informed about economics. I've taken two first year econ courses and I still don't feel informed about it. Why is it that all too often economics discussions get further and further away from some objective measurement of reality and turn into semantics arguments over what obscurely named things like M1 and M2 or CPI actually even mean to me anyway? Is there like an authoritative source that defines all of these things and has a recent dataset of verified data to work work? Like what's the lib-economy or python package for economic stuff?
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > Why is economics stuff so hard? The basics aren't hard. But also not particularly useful outside of the work of economists. That is no doubt the problem you keep seeing: 'i think that this economic thing is broken [because I cannot find any applicability in my daily life]'. Economics can become hard as it is ultimately a study of human (possibly animal) behaviour, and these creatures seem erratic to our limited understanding.

wakawaka28 2y ago

>It's easy to check BLS inflation against old ads for goods and see that BLS inflation is pretty spot on. I've yet to meet someone claiming "massive understated inflation" that has done this simple check honestly. When property values blow up 50% in a year or two and people pay $20k+ over sticker for cars, it's not "supply chain issues" nor 8% inflation dude. I have looked at old ads for stuff, and the difference is that now the same goods are manufactured for 1/10th the cost overseas and somehow cost way more anyway or at best roughly the same price as before. The BLS has a very complex scheme for understating inflation that involves substitutions, hypothetical costs, and other gimmicks. It wasn't always so fishy but the change was made to make the economy look better. I could argue with you at length about details but I can tell it will not be productive. >As to the claim that "fiat currencies are fleeting," it is a fact every country of 200+ has one, so it's safer to say every non-fiat currency has failed. Gold and silver are valuable everywhere and have been since they were first discovered many thousands of years ago. So your claim is utterly false. Every fiat currency that has existed has gone to zero, as well as any that were based on claims of redeemability. >See a list of severity and frequency of US recessions, or study the Great Moderation, or simply look at the volatility of gold prices, to see how unstable non-fiat pricing is. Gold prices are only volatile in terms of dollars, due to speculation in the futures market. The banks and governments play games with gold prices to discourage investors from seeking it. There are some cyclical or geopolitical factors in it too. But as JP Morgan said, "Gold is money. Everything else is credit." It can be manipulated but not nearly as much as fiat.

SideQuark 2y ago
> I have looked at old ads for stuff, and the difference is that now the same goods are manufactured for 1/10th the cost overseas and somehow cost way more anyway or at best roughly the same price as before If you believe this is the general reason, then you should invest in all these companies making 80+% profits and get the amazing returns. Oh yeah, those companies don't exit, maybe because the claimed reason doesn't exist. > Gold prices are only volatile in terms of dollars, due to speculation in the futures market That's nonsense. Gold has always been far more volatile than goods, which is precisely the reason the world saw the incontrovertible evidence during the Great Depression, which is why all of the 200+ countries on the planet left it as a standard. If it were some magical better way, then surely at least one of the 200+ countries would do it and win, but it has been clear nearly a century what a bad idea it is. > Every fiat currency that has existed has gone to zero, Well, there's 200ish of them that exist right now above zero. And guess what? Every single non-fiat currency has failed, since there are zero left. You can keep claiming otherwise but this is reality. > Gold and silver are valuable everywhere and have been since they were first discovered many thousands of years ago. So are cattle and a zillion other old goods. That does not make them a good currency or a basis for an economy. Tying your economy growth to the rate you can dig up gold is also a reason that those thousands of years saw economic growth at a fraction of a percent. When mankind realized the stupidity of limiting growth in all areas to the growth in digging up gold, and detached the two, economic growth greatly increased. You cannot invest in new production, inventions, and goods, without having capital. Limiting capital, i.e., gold supply, results in lower growth.