4 ms·

> driving is getting considerably more expensive driven by more expensive cars and fuel I'm at a loss. I literally showed you a graph showing that cars were g

by ajross 1y ago

> driving is getting considerably more expensive driven by more expensive cars and fuel I'm at a loss. I literally showed you a graph showing that cars were getting cheaper over time. Do you not believe it, or maybe misunderstand what inflation is? You can chart new car price vs. median income too, it shows the same shape. Fuel's a little more complicated. It's gone up in the last decade, but was going down in the 60's through 90's (not least because cars were getting more efficient). There was a trough in the late 90's.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
> I literally showed you a graph showing that cars were getting cheaper over time. You're literally wrong. The graph shows only that cars are getting more expensive over time just not as mush as gas. > You can chart new car price vs. median income too, it shows the same shape. Shape? Median? Not good enough. I want to see the price piloted against each decile of income. > Do you not believe it, or maybe misunderstand what inflation is? Inflation is a tax imposed by one group on another. Maybe you misunderstand what it is?
- ajross 1y ago
  > The graph shows only that cars are getting more expensive over time just not as mush as gas. Gas isn't on the chart. It's showing the ratio between the auto segment of CPI (how expensive "a car" is) to the broader CPI metric (how expensive everything else is, on average). And it's going down. I strongly suggest you think harder on the subject and study the chart (and FRED more generally) a bit. > Inflation is a tax imposed by one group on another. Yikes. Cite for that definition?
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    As for inflation being a tax, I always thought it obvious? You have person A - who cannot set inflation and with severely limited opportunity to invest anywhere. You have person B - who can invest in anything and also happens to influence the level of inflation. Guess who is going to get ahead here.
    - ajross 1y ago
      Does person A have a home? Then A, 100%. Regular citizens can get non-inflation-indexed, heavily-government-subsidized loans at leverage ratios[1] institutional investors could never dream of. And that's a better inflation hedge than almost anything. The home value inflates but your mortgage payments stay the same for decades. The inability of people, even otherwise smart HN commenters, to reason about how inflation works has been really shocking to me. [1] Literally 5x their net worth, or "20% down" in the local jargon
      - actionfromafar 1y ago
        You probably meant own a home.
        ajross 1y ago
        I do, yes. A quick google shows 65% of US households are occupant-owned (with most of those being mortgaged, though I'm too lazy to do a full accounting). I think the point about "regular" people and inflation is apt and I stand by it. I have a strong suspicion that you aren't actually making an economic point.
      - bigbadfeline 1y ago
        > Does person A have a home? Maybe but either way, person A CANNOT set the price of anything because a house is not a productive asset, it does NOT produce anything that you can attach a new price to. The rich asset owners can, they can drive prices up and gain from both ends of the inflation scam. > The home value inflates but your mortgage payments stay the same for decades. Literally untrue for variable mortgages that are now the rule. More importantly, it's absolutely irrelevant at any scale for the reasons cited above and because inflating house prices don't protect from inflation - you pay a huge tax on housing for just being there, which isn't the case for the rich asset owners. Sales taxes are separate. Then if the house goes up in price and you sell it, old and depreciated, you will have to buy another one at an inflated price, or go homeless, or live in an moldy old hose again that'll cost you a lot more for medical bills. > The inability of people, even otherwise smart HN commenters, to reason about how inflation been really shocking to me. The inability of people, who otherwise think themselves smart at economics, to reason about anything has never been shocking to me, it goes way back in history. Their "reasoning" amounts only to lame gaslighting attempts and they can never get out of that mode of thinking. You never mentioned anything about the income curves by decile - inflation is a redistribution tool, it results in increasing income inequality which we observe. I gave you the explanation for that correlation.

by ajross 1y ago

bigbadfeline 1y ago

> I literally showed you a graph showing that cars were getting cheaper over time. You're literally wrong. The graph shows only that cars are getting more expensive over time just not as mush as gas. > You can chart new car price vs. median income too, it shows the same shape. Shape? Median? Not good enough. I want to see the price piloted against each decile of income. > Do you not believe it, or maybe misunderstand what inflation is? Inflation is a tax imposed by one group on another. Maybe you misunderstand what it is?

ajross 1y ago
> The graph shows only that cars are getting more expensive over time just not as mush as gas. Gas isn't on the chart. It's showing the ratio between the auto segment of CPI (how expensive "a car" is) to the broader CPI metric (how expensive everything else is, on average). And it's going down. I strongly suggest you think harder on the subject and study the chart (and FRED more generally) a bit. > Inflation is a tax imposed by one group on another. Yikes. Cite for that definition?
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  As for inflation being a tax, I always thought it obvious? You have person A - who cannot set inflation and with severely limited opportunity to invest anywhere. You have person B - who can invest in anything and also happens to influence the level of inflation. Guess who is going to get ahead here.
  - ajross 1y ago
    Does person A have a home? Then A, 100%. Regular citizens can get non-inflation-indexed, heavily-government-subsidized loans at leverage ratios[1] institutional investors could never dream of. And that's a better inflation hedge than almost anything. The home value inflates but your mortgage payments stay the same for decades. The inability of people, even otherwise smart HN commenters, to reason about how inflation works has been really shocking to me. [1] Literally 5x their net worth, or "20% down" in the local jargon
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      You probably meant own a home.
      - ajross 1y ago
        I do, yes. A quick google shows 65% of US households are occupant-owned (with most of those being mortgaged, though I'm too lazy to do a full accounting). I think the point about "regular" people and inflation is apt and I stand by it. I have a strong suspicion that you aren't actually making an economic point.
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      > Does person A have a home? Maybe but either way, person A CANNOT set the price of anything because a house is not a productive asset, it does NOT produce anything that you can attach a new price to. The rich asset owners can, they can drive prices up and gain from both ends of the inflation scam. > The home value inflates but your mortgage payments stay the same for decades. Literally untrue for variable mortgages that are now the rule. More importantly, it's absolutely irrelevant at any scale for the reasons cited above and because inflating house prices don't protect from inflation - you pay a huge tax on housing for just being there, which isn't the case for the rich asset owners. Sales taxes are separate. Then if the house goes up in price and you sell it, old and depreciated, you will have to buy another one at an inflated price, or go homeless, or live in an moldy old hose again that'll cost you a lot more for medical bills. > The inability of people, even otherwise smart HN commenters, to reason about how inflation been really shocking to me. The inability of people, who otherwise think themselves smart at economics, to reason about anything has never been shocking to me, it goes way back in history. Their "reasoning" amounts only to lame gaslighting attempts and they can never get out of that mode of thinking. You never mentioned anything about the income curves by decile - inflation is a redistribution tool, it results in increasing income inequality which we observe. I gave you the explanation for that correlation.