5 ms·

It is important to note that these numbers are NOT inflation adjusted. How much of a difference does this make? Actually fairly significant. 1 USD in 2000 is th

by lquist 11y ago

It is important to note that these numbers are NOT inflation adjusted. How much of a difference does this make? Actually fairly significant. 1 USD in 2000 is the equivalent of .73 USD in 2015. So VC investment still needs to increase by 37% to equal Q1FY2000 in inflation-adjusted terms. Source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Edit: Thanks gkop

gkop 11y ago
Do you mean to note that these numbers are not inflation adjusted?
dlokshin 11y ago
This added to real GDP being more than 25% higher than it was in 2000, makes this surprising in the opposite way than the article's intent (to me, at least)
MCRed 11y ago
CPI dramatically understates inflation, because non-compressible, and non-substitutable items are excluded (such as fuel.) The basket of CPI goods is arbitrary and changed from time to time to massage the numbers, and the things that would show inflation the best are excluded from the calculation. Unfortunately, the correct measure of inflation is monetary inflation, but the fed stopped publishing the numbers to derive that over a decade ago-- about the point when inflation was regularly exceeding %10 a year. At this point, to be honest, with the FOMC's efforts to "manage" the "markets", which really means, manipulating the economy to make the Fed's inflationary policies seem less damaging, and the fed's direct monetization of treasuries (an open secret) the economy is pretty highly distorted. This makes these kinds of comparisons wrong, but it also means the economy itself is in a bubble because the distortion obscure the true price of money leading to mal investment. Eventually this will no longer be sustainable.
rgbrenner 11y ago
So VC investment still needs to increase by 37% to equal Q1FY2000 Not according to the money tree report which says q1-2000 was 28b. So VC investment would still need to more than double to match it. https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHistoricTrend https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHisto...

by lquist 11y ago

gkop 11y ago

Do you mean to note that these numbers are not inflation adjusted?

dlokshin 11y ago

This added to real GDP being more than 25% higher than it was in 2000, makes this surprising in the opposite way than the article's intent (to me, at least)

MCRed 11y ago

CPI dramatically understates inflation, because non-compressible, and non-substitutable items are excluded (such as fuel.) The basket of CPI goods is arbitrary and changed from time to time to massage the numbers, and the things that would show inflation the best are excluded from the calculation. Unfortunately, the correct measure of inflation is monetary inflation, but the fed stopped publishing the numbers to derive that over a decade ago-- about the point when inflation was regularly exceeding %10 a year. At this point, to be honest, with the FOMC's efforts to "manage" the "markets", which really means, manipulating the economy to make the Fed's inflationary policies seem less damaging, and the fed's direct monetization of treasuries (an open secret) the economy is pretty highly distorted. This makes these kinds of comparisons wrong, but it also means the economy itself is in a bubble because the distortion obscure the true price of money leading to mal investment. Eventually this will no longer be sustainable.

rgbrenner 11y ago

So VC investment still needs to increase by 37% to equal Q1FY2000 Not according to the money tree report which says q1-2000 was 28b. So VC investment would still need to more than double to match it. https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHistoricTrend https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHisto...