551–560 of 961 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.4%? https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/inflation
The official inflation numbers do not appear to reflect people's significant worries that rent prices or health care cost (etc.) keep going up.
> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…
We're entering a potentially deflationary period. An aging demographic and technology create deflarionary pressure as people leave the workforce and technology improved efficiency. The Fed wants to create inflation. We know what's going to happen over time by observing germany and japan.
> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…
Exactly. Mainstream actually educated economists are right, not people hyperventilating about money printing. On top of what you said about the effect of printing making valuations high, only temporarily and only on paper, the opposite lack of printing, is actual redistribution towards the rich in a much more real and persistent way. Insufficiently inflationary money can be used as a way for the rich to withdraw from…
> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…
Is this not a bit of a false dichotomy though: "accommodative monetary policy" (as it is done), or nothing? There are numerous different ways we could achieve "accommodative monetary policy", each of which would have different outcomes.
> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…
The article that this thread is based off of is literally the opposite take from my original post. The article claims that America's 1% is responsible for the wealth inequality. That is why I posted my comment. My opinion, and the "majority" opinion according to you, is that wealth inequality is because of Fed policies, not the 1% boogey-man. The people protesting are not protesting the Fed. No institution (i.e. medi…
> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…
The article that this thread is based off of is literally the opposite take from my original post. The article claims that America's 1% is responsible for the wealth inequality. That is why I posted my comment. My opinion, and the "majority" opinion according to you, is that wealth inequality is because of Fed policies, not the 1% boogey-man. The people protesting are not protesting the Fed. No institution (i.e. medi…
So how do you explain everything that happened on the wealth inequality front from the 1970s up to the financial crisis of 2009?
I don't agree with everything in the original article either, but many of the points it made are correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this must be why Bitcoin has no inflation.
Not really. You could invest in real estate or stocks or gold or just about anything other than cash and also dodge the effects of currency inflation. Remember: Inflation is defined as rising price. If you hold cash, that's a problem. If you hold inflating assets, then it's largely neutral. If you have taken out cash-denominated loans to purchase inflating assets (e.g. a mortgage for a house), you actually benefit fr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Save the people (using unemployment) and ditch the hollow husks of marginal companies that have rotted from within? Dumb idea: maybe if you had a published interest rate schedule that planned out 10 years, 15 years, whatever. So everyone knew what the bond/loan base interest rates would look like for the next 15 years. years 0 - 7: base interest rate ramps up from 3% now to 10% years 8 - 15: base interest rate ramps…
This seems sort of like what the Fed intends to do now, only with maybe lower rates overall - 0 for a few years, ramping to a target of 2 or 3, but I guess no real guidance after that. Unfortunately the Fed has pretty blunt tools, even after their upgrade back in March 2020. Using some of the surplus wealth from the asset holding class (top half of the K) to implement UBI, healthcare education, for the class that has…
The big problem with bottom up is that you need a lot of it to continue the money supply expansion, and money created that is given to spenders as opposed to savers triggers inflation at drastically higher rates.
> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…
This narrative also has the effect of deflecting attention from other policies which contribute towards inequality an awful lot more. It's not like the majority of recorded history on the Gold Standard was noted for the bottom 90% enjoying relatively large shares of national wealth and income security.
Ah yes, the famous cabal of 1 percenters sitting around and committing grand larceny as they raid the bank accounts of poor people. At least that's what this headline would have you believe. The reality is much more boring. Thanks to "math," they've determined that if the ratio of incomes from 1945-1974 held steady , the bottom 90% would have "more" than they do now. Of course the bottom 90% itself is a fantasy and y…
Let's get something out of the way, it's not the 1 percenters that make things for us, it's the engineers, the programmers, the developers, the physicists, the biologists, the chemists, the grad students and every other poor soul grinding for progress on a computer screen in exchange for basic decency. Why is it that nearly every company that puts first the shareholders ends up pooping the bed? Because the shareholde…
I think it's more likely because shareholders typically don't care much for the long term.