331–340 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, most individual consumers and businesses spend more when inflation is unexpectedly high.
They try to reign in spending, but end up spending more (in nominal, but not necessarily real, terms). Please don't misinterpret what I wrote!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That changes nothing. Finland refused to pay. Most of the European companies adopted the new scheme within their current contracts, so it was a technical thing. Russia just needed to be paid in currency that can not be stolen by some lunatic government.
It was not just a technical thing... it was unilateral change of a legal contract and blackmail by Russian regime that yet again demonstrated clearly that contracts and treaties mean nothing to it.
Even freezing of central bank accounts is basically the unilateral unlawful change of contract.
Finland broke the contract with russian railroads, with russian electric providers, it cancelled the contract with RosAtom.
Additionally it started the process of joining NATO, which effectively breaks the peace treaty of 1948.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't EU freeze all Russian dollar accounts? That basically means Russia never gets those dollar payments. Why would it keep delivering gas for free? Does that "contract" even mean anything then? By switching to rubles Russia actually helped EU nations with a legal way to keep paying for gas.
No, EU has not sanctiond _all_ Russian banks. IIRC the reason was that some counties in the EU still needed to keep paying for gas. If you fuck up and get your bank account frozen that does not mean that you don’t have to pay your morgage or that you can pay it with monopoly money. Also there is a big difference between freezing access to a bank account and taking ownership of the funds.
No it’s not so big, because freezing can be unlimited in time and you can’t use that money. What point of having money on account if you can not use them? These are just numbers on the screen.
If your account can be frozen any time by the bank, it means you don’t really own the money, and the bank is not trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The oil crisis coincided with US inflation, but was not the cause: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-gre... TLDR quote: > The Great Inflation was blamed on oil prices, currency speculators, greedy businessmen, and avaricious union leaders. However, it is clear that monetary policies that financed massive budget deficits and were supported by political leaders were the cause.
Yes, I know about Milton Friedman's quote that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. He was oh so very wrong about most things: https://evonomics.com/the-truth-about-inflation-why-milton-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was not just a technical thing... it was unilateral change of a legal contract and blackmail by Russian regime that yet again demonstrated clearly that contracts and treaties mean nothing to it.
Actually all the sanctions from the west are unilateral change to thousands of contracts, and expropriation of russian assets is straightforward stealing. Even freezing of central bank accounts is basically the unilateral unlawful change of contract. Finland broke the contract with russian railroads, with russian electric providers, it cancelled the contract with RosAtom. Additionally it started the process of joinin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but for me there should be two types of inflations 1. a dilution of money Outside of the fact that "some people say" (generally anti-fed types) that inflation is an increase in the money supply, why is it you think that? In economics inflation has a specific definition: a general rise in the price level. It can be caused by all kinds of things. A rapid rise in the money supply is one. A breakdown in available suppl…
The old Milton Friedman quote is still true, as far as we know: > “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” What has changed it that "the quantity of money" has become much harder to figure out. > all prices will be higher, but salary will be higher too Salaries are the price of labor. A…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like you look at these things as if you just shift numbers around on an excel sheet. There is still physics and geography involved here. German industry is already hardly competitive in terms of price, what do you think happens when those raw materials are 10 times more expensive? Now there is a price crunch for LNG tanker charters further pushing up prices. Also it's so disingenuous. Indians are now refining…
With oil the solution is trivial. Switch to electrical cars while generating electricity for them with modern efficient coal plants using German coal. Not only it will be cheaper and reduce geopolitical risks, but it will drop CO2 emission as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> gas is expensive, but freedom is priceless. Typical politicians excuse, tbh. It's not like this has any relation to actual freedoms, only bs political slogans.
Not being under Russian occupation seems like freedom to me. Although that's mostly due to NATO membership not sanctions.
Sure it sucks when one invades another one and there are reasons to prefer one vs another (eg. I'd rather be in EU than in Russia or China; I'd rather be in the Bahamas than in EU) but the people's freedom is limited under any government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. If you notice, the second and third place are taken by Lithuania and Latvia respectively. A lot of 'cheapness' in all kinds of sectors came from RUS/UKR/BEL somewhere upstream. Building materials being a prime example. So, a combined effect of energy prices, sanctions on RUS, a war raging in Ukraine. But then, as Estonian prime minister said recently - sure, gas is expensive, but freedom is priceless.
> gas is expensive, but freedom is priceless. Typical politicians excuse, tbh. It's not like this has any relation to actual freedoms, only bs political slogans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they do that? Isn't that setting them up for a pension crisis in the future?
Because people are shortsighted and want a new TV/car/apartment RIGHT NOW. Also, there's a certain mistrust of the pension scheme and people think that the money in their pension accounts will be gone anyway by the time they reach the pension age.
Perhaps because it's true. In my relatively short life, the retirement age went up by over 5 years, and by the time I reach it it's going to go up by at least another 5 years. And let me tell you, there's no chance in hell I'm retiring at 70. A conservative fund would 'outperform' any government pension system in the long term.
Remember, the pension system was devised in a time where a lot of people died before the pension age. It is impossible for the pensions to keep up without overtaxing the young or increasing the pension age.
On top of that, you may contribute north of 100k in your lifetime towards your pension 'fund' that you will never see if you die a day before retirement (as my father did).
Not to mention the fact that there's no actual pension 'fund', not up to the full amount at least (or anywhere near). Most of the funds I pay in today will be paid out to pensioneers tomorrow.