The Ultimate Guide to Inflation

Post by ClumsyPilot » Tue, May 11, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

bananabreakfast wrote: post #344

maxsilver wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Midwest US can assure you that they've definitely already tried this. We're literally mowing down every cornfield for housing here (I'm typing this from a neighborhood with thousands of units, 90% of all buildings here were built after 2012). It never works, prices are still at an all-time high, even for units on the market 6+ months or longer. "Just building more" alone isn't ever going to lower prices enough to…

You can't say it never works because your definition of "works" is completely off base. The population is continuously growing. We must build housing as fast as it grows to just maintain parity, and even faster to reduce prices. Saying building new houses doesn't work to lower prices is like being in a boat taking on water and after throwing a couple buckets of water overboard saying "bailing out water doesn't work"…

Post by 988747 » Tue, May 11, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #205

forgithubs wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot to specify that the 100 million is entirely printed money. Whatever the way you see it, that 100 million of buying power should not exist and eventually ends up lifting the prices of normal goods just with the economic activity it generates.

i mean, if you claim that $100 million was printed, then regardless of whether it's netflix or something else, it may increase inflation. But the thing is, there hasn't been that much money printed by the FEDs or the US gov't. The stimulus cheques are not money printing, but money borrowing - a major difference. Borrowed money needs to be paid back, and so there may be temporary inflation caused by said stimulus, but…

Post by CRConrad » Tue, May 11, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #279

shkkmo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US does really well at high end care. It does less well in terms of overall agregate health outcomes. As I recall last time I saw a really good analysis if this posted to HN, You have to take into account a few other risk factors (obesity etc) in addition (to how infant mortality it reported) to get the US health outcomes inline with other developed nation. Even then, the US ends up paying way more to achieve tha…

>>You have to take into account a few other risk factors (obesity etc) i I disagree, we have a free society, and one of my concerns about a government run health care system is that it would allow encroachments upon that freedom. I do not need or want a parent via the government. I neither need nor want the government passing laws to control what food I eat, how much food I eat, or what health choices I make The ques…

Post by CRConrad » Tue, May 11, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

ur-whale wrote: post #255

imtringued wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's the long term solution. The short term solution is to stop all trade deficits and let your country suffer over the long term.

Krugman would be proud.

Post by alex_smart » Tue, May 11, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #343

alex_smart wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might sound an odd way to phrase things, but it was both more fine-grained and more meaningful than your rephrasing. The average Indian earns less than 4 dollars a day. The average Indian still buys their shampoo in little 5ml sachets that cost 2cents because they can't afford the full bottle even though buying the full bottle would be cheaper in the long run. So, the average Indian definitely can't afford to pay…

I wonder how that compares to the financial demographics of China? I had the impression they were bringing more citizens up into the lower-middle class, but I might have just uncritically accepted some spin.