Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

bls.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 566 posts

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#551

Post by alooPotato »

randomdata wrote: post #539
alooPotato wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone else feel like this is such a dumb way for the general public to track inflation. Like, a simple line chart with the X axis being time and the Y axis being the price of a basket of goods would be so much clearer

Is inflation (meaning CPI figures) meant for the general public? It's a useful economic tool, but not very relevant to the average Joe. I would think expansion of cost of living is what the general public is interested in, and for that they have to track their spending, and can do so in any way they see fit.

I'm in the general public. Basically anyone not in finance or economics I'd consider to be the general public. It's still important to know the trend to know how and where to invest your resource.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#552

Post by whimsicalism »

tomcam wrote: post #521
whimsicalism wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not start donating extra tax to repay any public school expenses you acrued as a child?

That’s bizarre but I’ll assume you don’t know how American public schools are paid for. It’s property tax, which is money the government takes from you when you own a house. Those property taxes were paid annually by definition.

The taxes used to forgive your loans were also paid for annually.

I am definitely familiar with how American public schools are funded (there are also federal funds in the mix).

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#553

Post by nerdponx »

Aunche wrote: post #293
eatsyourtacos wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I must be wrong, but I'll never understand why Coke needs that much advertising. Or anything "that well known". The argument is maybe they are that well known because of advertising, but I just don't think that's the case. Maybe for a crappy product, but not a good product. With Coke it's the quality (and consistency) of the product. I've never tasted anything "as good" as Coke. A new fresh cold can has a bit…

In blind taste tests, Coke performs about as well as Pepsi. However, people still overwhelmingly seem to like Coke, so it's really because they like the brand. If they reduced advertising, their brand will slowly be eroded.

In my case I am sure that I like Coke better because of the packaging and logo design. Red & white with an old-school cursive text focuses my brain on the spicy interesting flavors. The smooth blue Pepsi logo with the circular logo makes me focus on the sugar. That, and their various "look how cool and hip we are!" Pepsi ad campaigns over the decades always seemed goofy.

They could both stop advertising forever and I would still have those associations for the rest of my life.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#554

Post by nerdponx »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #229
tomcam wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why pay when interest is 0% and there’s no penalty for not paying? Just spitballing here… But maybe you should pay because you promised to pay it, the costs were borne by the vast majority of taxpayers who did not take out such loans, and because tradesmen and other perfectly deserving parties do not get access to such easy money?

> the costs were borne by the vast majority of taxpayers who did not take out such loans The sheer amount of interest I have paid, and will pay, on my student loans makes me think the costs will in fact be borne by me.

I also pay a great cost when a huge number of other people are stuck paying down debts they probably should never have taken on and/or became bad after the economy shifted and their income potential flattened out. It's not that different from bailing out a bank, except that the banks usually don't deserve the bailout on a moral level, while people with student loans generally do.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#555

Post by randomdata »

alooPotato wrote: post #551
randomdata wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is inflation (meaning CPI figures) meant for the general public? It's a useful economic tool, but not very relevant to the average Joe. I would think expansion of cost of living is what the general public is interested in, and for that they have to track their spending, and can do so in any way they see fit.

I'm in the general public. Basically anyone not in finance or economics I'd consider to be the general public. It's still important to know the trend to know how and where to invest your resource.

If you're utilizing the inflation figure, are you really the average Joe, and if you are utilizing that information are you really going to stop with the headline figure? Inflation is more nuanced than is captured in a single variable.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#556

Post by alooPotato »

randomdata wrote: post #555
alooPotato wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the general public. Basically anyone not in finance or economics I'd consider to be the general public. It's still important to know the trend to know how and where to invest your resource.

If you're utilizing the inflation figure, are you really the average Joe, and if you are utilizing that information are you really going to stop with the headline figure? Inflation is more nuanced than is captured in a single variable.

It's prob the reason the average Joe doesn't look at inflation - because its presented in the worst way possible.

I'm not trying to be the best investor or anything like that - but knowing the basic inflation trend I think would be useful to a large % of the population.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#557

Post by dlp211 »

concordDance wrote: post #538
dlp211 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THere is nothing that says that we ever have to pay off the debt. Debt can, and has continued to accrue to this nation since its founding. It is middle school thinking that debt incurred today must be "paid by our children". It's just not at all how the national debt works...like at all.

So when bond holders come by wanting their money do you not give it to them (defaulting) or do you just issue more (inflating)? Because those are your two options. Note also that investors eventually get wise to inflation and start putting their money in gold or somesuch.

We issue more bonds. And because we do issue the bonds and don't simply print the money, it is non-inflationary. This is because there is an asset backing the dollars instead of simply paying out the money, ie: the accounting book is balanced, there is an asset and a liability. It's only when you print money and give it away is the money inflationary. This is why we can continue to increase M1 and not see massive inflation. As the overall economy grows, there are more assets available to back the currency.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#558

Post by dlp211 »

Auracle wrote: post #344
dlp211 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The myth is that inflation was caused primarily by this. It wasn't. Inflation is being driven by a combination of factors, the biggest being supply chain and war in Europe.

Inflation was plenty high before the war: https://www.statista.com/statistics/273418/unadjusted-monthl...

Yes, and the war has exacerbated, hence why I said a combination. The war, the supply chain, increased savings, government payments, corporate attitude. All of them have contributed, the supply chain, the war, and corporate attitude have contributed the most.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#559

Post by kmonsen »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #497
kmonsen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the thing that makes me question the whole Keynesian/ interest rate setting problem, you cannot know if you are living in good times are bad times. That requires knowledge of the future. Let’s say all of this is due to the war in Russia, or in some alternate reality China carpet bombs Taiwan, if you thought you were living in bad times before the event you are in for a rude awakening. It’s the same as black sw…

You know if unemployment is low and the economy is having solid growth at the time.

You mean like right now?

I understand this is a bit snarky, but I think it perfectly makes my point clear. By some metrics right now looks like a golden age, by other metrics it looks like staring into the abyss.

Re: US annual inflation declines to 7.7% in October vs. 7.9% expected

#560

Post by prepend »

tekknik wrote: post #430
prepend wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason you’ve ever drank a coke is because of these ads. Do you think you’re immune to ads? Or that ads don’t work at all? I think it’s reasonable that you’ve never seen an ad and consciously bought a coke, but that’s rarely the point of coke. We’re not aware of all our subconscious motivations. I’d like to be, but it’s usually pretty hard for me to understand why I do things at a deep level.

> The only reason you’ve ever drank a coke is because of these ads. This isn’t true in all cases. When I first drank a coke I was very young and wasn’t even aware of advertising. The first coke I drank was because my parents took me to McDonalds and that’s all they sell. Then I found I preferred it over Pepsi. Advertising had very little to do with my first coke, it was more contracts with fast food companies.

> This isn’t true in all cases. When I first drank a coke I was very young and wasn’t even aware of advertising.

Your parents were. Or whoever it was that bought that coke.

Post reply on HN