Average SD family 2000 vs 2010

[CA renter]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jstoesz]you can not answer that question for yourself? I am curious what you are looking for here.

If you have 3 times the monetary base chasing the same number of goods. You have a currency worth a third as much.

Obviously, it gets way more complicated than that on the ground especially when you consider all the deflationary pressures, but that is the basic logical barebones…

It seems to me that increasing the monetary base by 3X, can be hidden for only a short time…[/quote]

My point is that the monetary base is not chasing anything at the present time. The monetary base is an abstract number. You don’t have any milk-drinkers whose disposable income has gone up 3x as a result of changes in that abstract number.

If you were to talk about M2 per capita instead of the monetary base, I might agree with you (conditionally) … but M2 per capita has not tripled, it has only gone up 4% in two years.

Hence, the claim that the Fed has destroyed anyone’s purchasing power, or even caused inflation in the price of milk, remains unproven.[/quote]

Eugene,

You can’t just look at the narrow definition of CPI and say, “Look, no inflation!”

You have to look globally, and at EVERYTHING that money can buy at a given point in time. Today, your money can buy far, far less than it could two years ago, and that’s a fact.

I don’t care about the price of milk alone; I’m looking at the bigger picture. As stated above, stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, even housing (especially when you consider where prices **should be** without govt/Fed intervention)…almost everything costs more today in USD than it did two years ago. Right now, that money is chasing assets all around the world. At some point, it will likely creep into the goods that CPI calculates (it already is).

I think it’s foolish for our CPI numbers to look at such a narrow “basket of goods” to determine whether or not there is inflation. As a matter of fact, if the CPI had taken asset prices into consideration as well, the inflation numbers during the bubble would have (hopefully) sounded the alarm much earlier than having to wait for the “financial crisis” to be officially noticed by the dolts who only look at CPI.

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jstoesz]you can not answer that question for yourself? I am curious what you are looking for here.

If you have 3 times the monetary base chasing the same number of goods. You have a currency worth a third as much.

Obviously, it gets way more complicated than that on the ground especially when you consider all the deflationary pressures, but that is the basic logical barebones…

It seems to me that increasing the monetary base by 3X, can be hidden for only a short time…[/quote]

My point is that the monetary base is not chasing anything at the present time. The monetary base is an abstract number. You don’t have any milk-drinkers whose disposable income has gone up 3x as a result of changes in that abstract number.

If you were to talk about M2 per capita instead of the monetary base, I might agree with you (conditionally) … but M2 per capita has not tripled, it has only gone up 4% in two years.

Hence, the claim that the Fed has destroyed anyone’s purchasing power, or even caused inflation in the price of milk, remains unproven.[/quote]

The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jstoesz]you can not answer that question for yourself? I am curious what you are looking for here.

If you have 3 times the monetary base chasing the same number of goods. You have a currency worth a third as much.

Obviously, it gets way more complicated than that on the ground especially when you consider all the deflationary pressures, but that is the basic logical barebones…

It seems to me that increasing the monetary base by 3X, can be hidden for only a short time…[/quote]

My point is that the monetary base is not chasing anything at the present time. The monetary base is an abstract number. You don’t have any milk-drinkers whose disposable income has gone up 3x as a result of changes in that abstract number.

If you were to talk about M2 per capita instead of the monetary base, I might agree with you (conditionally) … but M2 per capita has not tripled, it has only gone up 4% in two years.

Hence, the claim that the Fed has destroyed anyone’s purchasing power, or even caused inflation in the price of milk, remains unproven.[/quote]

The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jstoesz]you can not answer that question for yourself? I am curious what you are looking for here.

If you have 3 times the monetary base chasing the same number of goods. You have a currency worth a third as much.

Obviously, it gets way more complicated than that on the ground especially when you consider all the deflationary pressures, but that is the basic logical barebones…

It seems to me that increasing the monetary base by 3X, can be hidden for only a short time…[/quote]

My point is that the monetary base is not chasing anything at the present time. The monetary base is an abstract number. You don’t have any milk-drinkers whose disposable income has gone up 3x as a result of changes in that abstract number.

If you were to talk about M2 per capita instead of the monetary base, I might agree with you (conditionally) … but M2 per capita has not tripled, it has only gone up 4% in two years.

Hence, the claim that the Fed has destroyed anyone’s purchasing power, or even caused inflation in the price of milk, remains unproven.[/quote]

The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jstoesz]you can not answer that question for yourself? I am curious what you are looking for here.

If you have 3 times the monetary base chasing the same number of goods. You have a currency worth a third as much.

Obviously, it gets way more complicated than that on the ground especially when you consider all the deflationary pressures, but that is the basic logical barebones…

It seems to me that increasing the monetary base by 3X, can be hidden for only a short time…[/quote]

My point is that the monetary base is not chasing anything at the present time. The monetary base is an abstract number. You don’t have any milk-drinkers whose disposable income has gone up 3x as a result of changes in that abstract number.

If you were to talk about M2 per capita instead of the monetary base, I might agree with you (conditionally) … but M2 per capita has not tripled, it has only gone up 4% in two years.

Hence, the claim that the Fed has destroyed anyone’s purchasing power, or even caused inflation in the price of milk, remains unproven.[/quote]

The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=jstoesz]you can not answer that question for yourself? I am curious what you are looking for here.

If you have 3 times the monetary base chasing the same number of goods. You have a currency worth a third as much.

Obviously, it gets way more complicated than that on the ground especially when you consider all the deflationary pressures, but that is the basic logical barebones…

It seems to me that increasing the monetary base by 3X, can be hidden for only a short time…[/quote]

My point is that the monetary base is not chasing anything at the present time. The monetary base is an abstract number. You don’t have any milk-drinkers whose disposable income has gone up 3x as a result of changes in that abstract number.

If you were to talk about M2 per capita instead of the monetary base, I might agree with you (conditionally) … but M2 per capita has not tripled, it has only gone up 4% in two years.

Hence, the claim that the Fed has destroyed anyone’s purchasing power, or even caused inflation in the price of milk, remains unproven.[/quote]

The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.

[Eugene]

[quote=sobmaz]
The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.[/quote]

That newly created capital is not used to buy anything. It is not in the hands of people who do any real buying. It never leaves the vaults of financial institutions.

[Eugene]

[quote=sobmaz]
The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.[/quote]

That newly created capital is not used to buy anything. It is not in the hands of people who do any real buying. It never leaves the vaults of financial institutions.

[Eugene]

[quote=sobmaz]
The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.[/quote]

That newly created capital is not used to buy anything. It is not in the hands of people who do any real buying. It never leaves the vaults of financial institutions.

[Eugene]

[quote=sobmaz]
The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.[/quote]

That newly created capital is not used to buy anything. It is not in the hands of people who do any real buying. It never leaves the vaults of financial institutions.

[Eugene]

[quote=sobmaz]
The newly created capital is used to buy necessities, necessities that are increasingly made in Asia.

Mr. Ching Chong, is lifted out of poverty producing what we now fail to produce for ourselves. Mr. Chong, takes his new economic freedom and buys MILK. Hey buys oil.

So, your average guy isn’t getting more, however more people now have the means to buy world commodities.

The situation is, we can now create infinite amounts of capital out of thin air, lifting billions out of poverty but mother nature just won’t cooperate with that infinite word.

Prior to 1972, capital formation had limits.[/quote]

That newly created capital is not used to buy anything. It is not in the hands of people who do any real buying. It never leaves the vaults of financial institutions.

[Eugene]

[quote]You can’t just look at the narrow definition of CPI and say, “Look, no inflation!”

You have to look globally, and at EVERYTHING that money can buy at a given point in time. Today, your money can buy far, far less than it could two years ago, and that’s a fact. [/quote]

Did I say “no inflation”? I fully concur, some things got more expensive in two years. Stocks are up because they were undervalued in January 2009. Commodities are up because emerging economies are growing. Here’s industrial production in advanced & emerging economies:

[quote]I think it’s foolish for our CPI numbers to look at such a narrow “basket of goods” to determine whether or not there is inflation. As a matter of fact, if the CPI had taken asset prices into consideration as well, the inflation numbers during the bubble would have (hopefully) sounded the alarm much earlier than having to wait for the “financial crisis” to be officially noticed by the dolts who only look at CPI.[/quote]

There are many different reasons why you might want to measure the rate of inflation, and different reasons may require different definitions. People at the Fed who work on monetary policy use core CPI, which does not include food or asset prices, and there’s a good theoretical justification for that.

[Eugene]

[quote]You can’t just look at the narrow definition of CPI and say, “Look, no inflation!”

You have to look globally, and at EVERYTHING that money can buy at a given point in time. Today, your money can buy far, far less than it could two years ago, and that’s a fact. [/quote]

Did I say “no inflation”? I fully concur, some things got more expensive in two years. Stocks are up because they were undervalued in January 2009. Commodities are up because emerging economies are growing. Here’s industrial production in advanced & emerging economies:

[quote]I think it’s foolish for our CPI numbers to look at such a narrow “basket of goods” to determine whether or not there is inflation. As a matter of fact, if the CPI had taken asset prices into consideration as well, the inflation numbers during the bubble would have (hopefully) sounded the alarm much earlier than having to wait for the “financial crisis” to be officially noticed by the dolts who only look at CPI.[/quote]

There are many different reasons why you might want to measure the rate of inflation, and different reasons may require different definitions. People at the Fed who work on monetary policy use core CPI, which does not include food or asset prices, and there’s a good theoretical justification for that.

[Eugene]

[quote]You can’t just look at the narrow definition of CPI and say, “Look, no inflation!”

You have to look globally, and at EVERYTHING that money can buy at a given point in time. Today, your money can buy far, far less than it could two years ago, and that’s a fact. [/quote]

Did I say “no inflation”? I fully concur, some things got more expensive in two years. Stocks are up because they were undervalued in January 2009. Commodities are up because emerging economies are growing. Here’s industrial production in advanced & emerging economies:

[quote]I think it’s foolish for our CPI numbers to look at such a narrow “basket of goods” to determine whether or not there is inflation. As a matter of fact, if the CPI had taken asset prices into consideration as well, the inflation numbers during the bubble would have (hopefully) sounded the alarm much earlier than having to wait for the “financial crisis” to be officially noticed by the dolts who only look at CPI.[/quote]

There are many different reasons why you might want to measure the rate of inflation, and different reasons may require different definitions. People at the Fed who work on monetary policy use core CPI, which does not include food or asset prices, and there’s a good theoretical justification for that.

[Eugene]

[quote]You can’t just look at the narrow definition of CPI and say, “Look, no inflation!”

You have to look globally, and at EVERYTHING that money can buy at a given point in time. Today, your money can buy far, far less than it could two years ago, and that’s a fact. [/quote]

Did I say “no inflation”? I fully concur, some things got more expensive in two years. Stocks are up because they were undervalued in January 2009. Commodities are up because emerging economies are growing. Here’s industrial production in advanced & emerging economies:

[quote]I think it’s foolish for our CPI numbers to look at such a narrow “basket of goods” to determine whether or not there is inflation. As a matter of fact, if the CPI had taken asset prices into consideration as well, the inflation numbers during the bubble would have (hopefully) sounded the alarm much earlier than having to wait for the “financial crisis” to be officially noticed by the dolts who only look at CPI.[/quote]

There are many different reasons why you might want to measure the rate of inflation, and different reasons may require different definitions. People at the Fed who work on monetary policy use core CPI, which does not include food or asset prices, and there’s a good theoretical justification for that.

[Author]

Posts