- This topic has 630 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
[quote=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.[/quote]
But why do you think there has been so much investment in emerging markets and in global assets, commodities, etc.? Who do you think is behind all of that money? The financial institutions are behind a lot of that buying (hedging against inflation), and the FBs who would otherwise be homeless and starving on the streets have been able to spend like nothing ever happened because of all the stimulus and the “free rent” over the years. That “free rent” is one of the most successful forms of stimulus since the “financial crisis” began.
BTW, do you really think stocks were undervalued in 2009 based on fundamentals (especially forward-looking)? IMHO, they were going to levels where they belonged, but shot back up because of all the “stimulus” measures (interest rate suppression, bond/asset purchases, govt guarantees, etc.). Trillions of dollars worth of stimulus has hit the market since 2008. Do you think the price increases around the world happened **in spite** of all that stimulus? I believe the price increases are 90%+ due to all the money printing and guarantees by central banks and governments around the world; and that’s probably why we have different perspectives on the “inflation” issue.
[quote=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.[/quote]
But why do you think there has been so much investment in emerging markets and in global assets, commodities, etc.? Who do you think is behind all of that money? The financial institutions are behind a lot of that buying (hedging against inflation), and the FBs who would otherwise be homeless and starving on the streets have been able to spend like nothing ever happened because of all the stimulus and the “free rent” over the years. That “free rent” is one of the most successful forms of stimulus since the “financial crisis” began.
BTW, do you really think stocks were undervalued in 2009 based on fundamentals (especially forward-looking)? IMHO, they were going to levels where they belonged, but shot back up because of all the “stimulus” measures (interest rate suppression, bond/asset purchases, govt guarantees, etc.). Trillions of dollars worth of stimulus has hit the market since 2008. Do you think the price increases around the world happened **in spite** of all that stimulus? I believe the price increases are 90%+ due to all the money printing and guarantees by central banks and governments around the world; and that’s probably why we have different perspectives on the “inflation” issue.
[quote=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.[/quote]
But why do you think there has been so much investment in emerging markets and in global assets, commodities, etc.? Who do you think is behind all of that money? The financial institutions are behind a lot of that buying (hedging against inflation), and the FBs who would otherwise be homeless and starving on the streets have been able to spend like nothing ever happened because of all the stimulus and the “free rent” over the years. That “free rent” is one of the most successful forms of stimulus since the “financial crisis” began.
BTW, do you really think stocks were undervalued in 2009 based on fundamentals (especially forward-looking)? IMHO, they were going to levels where they belonged, but shot back up because of all the “stimulus” measures (interest rate suppression, bond/asset purchases, govt guarantees, etc.). Trillions of dollars worth of stimulus has hit the market since 2008. Do you think the price increases around the world happened **in spite** of all that stimulus? I believe the price increases are 90%+ due to all the money printing and guarantees by central banks and governments around the world; and that’s probably why we have different perspectives on the “inflation” issue.
[quote=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.[/quote]
But why do you think there has been so much investment in emerging markets and in global assets, commodities, etc.? Who do you think is behind all of that money? The financial institutions are behind a lot of that buying (hedging against inflation), and the FBs who would otherwise be homeless and starving on the streets have been able to spend like nothing ever happened because of all the stimulus and the “free rent” over the years. That “free rent” is one of the most successful forms of stimulus since the “financial crisis” began.
BTW, do you really think stocks were undervalued in 2009 based on fundamentals (especially forward-looking)? IMHO, they were going to levels where they belonged, but shot back up because of all the “stimulus” measures (interest rate suppression, bond/asset purchases, govt guarantees, etc.). Trillions of dollars worth of stimulus has hit the market since 2008. Do you think the price increases around the world happened **in spite** of all that stimulus? I believe the price increases are 90%+ due to all the money printing and guarantees by central banks and governments around the world; and that’s probably why we have different perspectives on the “inflation” issue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.