Inflation – Has it arrived?

[Rich Toscano]

In reference to the following snippet of conversation between myself and sdduuude:

[quote=Rich Toscano]
[quote=sdduuuude]
But saying “the things people need that are scarce will inflate” deserves me giving you a hard time because as soon as you start picking a specific basket of goods instead of a general basket of goods, you are talking about something other than inflation. You are then talking about specific commodity prices.
[/quote]

No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.

Price movements in the things that people need are more important in aggregate. And in the end, when it comes to whether people feel there is inflation or not, I believe they will look at what is happening with the things that they need. I agree that this might not come through in the CPI, and a lot of people pay attention to that, but if the most important things they buy keep going up and up, I suspect that they will start to discount the importance of the CPI over time.[/quote]

…I offer this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/usa-fed-dudley-ipad-idUSN1124415220110311

It’s short so I’ll just quote the whole thing here:

But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.

So, Dudley sought an everyday example of a price that is falling.

“Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful,” he said referring to Apple Inc’s (AAPL.O) latest handheld tablet computer hitting stories on Friday.

“You have to look at the prices of all things,” he said.

This prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience, with one audience member calling the comment “tone deaf.”

“I can’t eat an iPad,” another quipped.

[Eugene]

[quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.

[Eugene]

[quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.

[Eugene]

[quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.

[Eugene]

[quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.

[Eugene]

[quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.

[Eugene]

http://www.frumforum.com/oil-price-spikes-real-inflation-or-not

[Eugene]

http://www.frumforum.com/oil-price-spikes-real-inflation-or-not

[Eugene]

http://www.frumforum.com/oil-price-spikes-real-inflation-or-not

[Eugene]

http://www.frumforum.com/oil-price-spikes-real-inflation-or-not

[Eugene]

http://www.frumforum.com/oil-price-spikes-real-inflation-or-not

[CA renter]

[quote=Eugene][quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.[/quote]

This is true for those who believe that rise in commodities prices is due to supply constraints and increased demand.

As we should know from the houing bubble, bubbles don’t pop up in places without fundamental reasons for rising prices. What speculation does is get out in front of those anticipated price increases, driving prices up earlier and higher than they would have gone without the speculation. I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the recipients of all the Fed’s inflationary gambits are the speculators, and they are eyeball-deep in commodities right now.

We need to look at asset prices (including wholesale commodities prices) , as well as CPI in order to get a real understanding as to whether or not we’re experiencing inflation/deflation. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into our economy — most of it ending up in the hands of the financial industry, even if it passes through FBs’ hands, first. I have a difficult time thinking this isn’t inflationary.

[CA renter]

[quote=Eugene][quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.[/quote]

This is true for those who believe that rise in commodities prices is due to supply constraints and increased demand.

As we should know from the houing bubble, bubbles don’t pop up in places without fundamental reasons for rising prices. What speculation does is get out in front of those anticipated price increases, driving prices up earlier and higher than they would have gone without the speculation. I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the recipients of all the Fed’s inflationary gambits are the speculators, and they are eyeball-deep in commodities right now.

We need to look at asset prices (including wholesale commodities prices) , as well as CPI in order to get a real understanding as to whether or not we’re experiencing inflation/deflation. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into our economy — most of it ending up in the hands of the financial industry, even if it passes through FBs’ hands, first. I have a difficult time thinking this isn’t inflationary.

[CA renter]

[quote=Eugene][quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.[/quote]

This is true for those who believe that rise in commodities prices is due to supply constraints and increased demand.

As we should know from the houing bubble, bubbles don’t pop up in places without fundamental reasons for rising prices. What speculation does is get out in front of those anticipated price increases, driving prices up earlier and higher than they would have gone without the speculation. I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the recipients of all the Fed’s inflationary gambits are the speculators, and they are eyeball-deep in commodities right now.

We need to look at asset prices (including wholesale commodities prices) , as well as CPI in order to get a real understanding as to whether or not we’re experiencing inflation/deflation. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into our economy — most of it ending up in the hands of the financial industry, even if it passes through FBs’ hands, first. I have a difficult time thinking this isn’t inflationary.

[CA renter]

[quote=Eugene][quote]No, I am talking about a rise in the costs that matter most to people. If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash.[/quote]

[quote]But in Queens, New York, on Friday, William Dudley was bombarded with questions about food inflation, and his attempt to put rising commodity prices into a broader economic context only made things worse.

“When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?” one audience member asked.

Dudley tried to explain how the Fed sees things: Yes, food prices may be rising, but at the same time, other prices are declining. The Fed looks at core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, to get a better sense of where inflation may actually be heading.[/quote]

There’s a huge confusion here.

Like I always said, there are different kinds of inflation, and different ways to compute them, and you always need to ask, WHY you are thinking about inflation, before you can pick the right measure.

The Fed is concerned with inflation that is caused by printing money. It is very different from inflation that is caused by rising demand for commodities from China or by limitations of oil output capability in the Middle East.

The Fed can combat the former by monetary tightening. There’s nothing that the Fed can do about the latter. If anything, monetary tightening would make things worse, because it would bring down incomes.

[quote]If the price of everything you need rises by 10%, and the price of everything you could buy but don’t need drops by 10%, that’s not a wash. [/quote]

Look at it this way. You have X dollars to spend every month. You used to spend 0.1*X dollars on wheat and oil, and the remaining 0.9*X dollars on everything else, from healthcare to car insurance.

If wheat and oil genuinely become more scarce in the world, you’ll have to spend 0.2*X on wheat and oil, and 0.8*X on everything else. Prices of “everything else” have to come down, because a lot of “everything else” is domestic services, and the aggregate output of such services in the economy is constant. You will clearly see that the price of wheat has gone up 100%, but you may not notice that a lot of other stuff has gone slightly down. Even though wheat and oil are only a small part of your budget.

CPI less food & energy goes _down_ after such a shift. This is completely by design. In fact, the Fed might want to print some money in this situation, to keep the nominal cost of “everything else”, and, therefore, CPI, constant. (Because producers of “everything else” are paid sticky wages, and wage deflation is best avoided.)

If the Fed prints too much money, you’ll have 2X dollars per month, you’ll spend 0.2*X on oil and wheat and 1.8*X on everything else, and CPI will correctly record 100% inflation.[/quote]

This is true for those who believe that rise in commodities prices is due to supply constraints and increased demand.

As we should know from the houing bubble, bubbles don’t pop up in places without fundamental reasons for rising prices. What speculation does is get out in front of those anticipated price increases, driving prices up earlier and higher than they would have gone without the speculation. I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the recipients of all the Fed’s inflationary gambits are the speculators, and they are eyeball-deep in commodities right now.

We need to look at asset prices (including wholesale commodities prices) , as well as CPI in order to get a real understanding as to whether or not we’re experiencing inflation/deflation. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into our economy — most of it ending up in the hands of the financial industry, even if it passes through FBs’ hands, first. I have a difficult time thinking this isn’t inflationary.

[Author]

Posts