[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=mlarsen23]It amazes me how many people think inflation is just around the corner in the midst of the worst economy in decades.[/quote]

And it amazes me how many people think a good economy is a prerequisite for inflation…[/quote]

What do you see as a good example of inflation in a bad economy (that is not some extreme or galloping example)?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=mlarsen23]It amazes me how many people think inflation is just around the corner in the midst of the worst economy in decades.[/quote]

And it amazes me how many people think a good economy is a prerequisite for inflation…[/quote]

What do you see as a good example of inflation in a bad economy (that is not some extreme or galloping example)?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ocrenter]there is no doubt that the government is planning and hoping for inflation.

the citizens would prefer it over additional collapse in their home value.

inflation is preferred over deflation.

but the most important thing:

inflation makes the debt less burdensome. and globally we are still in the position to inflate our way out of certain doom.[/quote]

I think you are right that at a micro foundational level, democratic republics are inclined to inflate.

If enough people want it, then their interests will get expressed.

However, the issue here is bit more complex.

Specifically, inflation is generally driven primarily from increased nominal effective demand.

That demand is composed of 2 primary components.
Those are desire (wanting the thing) and capacity (the ability to afford it).
Desire is influenced by capacity because, of course, having money does tend to dictate a certain new interests (money no object, wouldn’t you want a corvette as a commuter car?).

The trick is the capacity.
We don’t (so far as I know) have a truly good metric for capacity.
It used to be that M1 or M2 gave a pretty good indicator.
However, with the advent of innovative consumer leverage (mostly since 1980), I don’t think those measures really work so well.
I think that credit cards, auto loans, mortgage standards, and unsecured lending have a pretty huge effect.
The effective demand for that debt, in turn, has also dropped dramatically.
This is mostly due to higher lending standards and generally decreased sentimental tendency.
That sentiment issue is driven because there is a perceived lack of safety in those lending products.
HELOCS and card shutoffs as well as a general fear of bankruptcy (probably a good fear to have) are the bases of that perception.

In other words, demand is down due to general capacity drop and the demand for increase capacity is down and showing no signs of real change.

Dumping money into banks (thus raising monetary base) can’t really change aggregate demand by itself. If we see inflation, it will be one of 2 distinct animals:

1: as part of the cost-push (reference by CAR above) with commodity and exchange prices pushing us into greater brokeness
or
2: as part of an intentional effort to reduce effective debt burdens

Honestly, I think that the second strategy is more likely in Eurozone. There they have the unenviable role of issuing and managing debt without owning their own printing presses.

I would not be surprised to see the ECB lose relevance over this.

Yes this puts me at odds with many people here.

Flame on if you like.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ocrenter]there is no doubt that the government is planning and hoping for inflation.

the citizens would prefer it over additional collapse in their home value.

inflation is preferred over deflation.

but the most important thing:

inflation makes the debt less burdensome. and globally we are still in the position to inflate our way out of certain doom.[/quote]

I think you are right that at a micro foundational level, democratic republics are inclined to inflate.

If enough people want it, then their interests will get expressed.

However, the issue here is bit more complex.

Specifically, inflation is generally driven primarily from increased nominal effective demand.

That demand is composed of 2 primary components.
Those are desire (wanting the thing) and capacity (the ability to afford it).
Desire is influenced by capacity because, of course, having money does tend to dictate a certain new interests (money no object, wouldn’t you want a corvette as a commuter car?).

The trick is the capacity.
We don’t (so far as I know) have a truly good metric for capacity.
It used to be that M1 or M2 gave a pretty good indicator.
However, with the advent of innovative consumer leverage (mostly since 1980), I don’t think those measures really work so well.
I think that credit cards, auto loans, mortgage standards, and unsecured lending have a pretty huge effect.
The effective demand for that debt, in turn, has also dropped dramatically.
This is mostly due to higher lending standards and generally decreased sentimental tendency.
That sentiment issue is driven because there is a perceived lack of safety in those lending products.
HELOCS and card shutoffs as well as a general fear of bankruptcy (probably a good fear to have) are the bases of that perception.

In other words, demand is down due to general capacity drop and the demand for increase capacity is down and showing no signs of real change.

Dumping money into banks (thus raising monetary base) can’t really change aggregate demand by itself. If we see inflation, it will be one of 2 distinct animals:

1: as part of the cost-push (reference by CAR above) with commodity and exchange prices pushing us into greater brokeness
or
2: as part of an intentional effort to reduce effective debt burdens

Honestly, I think that the second strategy is more likely in Eurozone. There they have the unenviable role of issuing and managing debt without owning their own printing presses.

I would not be surprised to see the ECB lose relevance over this.

Yes this puts me at odds with many people here.

Flame on if you like.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ocrenter]there is no doubt that the government is planning and hoping for inflation.

the citizens would prefer it over additional collapse in their home value.

inflation is preferred over deflation.

but the most important thing:

inflation makes the debt less burdensome. and globally we are still in the position to inflate our way out of certain doom.[/quote]

I think you are right that at a micro foundational level, democratic republics are inclined to inflate.

If enough people want it, then their interests will get expressed.

However, the issue here is bit more complex.

Specifically, inflation is generally driven primarily from increased nominal effective demand.

That demand is composed of 2 primary components.
Those are desire (wanting the thing) and capacity (the ability to afford it).
Desire is influenced by capacity because, of course, having money does tend to dictate a certain new interests (money no object, wouldn’t you want a corvette as a commuter car?).

The trick is the capacity.
We don’t (so far as I know) have a truly good metric for capacity.
It used to be that M1 or M2 gave a pretty good indicator.
However, with the advent of innovative consumer leverage (mostly since 1980), I don’t think those measures really work so well.
I think that credit cards, auto loans, mortgage standards, and unsecured lending have a pretty huge effect.
The effective demand for that debt, in turn, has also dropped dramatically.
This is mostly due to higher lending standards and generally decreased sentimental tendency.
That sentiment issue is driven because there is a perceived lack of safety in those lending products.
HELOCS and card shutoffs as well as a general fear of bankruptcy (probably a good fear to have) are the bases of that perception.

In other words, demand is down due to general capacity drop and the demand for increase capacity is down and showing no signs of real change.

Dumping money into banks (thus raising monetary base) can’t really change aggregate demand by itself. If we see inflation, it will be one of 2 distinct animals:

1: as part of the cost-push (reference by CAR above) with commodity and exchange prices pushing us into greater brokeness
or
2: as part of an intentional effort to reduce effective debt burdens

Honestly, I think that the second strategy is more likely in Eurozone. There they have the unenviable role of issuing and managing debt without owning their own printing presses.

I would not be surprised to see the ECB lose relevance over this.

Yes this puts me at odds with many people here.

Flame on if you like.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ocrenter]there is no doubt that the government is planning and hoping for inflation.

the citizens would prefer it over additional collapse in their home value.

inflation is preferred over deflation.

but the most important thing:

inflation makes the debt less burdensome. and globally we are still in the position to inflate our way out of certain doom.[/quote]

I think you are right that at a micro foundational level, democratic republics are inclined to inflate.

If enough people want it, then their interests will get expressed.

However, the issue here is bit more complex.

Specifically, inflation is generally driven primarily from increased nominal effective demand.

That demand is composed of 2 primary components.
Those are desire (wanting the thing) and capacity (the ability to afford it).
Desire is influenced by capacity because, of course, having money does tend to dictate a certain new interests (money no object, wouldn’t you want a corvette as a commuter car?).

The trick is the capacity.
We don’t (so far as I know) have a truly good metric for capacity.
It used to be that M1 or M2 gave a pretty good indicator.
However, with the advent of innovative consumer leverage (mostly since 1980), I don’t think those measures really work so well.
I think that credit cards, auto loans, mortgage standards, and unsecured lending have a pretty huge effect.
The effective demand for that debt, in turn, has also dropped dramatically.
This is mostly due to higher lending standards and generally decreased sentimental tendency.
That sentiment issue is driven because there is a perceived lack of safety in those lending products.
HELOCS and card shutoffs as well as a general fear of bankruptcy (probably a good fear to have) are the bases of that perception.

In other words, demand is down due to general capacity drop and the demand for increase capacity is down and showing no signs of real change.

Dumping money into banks (thus raising monetary base) can’t really change aggregate demand by itself. If we see inflation, it will be one of 2 distinct animals:

1: as part of the cost-push (reference by CAR above) with commodity and exchange prices pushing us into greater brokeness
or
2: as part of an intentional effort to reduce effective debt burdens

Honestly, I think that the second strategy is more likely in Eurozone. There they have the unenviable role of issuing and managing debt without owning their own printing presses.

I would not be surprised to see the ECB lose relevance over this.

Yes this puts me at odds with many people here.

Flame on if you like.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ocrenter]there is no doubt that the government is planning and hoping for inflation.

the citizens would prefer it over additional collapse in their home value.

inflation is preferred over deflation.

but the most important thing:

inflation makes the debt less burdensome. and globally we are still in the position to inflate our way out of certain doom.[/quote]

I think you are right that at a micro foundational level, democratic republics are inclined to inflate.

If enough people want it, then their interests will get expressed.

However, the issue here is bit more complex.

Specifically, inflation is generally driven primarily from increased nominal effective demand.

That demand is composed of 2 primary components.
Those are desire (wanting the thing) and capacity (the ability to afford it).
Desire is influenced by capacity because, of course, having money does tend to dictate a certain new interests (money no object, wouldn’t you want a corvette as a commuter car?).

The trick is the capacity.
We don’t (so far as I know) have a truly good metric for capacity.
It used to be that M1 or M2 gave a pretty good indicator.
However, with the advent of innovative consumer leverage (mostly since 1980), I don’t think those measures really work so well.
I think that credit cards, auto loans, mortgage standards, and unsecured lending have a pretty huge effect.
The effective demand for that debt, in turn, has also dropped dramatically.
This is mostly due to higher lending standards and generally decreased sentimental tendency.
That sentiment issue is driven because there is a perceived lack of safety in those lending products.
HELOCS and card shutoffs as well as a general fear of bankruptcy (probably a good fear to have) are the bases of that perception.

In other words, demand is down due to general capacity drop and the demand for increase capacity is down and showing no signs of real change.

Dumping money into banks (thus raising monetary base) can’t really change aggregate demand by itself. If we see inflation, it will be one of 2 distinct animals:

1: as part of the cost-push (reference by CAR above) with commodity and exchange prices pushing us into greater brokeness
or
2: as part of an intentional effort to reduce effective debt burdens

Honestly, I think that the second strategy is more likely in Eurozone. There they have the unenviable role of issuing and managing debt without owning their own printing presses.

I would not be surprised to see the ECB lose relevance over this.

Yes this puts me at odds with many people here.

Flame on if you like.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a first job such as a Realtor.
Though last night as I was typing a contract (10pm on a saturday) I was kind of wishing I had a job that involved slacking and reading the paper.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a first job such as a Realtor.
Though last night as I was typing a contract (10pm on a saturday) I was kind of wishing I had a job that involved slacking and reading the paper.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a first job such as a Realtor.
Though last night as I was typing a contract (10pm on a saturday) I was kind of wishing I had a job that involved slacking and reading the paper.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a first job such as a Realtor.
Though last night as I was typing a contract (10pm on a saturday) I was kind of wishing I had a job that involved slacking and reading the paper.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a first job such as a Realtor.
Though last night as I was typing a contract (10pm on a saturday) I was kind of wishing I had a job that involved slacking and reading the paper.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[Author]

Posts