@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
Yikes. The gold standard was not compatible with a growing global economy. There was only so much gold on the planet and you could not maintain a fixed dollar conversion without creating a deflationary global depression.
You should do some research on the Triffin dilemma. It was known by 1960 that the gold standard was impossible to maintain, but took a crisis before the govt acted (as usual).
This is literally why we never agree on anything. Prices should trend down forever. Free markets are deflationary. They have to be. You as a consumer demand it. You don't choose goods and services that cost more and provide you less value.
Pretty much the only way to read this is that Twenty is for inflation and high prices and Snarl is for deflation and low prices.@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
Yikes. The gold standard was not compatible with a growing global economy. There was only so much gold on the planet and you could not maintain a fixed dollar conversion without creating a deflationary global depression.
You should do some research on the Triffin dilemma. It was known by 1960 that the gold standard was impossible to maintain, but took a crisis before the govt acted (as usual).
This is literally why we never agree on anything. Prices should trend down forever. Free markets are deflationary. They have to be. You as a consumer demand it. You don't choose goods and services that cost more and provide you less value.
Go Snarl Go!!!!!!!!
@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
Yikes. The gold standard was not compatible with a growing global economy. There was only so much gold on the planet and you could not maintain a fixed dollar conversion without creating a deflationary global depression.
You should do some research on the Triffin dilemma. It was known by 1960 that the gold standard was impossible to maintain, but took a crisis before the govt acted (as usual).
This is literally why we never agree on anything. Prices should trend down forever. Free markets are deflationary. They have to be. You as a consumer demand it. You don't choose goods and services that cost more and provide you less value.
The gold standard era was awful. Huge price shocks, in both directions. Big inflation shocks during some periods, huge deflationary (and subsequent depressions) during other periods. It was no way to run a modem world, anymore than taking a dump in the outhouse was the way to relieve yourself. Fortunately we've moved on.
There's more to economies than the consumer side. You seem to only view things from that angle. Japan had a deflationary economy for decades (and a closed immigration system, another thing you love). Why would anyone look at that and say, yeah, let's hope for that! Insanity!
@bradstevens snarl never mentions what happens to wages and unemployment is his dream world. Apparently employers can keep paying you the same amount of salary why everything gets cheaper every year.... It's magical!
@bradstevens snarl never mentions what happens to wages and unemployment is his dream world. Apparently employers can keep paying you the same amount of salary why everything gets cheaper every year.... It's magical!
Just do the inverse of what we do now. Bigger number isn't the goal. Purchasing more actual goods and service for is the objective. If prices of goods, drop by 10% and my salary drops 5% I'm better off than the current system of prices up 7% and wages up 3-5%.
@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
Yikes. The gold standard was not compatible with a growing global economy. There was only so much gold on the planet and you could not maintain a fixed dollar conversion without creating a deflationary global depression.
You should do some research on the Triffin dilemma. It was known by 1960 that the gold standard was impossible to maintain, but took a crisis before the govt acted (as usual).
This is literally why we never agree on anything. Prices should trend down forever. Free markets are deflationary. They have to be. You as a consumer demand it. You don't choose goods and services that cost more and provide you less value.
The gold standard era was awful. Huge price shocks, in both directions. Big inflation shocks during some periods, huge deflationary (and subsequent depressions) during other periods. It was no way to run a modem world, anymore than taking a dump in the outhouse was the way to relieve yourself. Fortunately we've moved on.
There's more to economies than the consumer side. You seem to only view things from that angle. Japan had a deflationary economy for decades (and a closed immigration system, another thing you love). Why would anyone look at that and say, yeah, let's hope for that! Insanity!
Japan has an inflationary monetary system. The deflation isn't coming from productivity gains.
@bradstevens snarl never mentions what happens to wages and unemployment is his dream world. Apparently employers can keep paying you the same amount of salary why everything gets cheaper every year.... It's magical!
Just do the inverse of what we do now. Bigger number isn't the goal. Purchasing more actual goods and service for is the objective. If prices of goods, drop by 10% and my salary drops 5% I'm better off than the current system of prices up 7% and wages up 3-5%.
You will be unemployed and see a salary drop of 100%. That's the reality of deflation. But you refuse to understand this.
@snarlcakes "The deflation isn't coming from productivity gains."
I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say
@bradstevens snarl never mentions what happens to wages and unemployment is his dream world. Apparently employers can keep paying you the same amount of salary why everything gets cheaper every year.... It's magical!
Just do the inverse of what we do now. Bigger number isn't the goal. Purchasing more actual goods and service for is the objective. If prices of goods, drop by 10% and my salary drops 5% I'm better off than the current system of prices up 7% and wages up 3-5%.
And BTW that's the goal of the current system, real wage growth. But your cannot have consistent deflation. It's common sense if you actually view things from a producer side....the ones that actually sign the paychecks, how detrimental that is. Only thing worse than excessive inflation.
@snarlcakes "The deflation isn't coming from productivity gains."
I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say
There are two types of deflation. One comes from productivity gains. That's good. The other is from bubbles bursting or declining productivity. That's bad in an inflationary monetary system because everyone is leveraged to the tits.
A quick thought experiment. Why should a country with declining birthrates have inflation or rising prices? You really think a smaller and older population is producing more goods and services? Or course they're not.
If Japan would have stopped running up their deficits they would have more deflation, than they had, which would have been much better for the country long term. The value of labor would increase and eventually birth rates. Instead the debt bubble is even bigger and they have even worse demographics because the value of labor has been even further suppressed. You inflationists always think you can deny reality and print yourselves out of the problem. You can't.
@snarlcakes "The deflation isn't coming from productivity gains."
I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say
There are two types of deflation. One comes from productivity gains. That's good. The other is from bubbles bursting or declining productivity. That's bad in an inflationary monetary system because everyone is leveraged to the tits.
A quick thought experiment. Why should a country with declining birthrates have inflation or rising prices? You really think a smaller and older population is producing more goods and services? Or course they're not.
If Japan would have stopped running up their deficits they would have more deflation, than they had, which would have been much better for the country long term. The value of labor would increase and eventually birth rates. Instead the debt bubble is even bigger and they have even worse demographics because the value of labor has been even further suppressed. You inflationists always think you can deny reality and print yourselves out of the problem. You can't.
This is so ridiculous it's not worth a response. But I'll try.....why does Japan have a declining birth rate? Because younger generations could not find a fkn job! An entire generation of young Japanese were completely frozen out of well paying work. Yes they tried (and failed) to get out of a deflationary spiral. Maybe they should have fired all their central bankers and listened to you.
You are completely lost. There is no demand for labor in a deflationary environment. You lay people off in a deflationary environment! The value of labor would increase? LMAO. Try running a business when the value of everything you produce is falling. Telling people to take a 3% pay cut every year... Hey shit's cheaper! Go really digest the paradox of thrift. Try making people in a society happy with 20% unemployment.
Again, there's a reason that your school of thought was long ago abandoned. Used to just be the gold cranks selling shit on cable TV until crypto created a whole new generation of cranks.
@snarlcakes snarl, I'll leave this with one main point. Yes, it's very true that real wages haven't increased much since the late 70s. But there's a reason for it.... Total comp packages that include all benefits. (SS, Medicare, insurance, retirement).
Total comp went from about 75% wages/25% benefits in the 70s, today it's about 68/32 split. Mostly all healthcare costs.
In 1975, median comp was $60k in today's dollars, including benefits. Today is about $92k, including benefits. But health insurance is 4x, inflation adjusted. So the wage portion is shrunk. Real total comp has increased 50%, but it's not showing up in wages. Tax code incentivizes paying comp in benefits like health care, since it isn't taxed.
So should you be mad at the Fed? Or someone else?
@snarlcakes "The deflation isn't coming from productivity gains."
I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say
There are two types of deflation. One comes from productivity gains. That's good. The other is from bubbles bursting or declining productivity. That's bad in an inflationary monetary system because everyone is leveraged to the tits.
A quick thought experiment. Why should a country with declining birthrates have inflation or rising prices? You really think a smaller and older population is producing more goods and services? Or course they're not.
If Japan would have stopped running up their deficits they would have more deflation, than they had, which would have been much better for the country long term. The value of labor would increase and eventually birth rates. Instead the debt bubble is even bigger and they have even worse demographics because the value of labor has been even further suppressed. You inflationists always think you can deny reality and print yourselves out of the problem. You can't.
This is so ridiculous it's not worth a response. But I'll try.....why does Japan have a declining birth rate? Because younger generations could not find a fkn job! An entire generation of young Japanese were completely frozen out of well paying work. Yes they tried (and failed) to get out of a deflationary spiral. Maybe they should have fired all their central bankers and listened to you.
You are completely lost. There is no demand for labor in a deflationary environment. You lay people off in a deflationary environment! The value of labor would increase? LMAO. Try running a business when the value of everything you produce is falling. Telling people to take a 3% pay cut every year... Hey shit's cheaper! Go really digest the paradox of thrift. Try making people in a society happy with 20% unemployment.
Again, there's a reason that your school of thought was long ago abandoned. Used to just be the gold cranks selling shit on cable TV until crypto created a whole new generation of cranks.
Japan did exactly what you inflationists wanted. And the results have been high unemployment, lower birth rates, declining economy comparatively to other nations and higher debt levels. None of the issues have been solved. They've only been made worse. If what you advocated for solved the problems, I'd change my opinion, but it doesn't. The results are Japan is now at a greater riskier of having an even worse deflationary spiral. Well done 👍
@snarlcakes snarl, I'll leave this with one main point. Yes, it's very true that real wages haven't increased much since the late 70s. But there's a reason for it.... Total comp packages that include all benefits. (SS, Medicare, insurance, retirement).
Total comp went from about 75% wages/25% benefits in the 70s, today it's about 68/32 split. Mostly all healthcare costs.
In 1975, median comp was $60k in today's dollars, including benefits. Today is about $92k, including benefits. But health insurance is 4x, inflation adjusted. So the wage portion is shrunk. Real total comp has increased 50%, but it's not showing up in wages. Tax code incentivizes paying comp in benefits like health care, since it isn't taxed.
So should you be mad at the Fed? Or someone else?
Are your 70s number household?