Can someone explain to me how this can be? Is it simply a diversion/index-bias on the part of the CPI measument.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703691804575254091622651542.html
That chart shows what exactly?
That chart shows what exactly?
Define your terms right and you’re never wrong.
Inflation: Increase in the money supply
Price Inflation: Increase in nominal prices
There is inflation
There may be Price Inflation, depending on which products you look at.
What are you two trolls trying to say?
Define your terms right and you’re never wrong.
At the risk of derailing the topic and starting another endless debate, this is an example of a very poor post (and it’s ironic that you accused me of making “baseless assertions”). Like I said, you would be much better served by providing an actual argument with details.
On Facebook, the Bastiat Institute provides the following graph:
The relevant portion of the graph should be that between 2007 and 2010, which shows a substantial and disprorportionate increase in the quantity of money in circulation. Why has general price inflation not increased? Inflation usually works in cycles, and affects assets and commodities, as well as securities, first. These prices (as made evident by the rally in the stock markets) have been inflated substantially. So has the price of food. In fact, if you look at relative prices provided by the bureau of labor and statistics you’ll notice that most lower order goods (consumer goods) are still undergoing decreases in price (I work at a retail store and can attest to that) - when this money in circulation inflates nominal wages then we will begin to see a rise in the general price level.
The relevant portion of the graph should be that between 2007 and 2010, which shows a substantial and disprorportionate increase in the quantity of money in circulation.
this is an example of a very poor post
I don’t see the problem with my post, the source cited by the OP clearly wasn’t using the same definition of “inflation” as Rothbardians. So providing a graph that shows an increasing money supply in no way invalidates the point made in the original article. I’m not sure why this is a “very poor post”.
I don’t see the problem with my post, the source cited by the OP clearly wasn’t using the same definition of “inflation” as Rothbardians. So providing a graph that shows an increasing money supply in no way invalidates the point made in the original article. I’m not sure why this is a “very poor post”.
Wow Giles. Compare this response to the following,
Define your terms right and you’re never wrong.
Notice the difference in quality, and notice how you actually provide an argument (as opposed to some nebulous sarcastic point).
A steep fall of the money multiplier
has so far offset the upward tendency of the money stock:
Plus, more than one trillion dollars are currently held as excess reserves in the Federal Reserve system. This is a major chunk of the liquidity conjured up to save the financial sector during the recent crisis. It has not yet come into circulation, which explains the current stagnant price levels.
Price inflation hasn’t been high mainly because banks have an incentive to keep their reserves out of circulation by keeping them at the Fed. The Fed has been subsidizing banks in this way since late '08, IIRC.
Olevetto, your chart is dated.
Anyone here that old want to take the blame/credit/whatever?
C’mon!