Inflation!! No wait... - Page 3

Francesca R · 28th January 2012, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

this is interesting..

Papers posted on the FRB section on "discussion" don't mean they are adopted by the FOMC in setting policy.

Moreover, in that article, in the period after 2009 the personal consumption expenditure price index reports significantly lower inflation than the CPI does. Seems to me that if the "desired conclusion" was to show that inflation was lower then that would have been included rather than excluded, no?

So it is not clear what you are trying to show here.

kevsta · 28th January 2012, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Papers posted on the FRB section on "discussion" don't mean they are adopted by the FOMC in setting policy.

Moreover, in that article, in the period after 2009 the personal consumption expenditure price index reports significantly lower inflation than the CPI does. Seems to me that if the "desired conclusion" was to show that inflation was lower then that would have been included rather than excluded, no?

So it is not clear what you are trying to show here.

well, presumably if they had in mind switching to it, reporting sudden large divergences from the previous methodology (in their favour) when some people already doubt the current readings, would not be very desirable?

Francesca R · 28th January 2012, 04:29 AM

So they pulled a "double-bluff" but you're so sharp they'd have needed a triple one to fool you?

kevsta · 28th January 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

So they pulled a "double-bluff" but you're so sharp they'd have needed a triple one to fool you?

lol, I didn't say that. I'm clearly not as sharp as you young lady.

so why do you think he left the last 2 years off the report?

Francesca R · 28th January 2012, 05:43 AM

Well I can't see your chart very well but well enough to see that the PCE price index is plotted as % change year/year and the CPI and core CPI are index levels.

So why the smoke'n'mirrors? How about you get an honest graph (that's legible)

ETA:

kevsta · 28th January 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Well I can't see your chart very well but well enough to see that the PCE price index is plotted as % change year/year and the CPI and core CPI are index levels.

So why the smoke'n'mirrors? How about you get an honest graph (that's legible)

ETA:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...3fcfced907.jpg

its neither my graph, nor would I know where to get an "intellectually honest" one.

I will attempt to do just that, but if you can pull one off your Fundie Bloomberg terminal in the meantime it would be much appreciated.

Francesca R · 28th January 2012, 06:11 AM

I'll consider that "evidence" thrown out for now then . . .

Sceptic-PK · 28th January 2012, 06:22 AM

I particularly loved kevsta's conflation of a research paper with official FRB policy. And what a shock to find him guilty of the very same figure-fiddling he's accusing the Fed of!

Originally Posted by kevsta

I'm clearly not as sharp as you young lady.

That goes without saying.

Francesca R · 28th January 2012, 06:26 AM

<yawn>

(CPI vs PCE price index %y/y since 1980, no smoking gun)

Puppycow · 28th January 2012, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

so why do you think he left the last 2 years off the report?

One reason could be that economic numbers keep getting revised for a few years after they come out before they get finalized. Numbers for 2010 and 2011 are probably still subject to further revisions.

kevsta · 28th January 2012, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

<yawn>

(CPI vs PCE price index %y/y since 1980, no smoking gun)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...405789abda.jpg

thank you, I knew this would be easier for you than me. and yes, evidence discarded.

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

I particularly loved kevsta's conflation of a research paper with official FRB policy.

not mine, Krasting's. and how is the research paper not relevant when the FRB then decide to use that metric in future calculations going forward?

do we know that the decision was in no way related to that research paper?

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

That goes without saying.

I am under no illusions about this with Francesca. you, are an entirely different matter

Sceptic-PK · 28th January 2012, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

not mine, Krasting's.

You spread it around. Take some responsibility for propagating nonsense.

Originally Posted by kevsta

and how is the research paper not relevant when the FRB then decide to use that metric in future calculations going forward?

do we know that the decision was in no way related to that research paper?

Quote:

In its "Monetary Policy Report to the Congress" ("Humphrey-Hawkins Report") from February 17, 2000 the FOMC said it was changing its primary measure of inflation from the consumer price index to the "chain-type price index for personal consumption expenditures".

Now I see why we need a full audit of the Fed! Those sneaky devils built a time machine!

Originally Posted by kevsta

you, are an entirely different matter

Well, be sure to point out when I suffer a humiliation as bad as you just did.

kevsta · 28th January 2012, 07:46 AM

I do take responsibility for questioning this, and for misunderstanding that the CPCE metric is not new along with the stated inflation figure.

I heard Bernanke speaking the other day (whilst frontrunning gold at the time so he didn't have my full attention) and he was babbling on about PCE in response to this question from a reporter.

Quote:

Scott Spoerry: Scott Spoerry, sir, from CNN. My head is full of questions, but I'm going to try and limit it to two related questions.

You're linking your inflation target of 2 percent to the PCE. The PCE is something that hundreds of millions of Americans have no idea what it is, they do know what the CPI is.

Can you explain in layman's term, something that regular folks might understand why they should not worry too much when inflation by the--if the CPI is different than the PCE. And the second question is related also to inflation and to the targeting because—Feds always been a little bit vague in terms of what sort of inflation it would accept and this is a marked change.

Because criticism of the Federal Reserve, criticism of you, but the institution itself has been so intense this year because it's a political year. There are people out there who are going to say the Federal Reserve have finally just admitted it. Their policy is to destroy 2 percent of the value of my dollars every year. How are you going to respond to those people and also could you answer the question about the CPI and the PCE. Thank you.

I do however consider this response from Krasting to De(b)tmeister on his blog valid, whether his chart was inaccurate or not

Quote:

I want to thank Alan Detmeister for contributing to the comments on this piece. I did not anticipate that someone from the Fed would respond. I have many articles on the activities of the Fed, this is the first time a Fed official has contributed to the process.

The year end number for PCE was 2.3%. The Core PCE was 1.6%. The Fed will use the core number. If they did not, they would already have to tighten based on Bernanke's pledge to keep "inflation" at sub 2%.

So core it is, and I maintain that this is the most favorable metric that the Fed could have used to justify its monetary policy.

I think we will see CPI (includes food and energy) at 4% while core CPI lags at less than 2%. In other words, most of the 300mm citizens will pay the price.

Originally Posted by SkepticPK

Well, be sure to point out when I suffer a humiliation as bad as you just did.

a) I dont really consider questioning something that looks dodgy and getting better information from someone with a better understanding (and charting tools) of it than I, humiliation, although I can just imagine your glee at what you perceive as such.

b) like this? ok, if you insist

kevsta · 29th January 2012, 03:08 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...-finances-debt

Quote:

UK family debts up by almost 50% in a year

Aviva Family Finances report 2012 says the typical UK family owes £7,944 in unsecured borrowing, as inflation takes its toll

The typical debt owed by a UK family has soared by 48% since January 2011, as rising inflation has taken its toll on household incomes, according to the latest Aviva Family Finances report.

Research by the insurance company found that the typical UK family owes £7,944 in unsecured borrowing on credit cards, loans, overdrafts and other forms of credit, compared with £5,360 in January 2011. The figure represents 32% of a typical net annual income and suggests families are falling further into debt as financial pressures grow.

and all this at the lowest interest rates in history, its not looking good.

when I bought my first house, interest rates were at 14%

The Don · 30th January 2012, 02:29 AM

It's interesting that the measure of debt they chose to use was unsecured debt. I'm never quite sure how that is calculated, in particular the Credit Card portion.

Mrs Don and I probably have an average balance of £1,000 each on our credit cards but the amount owed is paid off in full every month. The balance is due to the interest-free period on last month's spending and the sending to date this month.

From the perspective of unsecured debt, is this counted as a debt of £ 0, £1,000 (the average balance) or £2,000 (the maximum balance) ?

Our largest debt is our homeloan. When we bought our house three months ago this stood at £150,000 - we now have it down to a much more manageable £30,000 and should have it paid off* in the next couple of months. At the same time our credit card spending has increased as we've bought things for the house so, assuming that as yet unpaid current and previous month credit card balances are treated as unsecured borrowing:

By the measure used in the Aviva study (Aviva, an insurance company, could they possibly be looking to sell Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) ?), our indebtedness has increased.
Overall however, including secured borrowing, our indebtedness has reduced by £120,000 in the last three months

* - actually, because we have an offset account, our indebtedness has remained the same, it's just that we've offset £120,000 of the loan with savings.

daenku32 · 1st February 2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

The typical debt owed by a UK family has soared by 48% since January 2011, as rising inflation has taken its toll on household incomes, according to the latest Aviva Family Finances report.

That's not inflation. That's sucky British economy. They wanted austerity, and that's what they got. Stagnant wages and lack of jobs.

MNBrant · 1st February 2012, 08:10 PM

Milk prices went up here in MN because they slaughtered a half million milk cows. I did notice my Velveta slices are now about 12 bucks.

Puppycow · 6th February 2012, 07:12 PM

Huggies Price Cut Shows Why Bond Market Backs Bernanke QE3

Quote:

Procter & Gamble Co.’s failure to raise the price of Cascade dishwashing soap shows why investors are buying Treasuries at the lowest yields in history, giving the Federal Reserve more scope to boost the economy.

The world’s largest consumer-products company rolled back prices after an 8 percent increase lost the firm 7 percentage points of market share. Kimberly-Clark Corp. started offering coupons on Huggies after resistance to the diapers’ cost. Darden Restaurants Inc. (DRI) raised prices at less than the inflation rate as patrons order more of Olive Garden’s discounted stuffed rigatoni than it anticipated.

. . .

Companies can’t raise prices because wage growth remains stunted, even though unemployment has started to recede. Average hourly earnings rose 1.9 percent in January from a year earlier, the smallest increase since April, and down from 3.2 percent in 2008 and 3.7 percent in January 2009, the Labor Department said Feb. 3. The jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent in January, the lowest level in three years, compared with a high of 10 percent in October 2009.

“This recovery has not been a great recovery with regard to income gains, and income gains are a function of both growth in wages and jobs,” Jeffrey Rosenberg, the chief investment strategist for fixed-income at BlackRock Inc., the world’s biggest money manager, said in a Feb. 1 interview in New York. “Why can’t you pass price increases through to consumers? It’s because consumers aren’t seeing income gains.”

oggiesnr · 8th February 2012, 02:32 AM

Retaillers are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They have to have product to sell and so manufacturers have some freedom to put up prices (strange but it often seems that all manufacturer prices rise in step). The issue for the retailler is haow to pass that on (if at all). Over the past few years the big retaillers have been trying to take out costs where they can (the rise of self scan for example), in the UK they take the hidden job subsidy by keeping wages low and knowing that benefits will kick in.

However there comes a time when, even with a crappy economy, something has to give or we get the wave of administrations that we've had recently. That's the point I thimk we're now at and it's not going to be pretty.

Interesting the one area where there seems no problem in putting up prices is commercial rents, landlords are still acting like there'sa boom out there!

Steve

The Don · 13th February 2012, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by oggiesnr

Interesting the one area where there seems no problem in putting up prices is commercial rents, landlords are still acting like there'sa boom out there!

Steve

Not here in the UK, commercial landlords are hurting badly, rents are falling and so is occupancy

oggiesnr · 15th February 2012, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Not here in the UK, commercial landlords are hurting badly, rents are falling and so is occupancy

Some factory rents are falling a bit, ditto some office space (usually the clapped out ones) but retail rents are still making hay even with falling occupancy. Shopping Centre rents are still sky-high, mainly because of the way shopping centres are valued. Yes they are back to offering "incentives" but not moving on base rates, it's the eighties all over again.

Steve

Francesca R · 15th February 2012, 02:51 AM

Due to the idiosyncrasies of commercial property, headline rents rarely do go down, but rent-free periods and other side-rebates do the work instead. So it is pretty useless to look at advertised rent for office/retail/industrial real estate as a market indicator.

Residential rents, where none of this happens, are in the loo--still at mid-2000s levels IIRC.

oggiesnr · 15th February 2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Due to the idiosyncrasies of commercial property, headline rents rarely do go down, but rent-free periods and other side-rebates do the work instead. So it is pretty useless to look at advertised rent for office/retail/industrial real estate as a market indicator.

Residential rents, where none of this happens, are in the loo--still at mid-2000s levels IIRC.

I take your point but as happened to a number of companies before (Birthdays, Athena to name but two) the headline rate remains the headline rate and at the point where the deals run out has to be paid.

Steve

kevsta · 3rd March 2012, 09:26 AM

from CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_1...w-as-you-think

Quote:

Forget the modest 3.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index, the government's widely used measure of inflation. Everyday prices are up some 8 percent over the past year, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

The not-for-profit research group measures inflation without looking at the big, one-time purchases that can skew the numbers. That means they don't look at the price of houses, furniture, appliances, cars, or computers. Instead, AIER focuses on Americans' typical daily purchases, such as food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and television service, and other household products.

The institute contends that to get a good read on inflation's "sticker shock" effect, you must look at the cost of goods that the average household buys at least once a month and factor in only the kinds of expenses that are subject to change. That, too, eliminates the cost of housing because when you finance your home with a fixed-rate mortgage, that expense remains constant until you refinance or move.

The group maintains that this index better measures the real-world impact of price changes, particularly for people on a budget. And, largely as the result of the recent run-up in gas prices, this "everyday price index" (EPI) suggests that Americans are being pinched far more tightly than the official inflation measure would have you believe.

from the American Institute for Economic Research report

http://www.aier.org/article/7557-epi...conomic-change

Quote:

Technology and globalization have restrained prices on big-ticket items. But they caused fewer price breaks for frequently purchased goods. Toothpaste ain’t so high-tech.

AIER developed the Everyday Price Index (EPI) to address the widespread perception that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) does not reflect the day-to-day experience of Americans. As we continue to study and refine the EPI, we find that the divergence between inflation measured by the CPI and an index that measures direct experience is mostly a product of 21st-century changes in the economy.

In the shorter and intermediate terms, when people are faced with a higher price for an item, they simply buy less of it. Eventually, they may substitute cheaper goods. These effects are fairly small, but can add up over time.

To address this, we have revised the Everyday Price Index to allow for constantly adjusting weights. Weights are simply the proportion of your total expenditure that you spend on each good or service you purchase each month. Dynamic weights allow for day-to-day changes in consumer behavior related to price changes.

This weighting results in a 2011 average annual inflation rate of 8 percent as measured by the Everyday Price Index, compared to a mere 3.1 percent from the CPI. (The unweighted EPI inflation rate for 2011 was 7.2 percent, as reported in the last issue of the Economic Bulletin.)

so actually much closer to the Shadowstats figures than the official figures.

who'dathunk it?

Francesca R · 3rd March 2012, 09:40 AM

The acid test of how credible a number is is how many people believe it. PriceStats (an originally independent outfit that was formed in Argentina to source inflation data to fill the void left by the widely discredited and meddled-with INDEC numbers) measures US inflation as well at reports a real-time (daily) inflation rate, the latest one being about 2.2% which is just under reported CPI-U.

I can't post the data because it is behind a paywall, as PriceStats recently sold themselves to State Street Bank (Hint: it costs money, that means investors who have a vested interest in knowing the true rates of inflation around the world value it

)

The Economist magazine recently publicly endorsed it in a leader article and annouced they were switching their reporting of Argentina's inflation rate to PriceStats (Bit late; most people have been following it for a few years)

kevsta · 3rd March 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

The acid test of how credible a number is is how many people believe it. PriceStats (an originally independent outfit that was formed in Argentina to source inflation data to fill the void left by the widely discredited and meddled-with INDEC numbers) measures US inflation as well at reports a real-time (daily) inflation rate, the latest one being about 2.2% which is just under reported CPI-U.

I can't post the data because it is behind a paywall, as PriceStats recently sold themselves to State Street Bank (Hint: it costs money, that means investors who have a vested interest in knowing the true rates of inflation around the world value it

)

The Economist magazine recently publicly endorsed it in a leader article and annouced they were switching their reporting of Argentina's inflation rate to PriceStats (Bit late; most people have been following it for a few years)

2.2% per day? - I know I think its under-reported, but that even seems a little high to me

daenku32 · 21st June 2012, 09:56 AM

Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 3.66 percent

Market showing its confidence that for the next 30 years inflation will remain low.

kevsta · 21st June 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by daenku32

Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 3.66 percent

Market showing its confidence that for the next 30 years inflation will remain low.

lol ! not sure if you've noticed, but the bond markets are not exactly "normal" lately.

bond yields have been in a 40 year bull market, all the way down to zero and even negative. do you think that can persist for the next 30 years?

Tippit · 21st June 2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 3.66 percent

Market showing its confidence that for the next 30 years inflation will remain low.

Inflation is already off-the-charts high, if financial asset prices (specifically bonds) are considered, as opposed to myopically focusing on consumer prices. Those who own financial/other assets don't seem to mind, as they "feel" richer, and those who don't seem to be largely ignorant of this insidious form of wealth expropriation. Of course, the elites at the top who benefit from unlimited subsidized credit and socialized (too big to fail!) losses are the real beneficiaries of our monetary and banking system.

When the US debt bubble bursts, and I assure you this will be a lot sooner than three decades from now, you will see either hyper-inflation, or hyper-deflation, depending on the whims of central banks.

Puppycow · 21st June 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Tippit

Inflation is already off-the-charts high, if financial asset prices (specifically bonds) are considered, as opposed to myopically focusing on consumer prices.

If you're going to include financial asset prices, why not real estate prices too?

Residential real estate prices are down by 35% since 2006.

jj · 21st June 2012, 11:28 PM

Basic food is quite up around here. Gas is back down from the 4.40 it hit before the threat of a congressional investigation. Two weeks after that, it's down to 3.65

Y'all figure.

kevsta · 22nd June 2012, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

If you're going to include financial asset prices, why not real estate prices too?

Residential real estate prices are down by 35% since 2006.

which is after all how they delude people into believing their fuzzy inflation numbers

Tippit · 23rd June 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

If you're going to include financial asset prices, why not real estate prices too?

Residential real estate prices are down by 35% since 2006.

That's fine. But the aggregate money supply has gone up regardless of the real estate market, which is the only thing that matters vis-a-vis inflation. The point is that this is a method of wealth expropriation, and not a legitimate activity, whether it's by inflation, or deflation. We need to stop allowing banks and politicians to manipulate our money.

kevsta · 23rd June 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tippit

That's fine. But the aggregate money supply has gone up regardless of the real estate market, which is the only thing that matters vis-a-vis inflation. The point is that this is a method of wealth expropriation, and not a legitimate activity, whether it's by inflation, or deflation. We need to stop allowing banks and politicians to manipulate our money.

Article:

Quote:

After a small pause in 2010, the supply of dollars continues to grow. The euro crisis has increased dollar demand and US M3 could surpass $15 trillion this year

Roger Ramjets · 30th June 2012, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tippit

Inflation is already off-the-charts high, if financial asset prices (specifically bonds) are considered, as opposed to myopically focusing on consumer prices.

Definition of 'Inflation'
The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling.

Definition of 'Financial Asset'
An asset that derives value because of a contractual claim. Stocks, bonds, bank deposits, and the like are all examples of financial assets.
Unlike land and property--which are tangible, physical assets--financial assets do not necessarily have physical worth.

Financial assets are not goods or services, and therefore by definition are not counted in inflation. They may contribute to inflation, but if so then they are already accounted for - in the prices of goods and services!

Perhaps you think the official definition of inflation is 'myopic', but that doesn't give you the authority to redefine it however you like.

Quote:

When the US debt bubble bursts, and I assure you this will be a lot sooner than three decades from now, you will see either hyper-inflation, or hyper-deflation, depending on the whims of central banks.

Or perhaps hyper-stagflation, or hyper-reflation, or hyper non-flation. Hyper-something anyway, for sure!

You assurance is comforting because some of us might not last another 3 decades, and we wouldn't want to miss this hyper-whatever. However we still don't know when to expect it. Would it be possible to make your prediction a bit more precise, so that we may have a better idea of when to start looking out for it?

kevsta · 1st July 2012, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Definition of 'Inflation'
The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling.

Perhaps you think the official definition of inflation is 'myopic', but that doesn't give you the authority to redefine it however you like.

that's the rearview mirror definition, ie "how much price rise can we see in the (carefully selected and continually *adjusted*) basket of goods and services we choose to monitor.

this is the definition you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Inflation

Quote:

inflation is by definition always and everywhere an increase in the money supply (i.e. units of currency or means of exchange), which in turn leads to a nominal price level that is higher than it would have been without the inflation, for assets (such as housing) and other goods and services in demand, as the real value of each monetary unit is eroded, loses purchasing power and thus buys fewer goods and services. - Murray Rothbard

ie price rises of (carefully selected and continually *adjusted*) goods and services are only the *easily visible* after-effects of inflation

usage: "those banking mofos inflated the money supply!"

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Or perhaps hyper-stagflation, or hyper-reflation, or hyper non-flation. Hyper-something anyway, for sure!

You assurance is comforting because some of us might not last another 3 decades, and we wouldn't want to miss this hyper-whatever. However we still don't know when to expect it. Would it be possible to make your prediction a bit more precise, so that we may have a better idea of when to start looking out for it?

I dont know when either, but I also suspect the unwinding of this bubble when it comes will be epic. do try not to pass away in the meantime

Puppycow · 1st July 2012, 06:43 AM

Huge day for oil on Friday. Of course oil had been taking a huge beating over the last month or two, but it came roaring back on Friday. Brent was up over $6 and WTI over $7.

I guess that's kind of a vote of confidence in the economy after the EU reached a new agreement at the summit.

kevsta · 1st July 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Huge day for oil on Friday. Of course oil had been taking a huge beating over the last month or two, but it came roaring back on Friday. Brent was up over $6 and WTI over $7.

I guess that's kind of a vote of confidence in the economy after the EU reached a new agreement at the summit.

no it was primarily an EURUSD short squeeze I think, ie Risk on again because CBs are printing (or agreeing to work on a plan, for a plan, to print or something (**details to follow)

I was fairly confident crude was going to bounce there somewhere, but I don't think anyone was expecting 10% in a day.

I took half of this off near close on Friday at $85.00

Originally Posted by kevsta

**Disclosure, long oil futures from $78.50 and short Dow at 12631. up 200+ points thus far and should have a long way to run.

trail stops now, work on my patience, and see how far it will run. will be looking to re-initiate further Dow shorts from as high as we can get before it rolls over again.

remember what happened last time they saved the world at one of their meetings back in Oct 2011, that one managed a 400bps rally, and couple of day or so before it was faded, this one 260bps so far, and we shall see shortly.

Quote:

Today's 4-sigma short-squeeze ramp in EURUSD (up over 220pips from pre-Summit-statement) is very reminiscent of the 10/26/11 reaction to the Greek debt deal. EURUSD rallied magnificently, squeezing a dominating short-crowd over 400 pips higher that time. But it is the impulse reaction that we note - within two days, the entire rally had faded and indeed went on to sell off for a few more months as reality struck. One month after that previous last 4-sigma jump in EURUSD (late November 2011) we saw the global co-ordinated central bank liftathon that started the five-month epic idiocy of the equity exuberance that was the decoupling self-sustaining short-squeezing 'cleanest dirty shirt' first quarter of 2012. Trade accordingly.

and here is how the EUR reacted to the Greek debt deal (a 400 pip rally) and then the hangover fade as all those shorts were burnt and the fundamental reality kicked back in.

rallies will be faded soon enough as first Italy properly, then France and Germany are next in the crosshairs.

Roger Ramjets · 2nd July 2012, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...004ffec98e.png

Graphs are wonderful. Their meaning is always obvious, and they never lie!

kevsta · 2nd July 2012, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Graphs are wonderful. Their meaning is always obvious, and they never lie!

lol! and what date did it start? might you find it was before 01 Jan this year?

I have of course already answered this in another thread

28th January 2012, 04:25 AM	#82
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Francesca R Papers posted on the FRB section on "discussion" don't mean they are adopted by the FOMC in setting policy. Moreover, in that article, in the period after 2009 the personal consumption expenditure price index reports significantly lower inflation than the CPI does. Seems to me that if the "desired conclusion" was to show that inflation was lower then that would have been included rather than excluded, no? So it is not clear what you are trying to show here. well, presumably if they had in mind switching to it, reporting sudden large divergences from the previous methodology (in their favour) when some people already doubt the current readings, would not be very desirable?
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

28th January 2012, 04:43 AM	#84
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Francesca R So they pulled a "double-bluff" but you're so sharp they'd have needed a triple one to fool you? lol, I didn't say that. I'm clearly not as sharp as you young lady. so why do you think he left the last 2 years off the report?
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

28th January 2012, 05:43 AM	#85
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Well I can't see your chart very well but well enough to see that the PCE price index is plotted as % change year/year and the CPI and core CPI are index levels. So why the smoke'n'mirrors? How about you get an honest graph (that's legible) ETA:
	Last edited by Francesca R; 28th January 2012 at 05:50 AM.

28th January 2012, 05:59 AM	#86
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Francesca R Well I can't see your chart very well but well enough to see that the PCE price index is plotted as % change year/year and the CPI and core CPI are index levels. So why the smoke'n'mirrors? How about you get an honest graph (that's legible) ETA: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...3fcfced907.jpg its neither my graph, nor would I know where to get an "intellectually honest" one. I will attempt to do just that, but if you can pull one off your Fundie Bloomberg terminal in the meantime it would be much appreciated.
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

28th January 2012, 06:37 AM	#90
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,780	Originally Posted by kevsta so why do you think he left the last 2 years off the report? One reason could be that economic numbers keep getting revised for a few years after they come out before they get finalized. Numbers for 2010 and 2011 are probably still subject to further revisions.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th January 2012, 03:50 AM	#81
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by kevsta this is interesting.. Papers posted on the FRB section on "discussion" don't mean they are adopted by the FOMC in setting policy. Moreover, in that article, in the period after 2009 the personal consumption expenditure price index reports significantly lower inflation than the CPI does. Seems to me that if the "desired conclusion" was to show that inflation was lower then that would have been included rather than excluded, no? So it is not clear what you are trying to show here.

28th January 2012, 04:29 AM	#83
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	So they pulled a "double-bluff" but you're so sharp they'd have needed a triple one to fool you?

28th January 2012, 06:11 AM	#87
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	I'll consider that "evidence" thrown out for now then . . .

28th January 2012, 06:22 AM	#88
Sceptic-PK Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 2,403	I particularly loved kevsta's conflation of a research paper with official FRB policy. And what a shock to find him guilty of the very same figure-fiddling he's accusing the Fed of! Originally Posted by kevsta I'm clearly not as sharp as you young lady. That goes without saying.

28th January 2012, 06:26 AM	#89
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	<yawn> (CPI vs PCE price index %y/y since 1980, no smoking gun)

28th January 2012, 06:41 AM	#91
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Francesca R <yawn> (CPI vs PCE price index %y/y since 1980, no smoking gun) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...405789abda.jpg thank you, I knew this would be easier for you than me. and yes, evidence discarded. Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK I particularly loved kevsta's conflation of a research paper with official FRB policy. not mine, Krasting's. and how is the research paper not relevant when the FRB then decide to use that metric in future calculations going forward? do we know that the decision was in no way related to that research paper? Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK That goes without saying. I am under no illusions about this with Francesca. you, are an entirely different matter
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

28th January 2012, 06:58 AM	#92
Sceptic-PK Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 2,403	Originally Posted by kevsta not mine, Krasting's. You spread it around. Take some responsibility for propagating nonsense. Originally Posted by kevsta and how is the research paper not relevant when the FRB then decide to use that metric in future calculations going forward? do we know that the decision was in no way related to that research paper? Quote: In its "Monetary Policy Report to the Congress" ("Humphrey-Hawkins Report") from February 17, 2000 the FOMC said it was changing its primary measure of inflation from the consumer price index to the "chain-type price index for personal consumption expenditures". Now I see why we need a full audit of the Fed! Those sneaky devils built a time machine! Originally Posted by kevsta you, are an entirely different matter Well, be sure to point out when I suffer a humiliation as bad as you just did.

28th January 2012, 07:46 AM	#93
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	I do take responsibility for questioning this, and for misunderstanding that the CPCE metric is not new along with the stated inflation figure. I heard Bernanke speaking the other day (whilst frontrunning gold at the time so he didn't have my full attention) and he was babbling on about PCE in response to this question from a reporter. Quote: Scott Spoerry: Scott Spoerry, sir, from CNN. My head is full of questions, but I'm going to try and limit it to two related questions. You're linking your inflation target of 2 percent to the PCE. The PCE is something that hundreds of millions of Americans have no idea what it is, they do know what the CPI is. Can you explain in layman's term, something that regular folks might understand why they should not worry too much when inflation by the--if the CPI is different than the PCE. And the second question is related also to inflation and to the targeting because—Feds always been a little bit vague in terms of what sort of inflation it would accept and this is a marked change. Because criticism of the Federal Reserve, criticism of you, but the institution itself has been so intense this year because it's a political year. There are people out there who are going to say the Federal Reserve have finally just admitted it. Their policy is to destroy 2 percent of the value of my dollars every year. How are you going to respond to those people and also could you answer the question about the CPI and the PCE. Thank you. I do however consider this response from Krasting to De(b)tmeister on his blog valid, whether his chart was inaccurate or not Quote: I want to thank Alan Detmeister for contributing to the comments on this piece. I did not anticipate that someone from the Fed would respond. I have many articles on the activities of the Fed, this is the first time a Fed official has contributed to the process. The year end number for PCE was 2.3%. The Core PCE was 1.6%. The Fed will use the core number. If they did not, they would already have to tighten based on Bernanke's pledge to keep "inflation" at sub 2%. So core it is, and I maintain that this is the most favorable metric that the Fed could have used to justify its monetary policy. I think we will see CPI (includes food and energy) at 4% while core CPI lags at less than 2%. In other words, most of the 300mm citizens will pay the price. Originally Posted by SkepticPK Well, be sure to point out when I suffer a humiliation as bad as you just did. a) I dont really consider questioning something that looks dodgy and getting better information from someone with a better understanding (and charting tools) of it than I, humiliation, although I can just imagine your glee at what you perceive as such. b) like this? ok, if you insist
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous Last edited by kevsta; 28th January 2012 at 07:49 AM.

29th January 2012, 03:08 AM	#94
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...-finances-debt Quote: UK family debts up by almost 50% in a year Aviva Family Finances report 2012 says the typical UK family owes £7,944 in unsecured borrowing, as inflation takes its toll The typical debt owed by a UK family has soared by 48% since January 2011, as rising inflation has taken its toll on household incomes, according to the latest Aviva Family Finances report. Research by the insurance company found that the typical UK family owes £7,944 in unsecured borrowing on credit cards, loans, overdrafts and other forms of credit, compared with £5,360 in January 2011. The figure represents 32% of a typical net annual income and suggests families are falling further into debt as financial pressures grow. and all this at the lowest interest rates in history, its not looking good. when I bought my first house, interest rates were at 14%
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

30th January 2012, 02:29 AM	#95
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,255	It's interesting that the measure of debt they chose to use was unsecured debt. I'm never quite sure how that is calculated, in particular the Credit Card portion. Mrs Don and I probably have an average balance of £1,000 each on our credit cards but the amount owed is paid off in full every month. The balance is due to the interest-free period on last month's spending and the sending to date this month. From the perspective of unsecured debt, is this counted as a debt of £ 0, £1,000 (the average balance) or £2,000 (the maximum balance) ? Our largest debt is our homeloan. When we bought our house three months ago this stood at £150,000 - we now have it down to a much more manageable £30,000 and should have it paid off* in the next couple of months. At the same time our credit card spending has increased as we've bought things for the house so, assuming that as yet unpaid current and previous month credit card balances are treated as unsecured borrowing: By the measure used in the Aviva study (Aviva, an insurance company, could they possibly be looking to sell Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) ?), our indebtedness has increased. Overall however, including secured borrowing, our indebtedness has reduced by £120,000 in the last three months * - actually, because we have an offset account, our indebtedness has remained the same, it's just that we've offset £120,000 of the loan with savings.

1st February 2012, 06:47 PM	#96
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,982	Quote: The typical debt owed by a UK family has soared by 48% since January 2011, as rising inflation has taken its toll on household incomes, according to the latest Aviva Family Finances report. That's not inflation. That's sucky British economy. They wanted austerity, and that's what they got. Stagnant wages and lack of jobs.

1st February 2012, 08:10 PM	#97
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165	Milk prices went up here in MN because they slaughtered a half million milk cows. I did notice my Velveta slices are now about 12 bucks.
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165

6th February 2012, 07:12 PM	#98
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,780	Huggies Price Cut Shows Why Bond Market Backs Bernanke QE3 Quote: Procter & Gamble Co.’s failure to raise the price of Cascade dishwashing soap shows why investors are buying Treasuries at the lowest yields in history, giving the Federal Reserve more scope to boost the economy. The world’s largest consumer-products company rolled back prices after an 8 percent increase lost the firm 7 percentage points of market share. Kimberly-Clark Corp. started offering coupons on Huggies after resistance to the diapers’ cost. Darden Restaurants Inc. (DRI) raised prices at less than the inflation rate as patrons order more of Olive Garden’s discounted stuffed rigatoni than it anticipated. . . . Companies can’t raise prices because wage growth remains stunted, even though unemployment has started to recede. Average hourly earnings rose 1.9 percent in January from a year earlier, the smallest increase since April, and down from 3.2 percent in 2008 and 3.7 percent in January 2009, the Labor Department said Feb. 3. The jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent in January, the lowest level in three years, compared with a high of 10 percent in October 2009. “This recovery has not been a great recovery with regard to income gains, and income gains are a function of both growth in wages and jobs,” Jeffrey Rosenberg, the chief investment strategist for fixed-income at BlackRock Inc., the world’s biggest money manager, said in a Feb. 1 interview in New York. “Why can’t you pass price increases through to consumers? It’s because consumers aren’t seeing income gains.”
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

8th February 2012, 02:32 AM	#99
oggiesnr Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 427	Retaillers are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They have to have product to sell and so manufacturers have some freedom to put up prices (strange but it often seems that all manufacturer prices rise in step). The issue for the retailler is haow to pass that on (if at all). Over the past few years the big retaillers have been trying to take out costs where they can (the rise of self scan for example), in the UK they take the hidden job subsidy by keeping wages low and knowing that benefits will kick in. However there comes a time when, even with a crappy economy, something has to give or we get the wave of administrations that we've had recently. That's the point I thimk we're now at and it's not going to be pretty. Interesting the one area where there seems no problem in putting up prices is commercial rents, landlords are still acting like there'sa boom out there! Steve
oggiesnr Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 427

13th February 2012, 02:41 AM	#100
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,255	Originally Posted by oggiesnr Interesting the one area where there seems no problem in putting up prices is commercial rents, landlords are still acting like there'sa boom out there! Steve Not here in the UK, commercial landlords are hurting badly, rents are falling and so is occupancy

15th February 2012, 01:34 AM	#101
oggiesnr Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 427	Originally Posted by The Don Not here in the UK, commercial landlords are hurting badly, rents are falling and so is occupancy Some factory rents are falling a bit, ditto some office space (usually the clapped out ones) but retail rents are still making hay even with falling occupancy. Shopping Centre rents are still sky-high, mainly because of the way shopping centres are valued. Yes they are back to offering "incentives" but not moving on base rates, it's the eighties all over again. Steve
oggiesnr Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 427

15th February 2012, 02:51 AM	#102
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Due to the idiosyncrasies of commercial property, headline rents rarely do go down, but rent-free periods and other side-rebates do the work instead. So it is pretty useless to look at advertised rent for office/retail/industrial real estate as a market indicator. Residential rents, where none of this happens, are in the loo--still at mid-2000s levels IIRC.

15th February 2012, 08:07 AM	#103
oggiesnr Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 427	Originally Posted by Francesca R Due to the idiosyncrasies of commercial property, headline rents rarely do go down, but rent-free periods and other side-rebates do the work instead. So it is pretty useless to look at advertised rent for office/retail/industrial real estate as a market indicator. Residential rents, where none of this happens, are in the loo--still at mid-2000s levels IIRC. I take your point but as happened to a number of companies before (Birthdays, Athena to name but two) the headline rate remains the headline rate and at the point where the deals run out has to be paid. Steve
oggiesnr Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 427

3rd March 2012, 09:26 AM	#104
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	from CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_1...w-as-you-think Quote: Forget the modest 3.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index, the government's widely used measure of inflation. Everyday prices are up some 8 percent over the past year, according to the American Institute for Economic Research. The not-for-profit research group measures inflation without looking at the big, one-time purchases that can skew the numbers. That means they don't look at the price of houses, furniture, appliances, cars, or computers. Instead, AIER focuses on Americans' typical daily purchases, such as food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and television service, and other household products. The institute contends that to get a good read on inflation's "sticker shock" effect, you must look at the cost of goods that the average household buys at least once a month and factor in only the kinds of expenses that are subject to change. That, too, eliminates the cost of housing because when you finance your home with a fixed-rate mortgage, that expense remains constant until you refinance or move. The group maintains that this index better measures the real-world impact of price changes, particularly for people on a budget. And, largely as the result of the recent run-up in gas prices, this "everyday price index" (EPI) suggests that Americans are being pinched far more tightly than the official inflation measure would have you believe. from the American Institute for Economic Research report http://www.aier.org/article/7557-epi...conomic-change Quote: Technology and globalization have restrained prices on big-ticket items. But they caused fewer price breaks for frequently purchased goods. Toothpaste ain’t so high-tech. AIER developed the Everyday Price Index (EPI) to address the widespread perception that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) does not reflect the day-to-day experience of Americans. As we continue to study and refine the EPI, we find that the divergence between inflation measured by the CPI and an index that measures direct experience is mostly a product of 21st-century changes in the economy. In the shorter and intermediate terms, when people are faced with a higher price for an item, they simply buy less of it. Eventually, they may substitute cheaper goods. These effects are fairly small, but can add up over time. To address this, we have revised the Everyday Price Index to allow for constantly adjusting weights. Weights are simply the proportion of your total expenditure that you spend on each good or service you purchase each month. Dynamic weights allow for day-to-day changes in consumer behavior related to price changes. This weighting results in a 2011 average annual inflation rate of 8 percent as measured by the Everyday Price Index, compared to a mere 3.1 percent from the CPI. (The unweighted EPI inflation rate for 2011 was 7.2 percent, as reported in the last issue of the Economic Bulletin.) so actually much closer to the Shadowstats figures than the official figures. who'dathunk it?
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous Last edited by kevsta; 3rd March 2012 at 09:27 AM.

3rd March 2012, 09:40 AM	#105
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	The acid test of how credible a number is is how many people believe it. PriceStats (an originally independent outfit that was formed in Argentina to source inflation data to fill the void left by the widely discredited and meddled-with INDEC numbers) measures US inflation as well at reports a real-time (daily) inflation rate, the latest one being about 2.2% which is just under reported CPI-U. I can't post the data because it is behind a paywall, as PriceStats recently sold themselves to State Street Bank (Hint: it costs money, that means investors who have a vested interest in knowing the true rates of inflation around the world value it ) The Economist magazine recently publicly endorsed it in a leader article and annouced they were switching their reporting of Argentina's inflation rate to PriceStats (Bit late; most people have been following it for a few years)

3rd March 2012, 10:44 AM	#106
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Francesca R The acid test of how credible a number is is how many people believe it. PriceStats (an originally independent outfit that was formed in Argentina to source inflation data to fill the void left by the widely discredited and meddled-with INDEC numbers) measures US inflation as well at reports a real-time (daily) inflation rate, the latest one being about 2.2% which is just under reported CPI-U. I can't post the data because it is behind a paywall, as PriceStats recently sold themselves to State Street Bank (Hint: it costs money, that means investors who have a vested interest in knowing the true rates of inflation around the world value it ) The Economist magazine recently publicly endorsed it in a leader article and annouced they were switching their reporting of Argentina's inflation rate to PriceStats (Bit late; most people have been following it for a few years) 2.2% per day? - I know I think its under-reported, but that even seems a little high to me
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

21st June 2012, 09:56 AM	#107
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,982	Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 3.66 percent Market showing its confidence that for the next 30 years inflation will remain low.

21st June 2012, 10:38 AM	#108
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by daenku32 Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 3.66 percent Market showing its confidence that for the next 30 years inflation will remain low. lol ! not sure if you've noticed, but the bond markets are not exactly "normal" lately. bond yields have been in a 40 year bull market, all the way down to zero and even negative. do you think that can persist for the next 30 years?
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

21st June 2012, 04:49 PM	#109
Tippit Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,982	Originally Posted by daenku32 Rate on 30-year mortgage falls to record 3.66 percent Market showing its confidence that for the next 30 years inflation will remain low. Inflation is already off-the-charts high, if financial asset prices (specifically bonds) are considered, as opposed to myopically focusing on consumer prices. Those who own financial/other assets don't seem to mind, as they "feel" richer, and those who don't seem to be largely ignorant of this insidious form of wealth expropriation. Of course, the elites at the top who benefit from unlimited subsidized credit and socialized (too big to fail!) losses are the real beneficiaries of our monetary and banking system. When the US debt bubble bursts, and I assure you this will be a lot sooner than three decades from now, you will see either hyper-inflation, or hyper-deflation, depending on the whims of central banks.
Tippit Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,982	__________________ "This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard." - Alan Greenspan 1966

21st June 2012, 11:05 PM	#110
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,780	Originally Posted by Tippit Inflation is already off-the-charts high, if financial asset prices (specifically bonds) are considered, as opposed to myopically focusing on consumer prices. If you're going to include financial asset prices, why not real estate prices too? Residential real estate prices are down by 35% since 2006.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

21st June 2012, 11:28 PM	#111
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,515	Basic food is quite up around here. Gas is back down from the 4.40 it hit before the threat of a congressional investigation. Two weeks after that, it's down to 3.65 Y'all figure.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

22nd June 2012, 01:58 AM	#112
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Puppycow If you're going to include financial asset prices, why not real estate prices too? Residential real estate prices are down by 35% since 2006. which is after all how they delude people into believing their fuzzy inflation numbers
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

23rd June 2012, 10:17 AM	#113
Tippit Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,982	Originally Posted by Puppycow If you're going to include financial asset prices, why not real estate prices too? Residential real estate prices are down by 35% since 2006. That's fine. But the aggregate money supply has gone up regardless of the real estate market, which is the only thing that matters vis-a-vis inflation. The point is that this is a method of wealth expropriation, and not a legitimate activity, whether it's by inflation, or deflation. We need to stop allowing banks and politicians to manipulate our money.
Tippit Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,982	__________________ "This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard." - Alan Greenspan 1966

23rd June 2012, 02:20 PM	#114
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,458	Originally Posted by Tippit That's fine. But the aggregate money supply has gone up regardless of the real estate market, which is the only thing that matters vis-a-vis inflation. The point is that this is a method of wealth expropriation, and not a legitimate activity, whether it's by inflation, or deflation. We need to stop allowing banks and politicians to manipulate our money. Article: Quote: After a small pause in 2010, the supply of dollars continues to grow. The euro crisis has increased dollar demand and US M3 could surpass $15 trillion this year
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

30th June 2012, 09:37 PM	#115
Roger Ramjets Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 714	Originally Posted by Tippit Inflation is already off-the-charts high, if financial asset prices (specifically bonds) are considered, as opposed to myopically focusing on consumer prices. Definition of 'Inflation' The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services* is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling.* Definition of 'Financial Asset' An asset that derives value because of a contractual claim. Stocks, bonds, bank deposits, and the like are all examples of financial assets. Unlike land and property--which are tangible, physical assets--financial assets do not necessarily have physical worth. Financial assets are not goods or services, and therefore by definition are not counted in inflation. They may contribute to inflation, but if so then they are already accounted for - in the prices of goods and services! Perhaps you think the official definition of inflation is 'myopic', but that doesn't give you the authority to redefine it however you like. Quote: When the US debt bubble bursts, and I assure you this will be a lot sooner than three decades from now, you will see either hyper-inflation, or hyper-deflation, depending on the whims of central banks. Or perhaps hyper-stagflation, or hyper-reflation, or hyper non-flation. Hyper-something anyway, for sure! You assurance is comforting because some of us might not last another 3 decades, and we wouldn't want to miss this hyper-whatever. However we still don't know when to expect it. Would it be possible to make your prediction a bit more precise, so that we may have a better idea of when to start looking out for it?
Roger Ramjets Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 714	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 30th June 2012 at 09:38 PM.