No inflation

[Sig]

Attached is the exact source of data I used, gdp_current_real_per-capita_1789-2012.pdf. Which is the same as yours, Economic History at www.eh.net. Only difference is mine is inflation adjusted to 2012 dollars, yours was 2000 dollars.

The problem is you're showing real GDP growth on a linear scale. Assuming the growth is an exponential function, you'd make more sense using a log scale. Even when adjusted to 2012 buying power, growth of $1,000 in 2012 is far less significant than growth of $1,000 in 1800.

Below I made up a similar chart. Starts at $1,800 in 1800 and grows at a constant 1.5% each year. Because the scale is linear, you might think there's a difference between the left hand side of the chart vs. the right hand side. There isn't.
View attachment 255205

The thing is that the official U.S. government methodology of calculating the CPI has changed over the years. Using the old U.S. government methodology that was current in the 1980s, today's inflation rate is vastly different.

Pointing out something in only today's handbook is therefore meaningless. What matters is how the official methodology has changed over time. Feel free to prove that the methodology hasn't changed since the 1980s.

So again with the intellectual honesty concept, you had no problem with using a much more problematic cumulative graph in your first post, you do realize that don't you?
That said, your constant 1.5% chart shows a lot more growth on the left side and less on the right side than the actual growth chart. It's somewhat amazing to me that I'm having to explain to you that 1.33% <1.78%, more is better when it comes to GDP per capita growth, and than a 33% difference in growth rates makes a huge difference over decades and centuries.

It is interesting that you clearly have never even cracked the current or any past CPI methods but you just know that it's "manipulated"? Thanks for clearing that up for all of us at least.

Here's how the conspiracy theory thing works... You make claims of "manipulation" without even knowing the basics of the concept you're sure is "manipulated" then the onus is on you to show the conspiracy. Not the rational folks who know what they're talking about to prove a negative that your conspiracy theory is exactly that.

Be honest with yourself, you don't actually know what you're talking about here, you're just regurgitating something you read that you've yet to take the time to actually understand. Take a few weeks to study the concept to where you can hold an intelligent conversation about it, then I'm happy to take the time to continue discussing it. As I've said in other threads, at this point you're the equivalent of me arguing with a brain surgeon about operating on brain cancer based on a homeopathy article I read...and insisting he prove me wrong when I don't even have the vocabulary to understand him let alone a grasp of the underlying concepts.

 

[longshort]

It's somewhat amazing to me that I'm having to explain to you that 1.33% <1.78%,

Underestimate recent inflation just slightly and that difference in "real" growth reverses very quickly.

 

[SunTrader]

Underestimate recent inflation just slightly and that difference in "real" growth reverses very quickly.

careful longshort, you might trigger sig to label you grumpy or bitter haha questioning his sacred cow.

 

[Sig]

careful longshort, you might trigger sig to label you grumpy or bitter haha questioning his sacred cow.

Speaking of references to other conversations in other threads and intellectual honesty, we're all still waiting for you to answer that question that you've worked oh so very hard to avoid.

 

[piezoe]

I very well could be wrong

Indeed.

 

[piezoe]

I know it has been written about but it's nowhere witnessed in the actual pricing of products and services. This dichotomy was precisely my point.

To your latter point, I have actually been making this argument for almost 2 decades now, which is that the relationship between inflation and funding in circulation only holds if funding is invested in innovation that allows workers to participate, NOT increases in productivity in which workers don't participate. Ai and other automations disable workers from any participation in innovation and productivity increases. Hence workers have less in their pockets to purchase products and hence demand for products and services is not increasing. That's why we don't see inflation. The huge mistake of this century is the continued belief by Central banks and politicians that more money will increase innovation and investment in productive assets. That only holds until actual profitable investments have been funded. The rest ends up in unproductive assets and negative yielding investments. None of that benefits society and hence employees. That is why I have been saying that the absolutely most important aspect of innovation and automation and ai is a philosophical rethink how society at large benefits from those investments and not just a few dozen entrepreneurs only. Right now we are in an epic speculative bubble in virtually every aspect of life. I claim that around 30-40% of all employees are artificially held in employment through laws and regulations. Businesses actually do not need them anymore. In addition the synthetic funding programs by governments of unproductive and the unemployed is steadily increasing, but not at the cost of those few who hold the entire power of the world in their hands but it is debt that is enforced onto the entire society. In reality this is all just borrowing time, a virtual circle to keep many alive just for another day. A true rethink must happen but it has not so far because governments are more interested in handing out what the broad population demands. The TV in most peoples' homes is on all day long. Soon you can buy vapors and breathalizers that supply you with a constant dose of thc all day long to ensure you are high enough to not drown in your sorrows. If this is not a sure sign that the 1%ers hold the rest in their firm grip then I don't know how much more naive one can be.

Good post! Particularly this:

"That is why I have been saying that the absolutely most important aspect of innovation and automation and ai is a philosophical rethink how society at large benefits from those investments and not just a few dozen entrepreneurs only."​

And this is interesting:

"The huge mistake of this century is the continued belief by Central banks and politicians that more money will increase innovation and investment in productive assets. That only holds until actual profitable investments have been funded.That only holds until actual profitable investments have been funded. The rest ends up in unproductive assets and negative yielding investments. None of that benefits society and hence employees."​

Can you give one or two examples of the kind of profitable investments you have in mind, and a couple of the kind of those that end up in unproductive assets and negative yielding investments?

 

[DiceAreCast]

Profitable investments could be the planning and construction of a new dam that generates electricity or the expansion of a university department to start to offer a PhD research based program. Negative yielding investments are much easier to find nowadays: government funding for local private construction companies just to increase local employment which is nothing else than social welfare financed by tax payers. Or investments in public buildings that are either unnecessary or where a construction company is overpaid because there was no public tender. Or investments in companies that produce products or offer services that have zero benefit and don't solve any real problems. For example, do you honestly think the future of hamburgers lies in some veggie based patties? I am absolutely convinced that will not happen. The problem in this world is not too many cows nor their farts or excretions as we are led to believe. I think you can come up with dozens of bound to fail startups just by looking at their business plans.

Good post! Particularly this:

"That is why I have been saying that the absolutely most important aspect of innovation and automation and ai is a philosophical rethink how society at large benefits from those investments and not just a few dozen entrepreneurs only."​

And this is interesting:

"The huge mistake of this century is the continued belief by Central banks and politicians that more money will increase innovation and investment in productive assets. That only holds until actual profitable investments have been funded.That only holds until actual profitable investments have been funded. The rest ends up in unproductive assets and negative yielding investments. None of that benefits society and hence employees."​

Can you give one or two examples of the kind of profitable investments you have in mind, and a couple of the kind of those that end up in unproductive assets and negative yielding investments?

 

[SunTrader]

The cow fart problem is being solved ... by the young eating less cow than older people.

Something we humans used to do.

 

[themickey]

Someone decided to turn that brainwashing machine on.

In nazi germany they gave free TVs...

I can remember that period, people could go to the local council office where they issued a 'tv token', local Walmarts were handing out the tvs.
I remember seeing Hitler talking to a POW, it was Colonel Hogan.

 

[misterkel]

Has historic scenario of no or very slow inflation occured somewhere for long period?

Yes, under a gold standard there was very little inflation because gold is difficult to inflate. However fractional reserve did allow for this, but they capped it at 10X.