too vague...we've had plenty of "inflation"; you must be one of those guys that doesn't believe there can be "inflation" unless it's wage inflation...
Say again, fed may raise rates by 0.10%, this is a joke right?
- Thread starter S2007S
- Start date
too vague...we've had plenty of "inflation"; you must be one of those guys that doesn't believe there can be "inflation" unless it's wage inflation...
I've seen a few guys on here argue that "commodity inflation" is transitory (nevermind the baseline shifts upward over the past decade); hence they don't consider it to be a factor in the inflation debate (nevermind rents soaring, food costs soaring, health care costs soaring, etc, etc...) so long as there is no wage inflation, they believe that it's transitory and the "free market" will work it out...seems like an awfully convenient argument to me.
Right. And it's difficult for the free market to work things out when there's so much gov't intervention and inefficiency in health care, energy, food production, etc. Of course, these are the true staple items that people need, too. The price of smart phones going down doesn't help much when food, health care, college tuition, etc. are soaring.
Agreed, but it just speaks more to the "soft propaganda" that seeps out of the MSM providing cover and false logic about the necessity of ZIRP. At every turn, they manage the message, try to take eyeballs away from real world inflation and give us all some tidbit about "future growth", "full employment", "impending wage gains", blah, blah, blah...
Huh? I'm saying the economy doesn't have as much momentum as they're trying to imply and that we've been in a protracted weak recovery for almost 15 years. Deep issues underneath the surface though.
I figure that the blanket statements "the economy has momentum" or "the economy is recovering" pertains to the "asset economy". Ever since the Fed started targeting asset prices in earnest (sometime in the mid 90's), the MSM has carried the torch for the Fed in trying to persuade the common man to "spread the message".
It doesn't help matters that most people still go cross-eyed when they are asked to separate rising housing prices, rising stock prices with large structural employment problems, minimal wage growth and enormous entitlement costs (underfunded public sector benefits)...
That's not to say that there wasn't some benefit to targeting asset prices in the 2003-07 period...(huge employment gains in construction, and peripheral industries), but at an enormous cost AND at the cost of shifting demand forward at bubble prices that wiped out millions of "homeowners"...So the answer is "more of the same"?
Sometimes I wonder if these clowns in the MSM just find the talking points circa 2006-07 (or even spring/summer 2000 in tech) and figure the braindead have long forgotten the prior episodes...
I was agreeing with you. My post was referring to the same guy you replied to (who believes the economy is strong and growing).