Here, for example:Originally Posted by agamemnus
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/...ar-debasement/
Source?True, but still the overall effect is to lower the CPI.
*yawns* We want inflation, it's the hyperinflation that's the problem.I never claimed "rampant inflation", but inflation nonetheless.
So? Doesn't have anything to do with Fed policy.The CPI does not measure what the average American can buy. Given two periods with two different CPI levels, the difference in the CPI does not equate to a difference in spending power because of employment and wages also change.
Uh, not true. Deficits increased steadily from 1991 or so to 7.4% of GDP in 2000. Regardless, I recognize that Japan and the US are hardly similar, but they're a lot more similar than the US and, say, Greece.Japan didn't run deficits during its 1990s stagflationary period, as far as I remember. Anyhoo, inflation is not too low!
This is the same argument made about immigrants taking our jobs. It's simply wrong. This is not a zero sum game.In the long run, with trade like this, we are harmed. It immediately exports jobs overseas. That's fine, as long as the benefits of trade diffuses into the economy and creates even more jobs, but does it?
Those numbers are disputed. See my earlier thread about this.Let's just forget the debt problems created by maintaining a constant country deficit... Given the shrinking middle class (ie: more and more people falling below the mean income) as a percentage of the population, and continually falling income mobility since the late 1980s or so... what conclusion can we draw from these figures...?
What does structural unemployment have to do with China?My conclusion here is that the current 9.6% unemployment level reflects a higher structural unemployment level rather than just temporary unemployment, because the low unemployment level enjoyed till around 2006 was just an illusion created by the promise of infinitely increasing US deficit spending.
Reply With Quote