Inflation = Taxation

[Parker2112]

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get ty. Do you really want to go down that path?

No, I appreciate the intelligent challenge. I'll get back with you on this.

[Parker2112]

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get ty. Do you really want to go down that path?

I will say this...what if our currency in circulation was tied to population, and the issuance was governed by set-in-stone deteminants, like the census and tax returns to the IRS, etc.

Wouldnt that prevent us from losing purchasing power?

Also, Im waiting for you to get back to me on the legislation to audit the fed, and how that contradicts your assertion that the Fed answers to the fed gov and the voters.

[Parker2112]

In fairness, your bit on on inflation really sucked.
Neither do you. It's like you skimmed the material 15 minutes ago then made yourself the teacher of it.

Your spirit of sharing is commendable, but you just barely learned the lesson yourself, Parkay. A little bit of woodshedding might have gone a long way.

You assume this winehole. I've read at least two books covering the subject, and seen tons of the ol Ron Paul propoganda (which is really the bulk of what I have talked about here), along with those two hour videos you wouldnt watch...and evidently all of this is worth more than 50 hours of graduate economics

[angrydude]

So the answer is no.

If labor's earning power is unaffected, then why should someone who works care if inflation is present?

Productivity gains that more than outstrip inflation mean that buying power actually goes up.

If your contention is that we are all so much worse off than we were in 1920 when the dollar was "worth more", then why does it take so much less time for the average person to earn enough money to buy a loaf of bread in 2010, than in 1910?

Doesn't that mean that we are generally better off, despite this inflation?

Because you can't save. And if you can't save you can't have growth.

[angrydude]

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get ty. Do you really want to go down that path?

inflation is an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in CPI, just like a ruler is a tool to measure length, not length itself.

We are experiencing inflation right now, look at the stock market. Do you think the money flowing in there is from mom and pop and their life savings?

inflation is taxation, but not on your paycheck, but rather on your savings. It allows the first people who get the new money to buy products using tomorrow's money at today's prices. The difficulty is is that prices don't rise until the last person in your economy gets the new dollar.

can it's pros outweigh its cons? Maybe. But that also depends on who is getting the new money, how much inflation you're allowing, and what else your economy has going on.

[Parker2112]

inflation is an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in CPI, just like a ruler is a tool to measure length, not length itself.

We are experiencing inflation right now, look at the stock market. Do you think the money flowing in there is from mom and pop and their life savings?

inflation is taxation, but not on your paycheck, but rather on your savings. It allows the first people who get the new money to buy products using tomorrow's money at today's prices. The difficulty is is that prices don't rise until the last person in your economy gets the new dollar.

can it's pros outweigh its cons? Maybe. But that also depends on who is getting the new money, how much inflation you're allowing, and what else your economy has going on.

Ownership. Lock stock and barrel.

How do you feel about the fed then?

[RandomGuy]

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._Inflation.asp

So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?

[RandomGuy]

Because you can't save. And if you can't save you can't have growth.

Savings rates are generally tied to inflation.

The interest rate the bank pays you on deposited funds mirrors the inflation rate, as does the return on any investment.

How exactly does inflation imply you "can't save"?

Indeed, there is some justification for believing that if there were NO inflation, there would be no investment.

[Parker2112]

So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?

How tha would currency distributed in 2009-2010 be reflected in the inflation rates for each of the last 93 years?

I see you trying to twist in a dishonest manner, as usual.

Werent you the one with more graduate economics hours than the entire website combined? Please, man. Please.

[RandomGuy]

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.

The dollar is worth about 97% less today than it was when the Fed Reserve act was passed. Do the research

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._Inflation.asp

So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?

How tha would currency distributed in 2009-2010 be reflected in the inflation rates for each of the last 93 years?

I see you trying to twist in a dishonest manner, as usual.

Werent you the one with more graduate economics hours than the entire website combined? Please, man. Please.

Actually, that would be scott the economics professor. He has a PhD in economics I would assume.

But you still didn't answer my question.

Taken all together, what you are trying to say seems a tad vague. I have only asked questions to clarify what exactly it is you think/believe here, and have gotten precious little coherent response.

You have been complaining that today's dollars are so worthless compared to what they were when we started the Fed.

You have also railed against hyperinflation.

I took one of your own links, and found that 1923% inflation over 93 years is only 3% average inflation over that time. That level of inflation can't really be considered "hyperinflation" by anybody's measurement.

The question remains unanswered.

How do you define hyperinflation?

[Winehole23]

The inflation rates have been consistently been less than 5% since Bush 1 ie 20+ years.

By inference, then, Fed inflation targeting works. The results of the last 20 years tell the tale, something like that?

I was sort of asking a question about the accuracy of Fed inflation targeting, not whether it has been successful overall. Assuming arguendo that this is so, I suppose it matters very little if Fed targeting has been inaccurate at the micro level as some suggest.

[Winehole23]

You assume this winehole.

Your incessant handwaving at the putative evidence speaks otherwise.

I've read at least two books covering the subject, and seen tons of the ol Ron Paul propoganda (which is really the bulk of what I have talked about here), along with those two hour videos you wouldnt watch...and evidently all of this is worth more than 50 hours of graduate economics

It isn't worth a bucket of warm spit in the hands of an expositor like you.

RG's high-handedness at least has some kind of take behind it. All you do is dodge and weave behind your sources while castigating the idiocy of anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions and pretending to know how they arrived at them.

Persuasive.

[RandomGuy]

By inference, then, Fed inflation targeting works. The results of the last 20 years tell the tale, something like that?

I was sort of asking a question about the accuracy of Fed inflation targeting, not whether it has been successful overall. Assuming arguendo that this is so, I suppose it matters very little if Fed targeting has been inaccurate at the micro level as some suggest.

The Fed has been very successful at keeping inflation within a narrow band.

It's current and more pressing problem is that of potential DE-flation. By some accounts, and I would agree, deflation would be much more horrendous.

I have not seen ANYONE credible predicting hyper-inflation. Possible? Sure, I guess. A rapid contraction of the money supply would short circuit that in a hurry if it really reared its ugly head.

Perhaps Parker could share some original thoughts on the matter to help clear up what exactly it is that he is freaked out about.

[RandomGuy]

RG's high-handedness at least has some kind of take behind it. All you do is dodge and weave behind your sources while castigating the idiocy of anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions and pretending to know how they arrived at them.

My take as well, and that includes the bit about me being high-handed. I should be a bit less full of myself. Have to work on that.

[DarkReign]

My take as well, and that includes the bit about me being high-handed. I should be a bit less full of myself. Have to work on that.

Nah, it. Being a know-it-all prick is a fun read.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

inflation is an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in CPI, just like a ruler is a tool to measure length, not length itself.

We are experiencing inflation right now, look at the stock market. Do you think the money flowing in there is from mom and pop and their life savings?

inflation is taxation, but not on your paycheck, but rather on your savings. It allows the first people who get the new money to buy products using tomorrow's money at today's prices. The difficulty is is that prices don't rise until the last person in your economy gets the new dollar.

can it's pros outweigh its cons? Maybe. But that also depends on who is getting the new money, how much inflation you're allowing, and what else your economy has going on.

the money supply can remain static and the CPI can increase and that would result in inflation. Inflation may very well be a system of measurement but ratios are still scalars and thus numbers. We can get more in depth in numbers theory if you would like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

An empirical example of this is the inflation in 1978. That was a direct result of OPEC raising oil prices and very little to do with the fed lending money.

Furthermore nobody saves in todays economy. While inflation impacts current capital it does the same for current debt. Only really rich people save in any serious amount. Everyone in debt has an easier time of it.

It also does not suddenly kick in once a threshold is met. Each additional dollar added has an incremental effect. Its called integration.

Thats simple supply in demand. One person spending $1 is an increase in demand as are 4 or 6 or 10,000. They are additive.

We already have listed the inflation rates for this year in this thread. You're assertion on stock values is also less than wholisitc. Sure the money dumped in the economy has an effect but its not the total effect.

[Parker2112]

Your incessant handwaving at the putative evidence speaks otherwise.
It isn't worth a bucket of warm spit in the hands of an expositor like you.

RG's high-handedness at least has some kind of take behind it. All you do is dodge and weave behind your sources while castigating the idiocy of anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions and pretending to know how they arrived at them.

Persuasive.

I dont give a damn about persuading you. Its enough for me to point out that you dont know about the area. Then maybe you will inform yourself and teach us something.

[Parker2112]

The Fed has been very successful at keeping inflation within a narrow band.

And keeping us in a boom bust cycle that dips about every ten years.

[Parker2112]

My take as well, and that includes the bit about me being high-handed. I should be a bit less full of myself. Have to work on that.

just respect the process. Give the issues and the views some chance to take form before squashing them, including your own. Let the argument breathe before trying to take the wheel. The holes will shine through soon enough...

[Parker2112]

the money supply can remain static and the CPI can increase and that would result in inflation. Inflation may very well be a system of measurement but ratios are still scalars and thus numbers. We can get more in depth in numbers theory if you would like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

An empirical example of this is the inflation in 1978. That was a direct result of OPEC raising oil prices and very little to do with the fed lending money.

Furthermore nobody saves in todays economy. While inflation impacts current capital it does the same for current debt. Only really rich people save in any serious amount. Everyone in debt has an easier time of it.

It also does not suddenly kick in once a threshold is met. Each additional dollar added has an incremental effect. Its called integration.

Thats simple supply in demand. One person spending $1 is an increase in demand as are 4 or 6 or 10,000. They are additive.

We already have listed the inflation rates for this year in this thread. You're assertion on stock values is also less than wholisitc. Sure the money dumped in the economy has an effect but its not the total effect.

So where is your rebuttal on the control over the fed issue? If we cant audit, do you now back away from your original criticism on my take?

[Winehole23]

just respect the process. Give the issues and the views some chance to take form before squashing them, including your own. Let the argument breathe before trying to take the wheel.

Too bad you can't hold the handlebars straight. Good luck attaching those training wheels.

The holes will shine through soon enough...

Sure enough, the holes are already visible. Not that you'll ever acknowledge them...

[RandomGuy]

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.

The dollar is worth about 97% less today than it was when the Fed Reserve act was passed. Do the research

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._Inflation.asp

So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?

How tha would currency distributed in 2009-2010 be reflected in the inflation rates for each of the last 93 years?

I see you trying to twist in a dishonest manner, as usual.

You still didn't answer my question.

Taken all together, what you are trying to say seems a tad vague. I have only asked questions to clarify what exactly it is you think/believe here, and have no coherent response.

You have been complaining that today's dollars are so worthless compared to what they were when we started the Fed.

You have also railed against hyperinflation.

I took one of your own links, and found that 1923% inflation over 93 years is only 3% average inflation over that time. That level of inflation can't really be considered "hyperinflation" by anybody's measurement.

The question remains unanswered.

How do you define hyperinflation?

Is it 1923% over 93 years (3.2%)? or we can call it even at 2000% inflation at 100 years (3% average yearly)

Or was this not the hyperinflation you were talking about?
Is the hyperinflation in the future? far future?
Clarify a bit for us.

[Parker2112]

Tango with this article:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/are...ationary-storm

the point:

I have to be blunt here: if the US Dollar DOES NOT bounce soon, a hyper-inflationary scenario is INCREASINGLY likely in the US.

The fed worries people all over the spectrum

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Parker2112

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

Should have been "what we are going to see."

[Parker2112]

then again, if you trust me for economic advice, you deserve what you get.