It's defined with a mathematical formula based on a basket of goods. You haven't provided any sources other than your gut and a baseless assertion about gullibility. I have references [1, 2].
> You also have no idea how the cost of housing is determined.
It's literally on the investopedia write-up. [3] And also, it's basic, fundamental market economics. More supply, price goes down. Less supply, price goes up assuming constant demand. Sure lending makes unaffordable places more affordable. That doesn't really matter if you flood the market with supply though does it? [4]
FTA [4]: "Tokyo rent is cheaper because it builds lots of housing. Every year, the city adds about 100,000 new homes. This increase has more than kept up with the increase in population, leading to a housing surplus." Average rent is $2.50/sqft in Tokyo vs $6/sqft in SF. And they have negative interest rates. Supply. Matters.
> Central banks have artificially manipulated interest rates to an extremely low level.
Set them at a low level. That's their job. To maintain a consistent, low, predictable rate of inflation.
> The reserve bank governor even admitted they were at fault.
Look I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm saying inflation has little to do with the very real issues you call out.
[1] https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/inflation
[2] https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/consumers-pri...
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040215/how-does-law...
[4] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-ed-california-ho...
>> Set them at a low level. That's their job. To maintain a consistent, low, predictable rate of inflation.
Your reading comprehension failed here. I am referring to control of interest rates, which has far reaching consequences beyond inflation. This is the "fatal conceit" of socialist minded people such as yourself. No one on this planet is qualified to control interest rates.
Yes New Zealand is the least corrupt government in the world, apparently, and despite that, the divide between rich and poor is increasing. It has become way less affordable to live here since the mid 2000's and is not getting any easier. We are locked in to a corrupt global system. Our monetary policy is a slave to the global socialist monetary system.
> ...the divide between rich and poor is increasing...
For sure, and it shouldn't. At least in the US it really started to get bad after Reagan dropped the top income tax from 90% to the current 35%. And the estate tax from 80% to the current basically-zero. Nothing to do with inflation, in fact, inflation would reduce this spread as it would disproportionately affect those with more money, and aid those with debt.
Who would have thought that letting the wealthy keep more money would lead to the wealthy having more money? Shocking.
> We are locked in to a corrupt global system.
Explanation needed.
> Our monetary policy is a slave to the global socialist monetary system.
Is the global government (United Nations?!) trying to own the means of production?
Keynesian theory is the orthodox economic religion, which you have fully subscribed to. Austrians are heretics and we are burned at the stake for our beliefs.
I’ve read both sides. The Austrian school is far more compelling and rational. It cuts through the obscurantist bullshit with precision.
To me, Keynesian theory with its justification for continued economic chaos, is for those suffering from “battered wife syndrome”. To accept the Keynesian excuses, is akin to a wife getting brutally raped and beaten by her husband every day, while telling everyone “It’s OK, I deserve it, he knows what’s best for me”.
If you haven’t seriously examined the Austrian side of the debate, have a look at this:
https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-money
https://mises.org/library/one-lesson
https://mises.org/books-library
EDIT: In the first link, read the paragraph that begins with "In the face of overwhelming arguments against inflationary expansion ..." . The entire article is good but that really gets to the point of inflation.
That's a market force designed to disincentivize that investment. Nobody's guaranteed a risk-free return, or even retention of value in what's not a long-term store of value. Pick something else to invest it in.
For what it's worth, NZ's inflation rate is tracking at 1.5% per annum and Rabobank offers a 2.4% online savings account.
> The cost of housing has increased hundreds of percent over the last 20 years thanks to central bank monetary policy that artificially manipulate interest rates. A shoebox apartment is now ridiculously unaffordable.
Cost of housing is a total red herring and largely unrelated to this conversation. Cost of housing is overwhelmingly supply-side driven. If you want cheaper houses demand municipalities permit new construction. You can always build up, there's no limit on that. Build enough, the cost will drop substantially. There's plenty of markets that exemplify this effect, like Houston and Tokyo. SF on the other hand routinely forbids totally reasonable construction and the pricing speaks for itself.
The cost of housing roughly boils down to this: the narrative is that housing "should be an investment" and that it "should go up over time" so the directionality is accepted. Homeowners tend to be older, wealthier, have deeper ties to the community and vote. Renters tend to be younger, less affluent, transient and don't vote. As such policies are enacted that benefit homeowners. This includes zoning restrictions, building restrictions and tax deductions benefiting homeowners. Too few new units are built relative to influx of population, and price goes up. It's simple market economics.
Want to solve the problem? Get people to vote to allow more housing.
For what it's worth in the US housing prices on average tend to track inflation. It's certain municipalities like SF and NYC that far exceed due to asinine policy. The monetary policy was the same in all regions of the US so why then would pricing changes be uncorrelated across markets?
> I can put money into savings that loses money after inflation, and funds a system that is fundamentally corrupt, which leaves me worse off overall than if we had a real free market without centralized manipulation of currency and interest rates.
New Zealand ranks routinely as the world's least corrupt government. A system that maintains stability of money and debases it over time slowly and predictably helps keep wealth inequality down, and benefits the less well off by inflating away debts and encourages productive allocation of capital.
> This centralized artificial interference has caused major imbalances in the economy here. It didn't work for the Soviet Union and it's not working in the "capitalist" world either.
This doesn't make sense. The Soviet Union fell for all sorts of reasons that weren't inflation related or even central planning related. Authoritarian states tend to do so in time.
I'd say it's working just fine, inflation is roughly 1-2% per annum and incredibly well controlled. We've got plenty of actual problems (like the cost of housing), though, this isn't one of them.