You don't even have to be a neo-keynesian, you really just have to recognize that not all price changes are "secret inflation." The markets (ie. the "real world") tend to agree with me [0].
Anybody buying the 2% inflation number doesn't recognize the actual 15-20% hurdle they have to jump over every (non-covid) year and will inevitably get poorer unless they are directly tied to a "cantillon channel"... in which case they will only stay rich thanks to what amounts to fraud.
More accurate inflation calculation - https://chapwoodindex.com
Chapwood "Index" is produced by the same person behind many of the conspiracy theories around Seth Rich's murder [0], not really a brilliant objective source of inflation metrics. I'm not claiming the CPI is perfect, but taking a look at market expectations of inflation also gives you a pretty good picture of what is going on, and it's not a 4 year doubling of prices.
You have absolutely no evidence to support this.
The only reason the cost of living goes up in the major metros listed there is because housing went up there, and that's not inflation or the cantillon effect (which I concede exists but is nowhere near as big as you make it out to be) -- that's because city councils aren't permitting new construction.
Your comment is a manifestation of proportionality bias. You think a big change in the affordability of housing in SF has to have a big cause like the global economy string pulling illuminati cantillon magic. The reality is far more banal. It's straight-up simple supply and demand. Strong economy in and around SF creates demand for living in SF. The city council doesn't permit new construction. This limits supply. Low supply, high demand, big prices - which the well paid tech workers can afford. That's it and that's all man.
Naturally when demand fell as a result of the pandemic prices went with it.
Do I think those who stay wealthy in real terms are able to do so via "what amounts to fraud?" No. Nor do I buy your 15-20% hurdle assertion: if your annual salary of say $100,000 was worth just 10% less each year (as in, real inflation of 15% minus 5% worth of nominal income growth, a generous income growth assumption) $100,000, over just five years, it would be worth the equivalent of ~$60,000 in year 0. It seems like a stretch to suggest that everybody but the rich are seeing their real incomes almost sliced in half every five years. Use the 20% number or a more conservative assumption for income growth and the numbers start to square even less with reality.
Asset price inflation is such a weird metric to rail on because that's the whole point of investing. Literally the point of assets is they go up in price over time. If you bought AAPL at $50 and it hits $300 is that "asset price inflation"? No! It's a good return on investment.
There's no personal need for affordable AAPL stock is there? Are you going to die if you can't afford AAPL? Of course not.
You know what's gone down though? Housing. Which, by the way, costs exactly the same amount now on an inflation adjusted dollars per square foot basis as it did in the 1970s across the whole of the United States according to the BLS. [1] Certain major metros are of course higher but that's simply because the city councils stopped permitting new construction to benefit existing landowners while demand increased due to the booming economy in and around these metros.
Inflation is literally defined as CPI and it factors in the necessities of life. AAPL stock is not a necessity. It doesn't matter how far up it goes if bread costs the same.
Wanna stop the inequality it leads to? Bring in a wealth tax.
[1] https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-squa...
"...people who forgot to attend ECON-101."
The real problem is people that think the neokeynsian and econometrics nonsense they learned at school is valid in the real world. Easy to detect members of that crowd, they are generally clueless about scarcity value, bitcoin/hard-money and will inevitably end up poorer than the less ignorant.