Re:The US government is inviting inflation
by zpeti on Monday February 22, 2021 @09:12AM
(#26224721)
I agree with you, but that doesn't take away from the fact that now we might see actual inflation at the level of "everyone". Which is different to the asset price inflation we've seen in the last 12 years.
The "everyone" inflation is around 10%+ in metro areas: http://www.chapwoodindex.org/.
Re:The US government is inviting inflation
by waheoo on Monday February 22, 2021 @09:04AM
(#26224612)
What's the argument for housing not being included thats blizzare.
Re:The US government is inviting inflation
by sovsovsod on Monday February 22, 2021 @09:34AM
(#26224961)
Rents included in the CPI.
The argument is that a house is an investment. I.e you sell it in the end. Investments aren’t included in the CPI.
I think that’s BS because investments increase in value due to inflation (and not just because of their inherent growth).
I get the difficulty of extracting the natural growth of the asset from the inflationary growth, but I also believe most of the 2008 monetary mass increase was shoveled into financial assets and this has to be considered.
that’s the gist of it.
Re:The US government is inviting inflation
by throwaway0a5e on Monday February 22, 2021 @09:12AM
(#26224717)
I haven't crunched the numbers but so much of people's income goes to housing and housing prices vary so much that I think that would likely result in the outliers trashing any utility the index has.
If I gift money to an extremely over leveraged banks to save them and, with puckered sphincters (they just saw the abyss), they hold onto it then we won’t “see inflation”. It’s there, but it’s latent inflation.
If I demolish wages by exporting jobs overseas, that will have a deflationary effect to counter the effect of inflation.
If I replace cocoa butter with food wax, I hide inflation.
If I don’t include price of housing in the CPI [1], I manipulate inflation.
Schiff’s theory is sound. But, like the GME debacle proved, it’s like shoring a doomed company. Can you stay solvent long enough to prove your point?
[1] I know and understand the argument why houses it arent included. I just reject the argument completely as flawed.