Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

[MarkL]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

Wow, clearly you didn't read the entire post, nor comprehend what was actually written.

Respectfully, this is a frequent phrase of yours C1ue.

I've quickly counted 21 posts of yours (and stopped counting) where a good variety of readers of yours didn't "comprehend what was actually written", myself being one of those readers. In truth, what's happening here is people disagreeing, not "not comprehending what was written." Your repeated use of this and similar phrases is a demeaning technique that doesn't add value to the conversation.

By the way, I'm not implying that you are the only one that does this, nor that I'm not guilty of similar techniques myself!

And as a second BTW, in this post I agree with you and not RDRees on the overall subject of him wanting to see deflation and doing so by picking the peak to start his analysis.

[bart]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

...

Bart's data also is quite consistent with what I see - while you CAN find some things cheaper due to clearance or whatever, it is quite clear from the dollar totals that prices have gone up.

So if you want to believe EJ is wrong, so be it.

From what I can see, you want to see deflation and so you do.

Indeed - I posted at least a half dozen charts that clearly show substantial inflation - and even provided examples in his very own expenses.




And then we have this, which really has my hackles up - if this was an unmoderated board, he's be a little speck of carbon due to having been flamed by me - with afterburners on max.

...
My point is that EJ was wrong when he said we'd see significant inflation by now. Basically flat prices for four years is NOT significant inflation.
...

This is the second time he's been here, both times beating the deflation drum hard and saying that EJ was wrong.

There's a difference between debate/discussion and pounding the same ideas in post after post. And the horse puckey about flat prices for the last four years is just plain ridiculous.


In my opinion and at best, that's quite tacky.... and at worst he's an astroturfer or similar.

[MarkL]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

With that said, here is a reasonable argument against high inflation:
Why (Hyper) Inflation Is Not In the Cards

THIS is an excellent article. It is the ONLY solid argument against Poom that I've read. (Sorry RDRees!)

EJ, You've argued that the government will act in it's own best interests and deflate away our debt by printing money madly. What do you think of this counterpoint from Aaron's article?

So if high inflation is bad for the Power Elites who own 75% of the productive assets of the nation, and this same Power Elite wields unassailable influence over the processes of governance (Congress, the Fed, the Treasury, etc.), then why would they allow the Fed and the Treasury to inflate away their wealth?

(Someone should make this a thread of it's own!!)

EJ? Fred?

[MarkL]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

Indeed - I posted at least a half dozen charts that clearly show substantial inflation - and even provided examples in his very own expenses.

Yea, and RDRees showed the PPI and CPI from the BLS that backed up his position and showed multiple other expense examples.

And then we have this, which really has my hackles up - if this was an unmoderated board, he's be a little speck of carbon due to having been flamed by me - with afterburners on max. This is the second time he's been here, both times beating the deflation drum hard and saying that EJ was wrong.

He's not beating the deflation drum hard, he's accusing EJ of prematurely predicting inflation. READ his posts.
"my point is not that we will see deflation of any major kind..."

There's a difference between debate/discussion and pounding the same ideas in post after post. And the horse puckey about flat prices for the last four years is just plain ridiculous. In my opinion and at best, that's quite tacky.... and at worst he's an astroturfer or similar.

There's also a difference between debate/discussion and just flaming your opponents like this post does.

I don't agree with RDRees's opinion. But he's supported his arguments with strong factual backup (much of which I've written opposition to, but I still respect) and we need more people on this board of an opposing opinion. LOTS of people on this site pound the same idea out over and over (and over and over)... and they are accepted because they are in line with the general opinion.

RDRees, you and I have had some intense disagreements even in this same thread, but I for one APPRECIATE your contribution and opinions here and respect someone who brings intellectual honesty to an opposing opinion. We need MORE of that here and less "flaming with afterburners on max" just because we don't agree with someone.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

I think I saw the word "tequila" on c1ue receipt!

So Diet Coke and Tequila, that makes what? Tar Bals! (2-for-1 in FL as I understand...)

[LargoWinch]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

THIS is an excellent article. It is the ONLY solid argument against Poom that I've read. (Sorry RDRees!)

EJ, You've argued that the government will act in it's own best interests and deflate away our debt by printing money madly. What do you think of this counterpoint from Aaron's article?

So if high inflation is bad for the Power Elites who own 75% of the productive assets of the nation, and this same Power Elite wields unassailable influence over the processes of governance (Congress, the Fed, the Treasury, etc.), then why would they allow the Fed and the Treasury to inflate away their wealth?

(Someone should make this a thread of it's own!!)

EJ? Fred?

MarkL, I do not believe the quoted article by CHS provides a "solid" argument against inflation, for the following reasons:

a) The top 1% assets are not mainly cash, far from it. They own assets. Think: RE, art, boats, wine, collectible, stocks, businesses etc. etc.

b) The top 1% benefits from inflation as the largesses from the government flows into their industry first: think military contractors

c) The top 1% benefit/own/control the banking system which of course makes a killing during times of negative interest rates, which is unrelated to inflation (borrow at 10% lend at 15% - or borrow at 0% lend at 5%)


Also, ask yourself why over the last decade, did the gap between rich and poor grew? The rich did not get "less rich", they got insanely richer despite substantial inflation.

Inflation is a tax from the government in favor of the rich and well connected. Period. This process will continue and accelarate.

As such, the article by CHS is misguided.

[bart]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

Yea, and RDRees showed the PPI and CPI from the BLS that backed up his position and showed multiple other expense examples.

I submit, as others have, that the period he used was basically cherry picked. He also blew off and never responded to my points about his various expenses.

He's not beating the deflation drum hard, he's accusing EJ of prematurely predicting inflation. READ his posts.
"my point is not that we will see deflation of any major kind..."

Perhaps you should more carefully read those posts of his, but probably the simplest answer is for us to agree to disagree.

There's also a difference between debate/discussion and just flaming your opponents like this post does.

If you believe that my post was a flame and that there are no such things as astroturfing and similar, there's little else I can say.

My take is that there's something else going on with his comments and views that is undisclosed, per my decade plus of experience on forums with areas like cognitive dissonance and logical fallacies - and again, you're free to disagree.
Could I be wrong - sure - but it happens very infrequently.

I don't agree with RDRees's opinion. But he's supported his arguments with strong factual backup (much of which I've written opposition to, but I still respect) and we need more people on this board of an opposing opinion. LOTS of people on this site pound the same idea out over and over (and over and over)... and they are accepted because they are in line with the general opinion.

"General opinion" is what any forum is composed of, but for example and in my opinion when someone writes a long post about something as minor as Safeway discount cards to try and prove that we haven't had much inflation, I call foul and poor analysis - and do not respect it.

Opposing opinion to the general opinion is fine and I seldom post about them on any forum, but when I believe that cherry picking and similar tools are used (intentionally or not) or that someone's data or conclusions are truly bogus, I speak up.

The main comment to which I strongly objected was "Basically flat prices for four years". I have real problems with "conclusions" like that, mostly for their strongly misleading nature.

RDRees, you and I have had some intense disagreements even in this same thread, but I for one APPRECIATE your contribution and opinions here and respect someone who brings intellectual honesty to an opposing opinion. We need MORE of that here and less "flaming with afterburners on max" just because we don't agree with someone.

You're of course welcome to take my comment about afterburners out of context and spin it, but his clear and in context and bogus statements like "basically flat prices for four years" remain.

..

[MarkL]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

c) The top 1% benefit/own/control the banking system which of course makes a killing during times of negative interest rates, which is unrelated to inflation (borrow at 10% lend at 15% - or borrow at 0% lend at 5%)

You've shifted the conversation from the article's focus on "The Banksters" influence in Washington to "The Rich." It's an interesting distinction and I'm not sure who has more influence... and to what degree there is a difference between the two. However, I think understanding the answer the question might help resolve the question.

a and b are valid points, although I think minor in comparison to c and points related to c. IF the rich own the banks and during an inflationary period the debt on the banks balance sheets will take a terrific beating, then the rich will take a hit. Even if you disagree that the rich own the banks, the point in the article is that the Banksters have substantial influence in Washington (hard to deny!!!) and their motivations will remain to not have their debt inflated away. It's a decent argument to me... at the least against the specific motivations that EJ has tendered for WHY our government will cause it.

Also, ask yourself why over the last decade, did the gap between rich and poor grew? The rich did not get "less rich", they got insanely richer despite substantial inflation.

I'm not sure I would characterize the 2%-4% inflation we've seen over the last decade as "substantial" (Defined as prices based on CPI/PPI not money flows). I don't think it is "substantial" if you compare to say, the last 50 or 100 years. But that's probably an unimportant point. I know of a number of reasons why the rich got richer, but did moderate inflation promote that wealth transfer or retard it? I'm not sure I know the answer to that specific or can jump to that as a proof point.

Good thoughts.

[MarkL]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

I have no problem with you "calling foul and poor analysis." I've done that several times with RDRees.

I see zero indication of astro-turfing... none of it looks like boilerplate to me. But we can certainly disagree here and I really don't have a problem with you claiming Astro-turfing where you see it.

I am however, very frustrated by the way many people here don't tolerate opposing opinions and flame with few facts opposing opinions. I've been with iTulip for awhile and it's gone from (IMHO) a reasonably objective discourse covering both sides of these issues (in the forums) to a bunch of philosophically incestuous folks back-patting each other on how smart they are that doesn't do justice to intelligent discourse. I've (until the last 3 days) spent MUCH less time here because of it and found other places where ALL perspectives are debated heartily and with tolerance. I mostly only come here now to read Eric's brilliant articles... but I don't really look for intelligent counterpoint because flamers have pushed them away.

Posts calling "foul" and why are good. Posts that flame are bad and push intelligent discourse away.

His arguments for "basically flat prices for four years" have some decent BLS numbers behind them. I heartily disagree with them and have presented extensive counterpoint and was one of the first that made the "cherry picking time frame" argument. But he provides intelligent discourse here and doesn't deserve to be "a little speck of carbon due to having been flamed by me - with afterburners on max."

[bart]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

I have no problem with you "calling foul and poor analysis." I've done that several times with RDRees.

I see zero indication of astro-turfing... none of it looks like boilerplate to me. But we can certainly disagree here and I really don't have a problem with you claiming Astro-turfing where you see it.

I don't *know* that its astroturfing or similar, but his patterns and views and *always* attacking EJ in his very first post do more than concern me.

I am however, very frustrated by the way many people here don't tolerate opposing opinions and flame with few facts opposing opinions. I've been with iTulip for awhile and it's gone from (IMHO) a reasonably objective discourse covering both sides of these issues (in the forums) to a bunch of philosophically incestuous folks back-patting each other on how smart they are that doesn't do justice to intelligent discourse. I've (until the last 3 days) spent MUCH less time here because of it and found other places where ALL perspectives are debated heartily and with tolerance. I mostly only come here now to read Eric's brilliant articles... but I don't really look for intelligent counterpoint because flamers have pushed them away.

Given your strong feelings about large quantities of flamers and back-patters supposedly being here, I completely fail to understand why you even posted initially.

I've been here since virtually day one of the restart of iTulip and see little substantial evidence of flaming or back-patting (with the possible exception of a very few of metalman's posts), but more than a little random carping criticism from those who aren't fully aware of all of what EJ has written - and especially including his multiple admissions of having blown it now & then, just like virtually everyone else - including myself... and his documented record of being correct is up there with the best in my opinion.

Posts calling "foul" and why are good. Posts that flame are bad and push intelligent discourse away.

His arguments for "basically flat prices for four years" have some decent BLS numbers behind them. I heartily disagree with them and have presented extensive counterpoint and was one of the first that made the "cherry picking time frame" argument. But he provides intelligent discourse here and doesn't deserve to be "a little speck of carbon due to having been flamed by me - with afterburners on max."

I'm aware that you were one of the ones who got after him for cherry picking, but didn't note it in order to avoid being accused of pandering or whatever.

If you & he choose to believe the BS coming out of the BLS in spite of the weight of cited evidence to the contrary, and ignore or denigrate large quantities of specific facts & evidence from elsewhere (like the CRB/CCI vs. PPI etc., shadowstats work including BS like OER, geometric weighting, hedonics, horrific & bogus weighting of medical, etc. - all of which is easily provable -- or even various charts I've posted like electric rates which have gone up about 8% per year since 2007 and about 5% per year since 2006 - any many more examples like oil which is up about 6%+ per year since 2006), then again and at the very least we must agree to disagree.

The raw facts just plain show that "basically flat prices for four years" is ~99% bogus and worse.

Additionally, I did not flame (either with or without afterburners) rdrees as you yet again try and pose or spin and accuse me of - and after having made a big deal out of iTulip posters being flamers or back patters etc.

The full quote was (referring to the basically no inflation comment) "And then we have this, which really has my hackles up - if this was an unmoderated board, he's be a little speck of carbon due to having been flamed by me - with afterburners on max.". (emphasis mine)

"Interesting" how you failed to include the entire quote yet again for proper and full perspective.

The basic point remains - even the lying CPI (and rdress admitted that its low) shows that, even splitting the difference between CPI and shadowstats numbers, "inflation" ran at about 6% per year for the last 4 years.

That's not even vaguely close to "basically flat prices for four years", and I still maintain that his comment was ridiculous.

[MarkL]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

I respect your difference of opinion with RDRees on the value of the CPI and PPI BLS figures. However, please note that others here including EJ use those figures ALL THE TIME and I don't see you criticizing EJ when he uses them. Can't you show respect for the opinions of others through intelligent discourse, regardless of whether you think their facts or their conclusions are bogus?

if this was an unmoderated board, he's be a little speck of carbon due to having been flamed by me - with afterburners on max.". "Interesting" how you failed to include the entire quote yet again for proper and full perspective.

Come on bart... don't pretend those 6 words magically erase what you said! I've read your posts and KNOW you're an intelligent guy.. you know that saying you'd say those words somewhere else, is virtually the same as saying them!

People who pretend not to say something when they've typed it right there in black and white... THAT is what should get your hackles up!

If I was somewhere else I'd say that George Bush was a lousy President. Oh! Whoops! Heehee. I said it anyway didn't I??

[bart]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

I respect your difference of opinion with RDRees on the value of the CPI and PPI BLS figures. However, please note that others here including EJ use those figures ALL THE TIME and I don't see you criticizing EJ when he uses them. Can't you show respect for the opinions of others through intelligent discourse, regardless of whether you think their facts or their conclusions are bogus?

I don't believe that you intended to, but you just made one of my points for me. EJ very much does believe and has stated numerous times that CPI is significantly understated at best. The last I recall, he believed that shadowstats numbers were 2-3% high - and as I stated above in one of my responses to rdrees, I'm not adamant about using exact numbers from either shadowstats or from my own CPI w/o lies reconstruction.

You should take your own advice and read some more - no wonder you have a low opinion of this forum.

There are many regular posters here with whom I disagree but none of them always start a series of posts criticizing EJ, and you will also find that I do post in others threads many times when either I notice a factual error or think I can add something substantive - and without hammering anyone. You can even find multiple posts where Finster & I have disagreed, and then worked it out - and its the same with EJ, although we don't disagree often.

Additionally, if you're suggesting that I respect people whose opinions and facts I believe to be more than a little wrong (and most especially when they're as forcefully or continually stated as rdrees has, and in the context of trying to prove EJ wrong), then yet again there's little I can say.

Come on bart... don't pretend those 6 words magically erase what you said! I've read your posts and KNOW you're an intelligent guy.. you know that saying you'd say those words somewhere else, is virtually the same as saying them!

I suggest that you do indeed know how important those six words are, as witness you having failed to quote them precisely twice in a row.

People who pretend not to say something when they've typed it right there in black and white... THAT is what should get your hackles up!

If I was somewhere else I'd say that George Bush was a lousy President. Oh! Whoops! Heehee. I said it anyway didn't I??

And yet again, in my opinion you have failed to directly address the root issue (quoted below) noted at the bottom of my last post - but have rather chosen to ridicule or attempt to divert or whatever.

You of course may continue along those lines, but unless you or he brings up something substantive and factual (as well as at least taking a stab at all the open issues that I've brought up that remain unacknowledged or addressed - best I can tell), I'm done.

The basic point remains - even the lying CPI (and rdrees admitted that its low) shows that, even splitting the difference between CPI and shadowstats numbers, "inflation" ran at about 6% per year for the last 4 years.

That's not even vaguely close to "basically flat prices for four years", and I still maintain that his comment was ridiculous.

... and I stand by the rest of my words too.

[Jay]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

Awesome.

[c1ue]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

In truth, what's happening here is people disagreeing, not "not comprehending what was written." Your repeated use of this and similar phrases is a demeaning technique that doesn't add value to the conversation.

You may note that in the original post with the Safeway Diet Coke data points, I wrote:

The price I personally paid in this case was actually lower in 2010, but the discount rate was higher. The CRV has also significantly increased.

The regular price in 2006 was $19.96 for 4-12 packs with $1.92 CRV. The price I paid was $11.00

The regular price in 2010 was $23.96 for 4-12 packs with $2.40 CRV. The price I paid was $9.56

So officially you could say there was deflation in the price I personally paid. But the prices have gone up significantly. And those who aren't willing to spend the 3 or 4 months between sales as I do, and stockpile when prices are optimum - they're paying much closer to the $5.99 than the $2.39 much as they were paying much closer to the $4.99 than the $2.75 in 2006.

What RDRees stated in his subsequent post:

Wow, I have never had the experience of someone citing figures supporting my argument while they are attempting to contradict my argument. You paid less in 2010 than you did in 2006 and you say that "proves" that prices have significantly risen? Astounding!

is a clear misinterpretation - deliberate or otherwise - in what I said.

RDRees chose to focus only on the price I paid, while ignoring BOTH the list price and the CRV paid as well as the statement I made at the end.

So while you may choose to view my post as a cognitive dissonance, for my part I do not agree. If anything, it is your attempting to continue a disagreement on another thread which is coloring your own actions.

For the record, while I believe EJ and iTulip have done seminal work - I personally believe hyperinflation in the 100%/1 year, 10%/1 month sense is very much a strong possibility because of the political power structure in the US as well as the ongoing economic trajectory.

There's also a difference between debate/discussion and just flaming your opponents like this post does.

As for your ongoing "discussion" with bart - it is quite rare that bart even bothers participating in such EJ is right/EJ is wrong discussions.

Also for the record: EJ has never said prices would not fall. EJ has never said that inflation was going to occur on x date at y rate. He cannot, nor can anyone, because the ultimate driving factors are political in nature: kicking the can down the road may make the problem worse but only if you're still in office.

The EJ/iTulip thesis has been quite clear. In those instances where EJ/iTulip have made a strong stand and been wrong, they have to their great credit openly acknowledged doing so - something which is almost never seen anywhere else.

Rdrees may disagree with EJ/iTulip, but to his detriment he has not done his homework.

EJ has many times clearly stated that deflation in the Great Depression sense is a self sustaining spiral - RDRees has not demonstrated anything more than a period of falling prices, even beyond the CPI-lies issue.

note to iTulip: part of the problem may be in the likely seldom used but still out-of-date iTulip Glossary.

[Jay]

Re: Economics is not hard - Part I: Don’t let professional economists tell you otherwise

In my mind, the large financial players can front run any inflationary or deflationary forces at this point as long as those forces don't risk the system. Goldman had a perfect first quarter, 63 days of making at least 25 million a day. They got this thing figgerd.