You honestly believe the BS figures of 2% inflation?
I have seen inflation in my own lifetime. A movie cost $2 when I was a kid, now 16 years later it's $8- increase to 400% of original value over 20 years doesn't work out to 2% inflation, sorry.
Can of soda was $.25, now it's $1.
Gas was $1 a gallon or less, now it's $4.
You ever look at real estate prices? Houses that were $100k 16 years ago are easily $400k or more today.
Pretty much across the board things that don't change have increased 4X in price the last 16 years. It works out to a little over 10% inflation per year. Trust the government figures if you are a sheep maybe, the math doesn't lie.
>Bitcoin will not increase in value by 1000% every year
I agree. The value increase will slow down when bitcoin has saturated the market. The thing is, right now less than a tenth of a percent of the population use bitcoin. In addition, even among the users there is only limited usage because the technology isn't fully mature. I'd pay for everything with bitcoin if I could, but the support structure just isn't there yet. It has a long way to go before it hits the point of saturation, IMO about a 1000X increase from current values.
First off, you blame stuff on "inflation" in the terms of monetary inflation but do not differentiate between that and other types of inflation. For example, movies are more costly to make because they have more FX, better sound, better cameras, better screens and sound systems, better theater seats. You have to factor all of that into the cost of a movie. Are those things inflation, or are they technological improvements that result in higher prices since the value of the good has increased?
One could say the same for cars. Should a Honda Accord from 15 years ago stay static? What about all of the stuff in a "base" accord now? You now have far more airbags which aren't cheap. You have a bigger car with better interior and exterior with alloy wheels and a 6-disc CD changer and a nice stereo system. All of those things add inputs into the price. Thus, picking ridiculously arbitrary things, like you do, means very little. Furthermore, it is even more ridiculous because you don't even differentiate between monetary inflation and non-monetary inflation, outside of the input costs.
Let's take gas. Is the increase in gas because of monetary inflation? Sure, some may be, but then you don't even consider increasing demand with flat supply. Furthermore, the flat supply is increasingly coming from more expensive sources, light sweet crude from one source that runs out and is replaced by heavier crude is not the same and is not monetary inflation. What about the raise in China's consumption that didn't exist before? What about added taxes, or the fact that ethanol costs more? What about fuel additives that are being added in to increase the longevity of the cars? What about refinery capacity which is being constrained by NIMBY.
How do you factor all of those into your very arbitrary and utterly ridiculous "analysis" which is really devoid of any research or analysis.
What about the existence of increasing amounts of war or Iraq's supply being reduced or Iran being under restrictions and threatening to shut down a vital shipping lane? Do you think that has nothing to do with the price of oil?
Even if we take your example of coke...
I remember Coke for $5 for a 24 pack in 1994. Target has it for $8 this week. That's 2.5% annually.
Now let's say that coke hasn't improved in the last 20 years, other than that nifty carcinogenic carmel coloring which I think contributed to my dad's terminal esophageal cancer (he worked for Coke for 35 years and drank a lot of it), but I digress...let's say it hasn't changed. However, the price of shipping coke HAS changed, the price of corn has changed and, thus, high fructose corn syrup.
Did the price of corn change because of monetary inflation or because the federal mandated increase in ethanol production which has led to huge amounts of increase in corn? This also leads to price increases in cheese and milk, neither of which are due to monetary inflation but to corn. But let's get back to coke....
So you have increases from HFCS being an input, this doubles down because of fuel costs from non-monetary increases, and finally the ever driving increases in profitability.
But then Coke has increased by 2.5%, so really, if we look at the rest of the factors, it probably increased lower than headline CPI.
What about real estate? Case Shiller pretty much shows that nationwide housing has increased by barely above inflation, that's real data and that's for the last 100 or so years. Do you have anything to refute that than arbitrary and anecdotal evidence? I highly doubt it. Why? Because your analysis is shit, like most people who tout Bitcoin and throw out foolish statements like 10-15% inflation.
Facebook
Twitter