Consumer Prices Plunge; Production Jumps

[piasabird]

This is irrelevant because we also had a record increase in the price of gasoline to offset the decrease. Then the increase probably had an inflationary affect on the economy and the when the prices drop it looks like you have a quarter of deflation. All of this due to the cost of oil. Any rational thinking human being would expect this to occur. Then added to all of this is the Katrina Effect. I will say that this is an interesting article, but it is just a kind of report. What it says that all of the changes in the price of oil are basically back to normal without too many ill effects and economy is still healthy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Harkonen

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Harkonen

Originally posted by: conjur
Where did I say China was the better economic model? Damn, you're one rabid partisan hack.

Wow. Now that was personal, and very intellectually dishonest.

Thin-skinned, are we? I merely speak the truth. Not my fault you're a rabid, partisan hack.

Please go back a read the posts again. In summary, I asked "which nation would you prefer to mimic economically?". You responded with "China is in a prett **** good growth spurt right now". Hence, you are offering China as the only example for response to my query into a better economic model. If you did not mean this, you should not have offered China in your response.

Would you like to try again?

You always read more into an answer than is there? If I'd offered China as an economic model for which we should look to for answers, I'd have gone into detail stating the reasons why. But, alas, your sarcasm meter is beyond repair. There's not much I can do for you.

OK...then which model are you offering. BTW, please refute my logic with logic, not the very fluff you decry. What did I 'read into' your response that was not there? Did I miss the economic model you offered? If so, I apologize.

I don't have a model out there to replace the one we have. The one we have is a good one but it's being abused right now and that is causing it to teeter on the edge of crashing (I won't quite go so far as saying collapsing yet.)

 

[Harkonen]

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't have a model out there to replace the one we have. The one we have is a good one but it's being abused right now and that is causing it to teeter on the edge of crashing (I won't quite go so far as saying collapsing yet.)

There is no better model? Oh, good to hear...I didn't want to purchase a rickshaw.

I do agree with you on the abuse of our current system. If we do not begin to control spending on erroneous social issues and government hand outs, our deficits will continue to spiral in a very unhealthy fashion.

I assume you would advocate raising taxes and spending less on the military as principal elixers to our ailments? Again, I take you to the sterling example of our European counterparts whose 'models' are based on higher rates of taxation and dramatically lower military expense as a percentage of GDP. How are they doing?

It is good to hear we have common ground on the ridiculous rise in Federal entitlements to social issues that were wholly unintended by the founders in the scope of Federal responsibility. This is the greatest failing President Bush.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Harkonen

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't have a model out there to replace the one we have. The one we have is a good one but it's being abused right now and that is causing it to teeter on the edge of crashing (I won't quite go so far as saying collapsing yet.)

There is no better model? Oh, good to hear...I didn't want to purchase a rickshaw.

There you go again; putting words in my mouth.

I've not done any research into other economic models which may be better than our own. It's hard to deny other countries have had successful economies for a while (Japan for example). Our own was stuck in a rut for quite some time in the 60s/70s/80s and isn't really going anywhere right now.

That said, I think our country is capable of being a (the?) world leader for many years to come *but* there must be an increase in regulation in order to keep accountability at the forefront. Something along the lines of what former Sec'y of State O'Neill had proposed re: the SEC in Suskind's book.

I do agree with you on the abuse of our current system. If we do not begin to control spending on erroneous social issues and government hand outs, our deficits will continue to spiral in a very unhealthy fashion.

I assume you would advocate raising taxes and spending less on the military as principal elixers to our ailments? Again, I take you to the sterling example of our European counterparts whose 'models' are based on higher rates of taxation and dramatically lower military expense as a percentage of GDP. How are they doing?

It is good to hear we have common ground on the ridiculous rise in Federal entitlements to social issues that were wholly unintended by the founders in the scope of Federal responsibility. This is the greatest failing President Bush.

Yet again you put words into my mouth. Where did I state anything about "erroneous social issues"? And, what the hell is an "erroneous social issue"? Need I remind you that our Founding Fathers were probably closer to the liberal mentality than anything supported or proposed by the current incarnation of the GOP? We're the richest nation on earth and we cannot provide for the poor and the sick. That speaks volumes, imo. Americans have become a bunch of selfish, greedy a**holes (and that's certainly not limited to any particular political persuasion).

Also, our military spending is more than all other countries on earth...combined! That's just pure insanity and Eisenhower must surely be rolling in his grave as he warned of the danger of the military-industrial complex. It's a beast that has been continually fed by liberal spending policies and imperialistic foreign policies created by the hands of those who stand to gain monetarily and politically by being in a constant state of "war".

The hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Iraq could have beefed up true homeland security as well as provided for education and healthcare for American citizens. Instead, the U.S. is setting up a massive welfare state in Iraq - all paid for with US taxpayer dollars. Funny how people that support this administration and rail against "liberals" and "socialists" have no problem with spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq to provide them with education, healthcare, state-supported gas prices, etc.

The only way to fix our economy is by a multi-pronged approach (as mentioned in this article):
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1594399&enterthread=y&arctab=y

- Taxes will have to be raised (think about it, taxes were higher under Clinton but this country saw one of the greatest economic expansions in its history. People were making money left and right and the budget was balanced for the last three fiscal years.)

- Spending must be cut (military spending must be reduced. We're nearing 3/4 of a trillion dollars per year! That's INSANE! The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill is benefiting who? The drug companies, not the people needing the drugs. Yet it will cost ~$1 trillion. This president has spent more in only 5 years than ALL OTHER Presidents COMBINED)

People up here (including myself) like to post news of any sudden or major change in inflation, deficits, unemployment, approval ratings, etc. However, it's the longer-term view that matters the most. What have we seen under this administration? Not much that benefits the majority of Americans.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

 

[Harkonen]

I have not put any words in your mouth, those that you have placed there of your own free will do a sufficient job of embarrassing you.

You have yet to answer my question. Which nation serves as the better model that reflects the values you espouse coupled with economic expansion over a prolonged period that even remotely rivals the U.S.? It doesn't exist.

You seem to have missed the point of my last post entirely. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being intentionally obtuse because you recognize the paucity of your own arguments. The point is: The very nations that reflect your values...higher taxes, greater federal intervention in social issues, and limited military expenses... those are the nations that are floundering with the most abysmal economic growth in the civilized world.

The entire ideology you embrace in bankrupt, because it does not work...never has. I am sorry to be the one to break this to you. I will duck the flying shards of your ego as reality crashes down on you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Harkonen
I have not put any words in your mouth, those that you have placed there of your own free will do a sufficient job of embarrassing you.

Say what? You've put a novel into my mouth in your posts. Not only are you a rabid, partisan hack, you're a dishonest troll.

I also see you ignored my last post completely.

Buh-bye, troll.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Harkonen
I have not put any words in your mouth, those that you have placed there of your own free will do a sufficient job of embarrassing you.

Say what? You've put a novel into my mouth in your posts. Not only are you a rabid, partisan hack, you're a dishonest troll.

I also see you ignored my last post completely.

Buh-bye, troll.

Pot? or Kettle?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

and all things being considered, inflation remains tame.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
and all things being considered, inflation remains tame.

What is your definition of tame inflation? What is your definition of high and low inflation? I'm just curious.

 

[Harkonen]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Harkonen
I have not put any words in your mouth, those that you have placed there of your own free will do a sufficient job of embarrassing you.

Say what? You've put a novel into my mouth in your posts. Not only are you a rabid, partisan hack, you're a dishonest troll.

I also see you ignored my last post completely.

Buh-bye, troll.

Ok...now you're amusing me. You grow more vitriolic with each ideological pounding you have suffered. I did not ignore you last post. I read all of it quite closely...I then pointed out to you that it did not answer my question. You gave general theories on opinions on what 'should' work, but are utterly uncapable of giving an example of what 'does' work better than the U.S. system of capitalism in its present incarnation. I also pointed out to you that your thread fails acknowledge my point that the very countries that most closely mirror your political leanings are some of the most economically stunted of the civilized nations.

I am not sure exactly what a 'troll' is....but if it is a euphimism for 'one who brings unwanted enlightenment to political cretins'....then I am one.

By the way, which of us sounds rabid? May I suggest that you first wipe the foam from your own mouth. Your world-view precludes rational thought.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

We don't remove them, but since food and energy is so volatile and non indicative of true inflation, I personally believe taking them out gives a better picture of inflation. And yes, I realize that when they are taken out, inflation is up a little bit in november...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

We don't remove them, but since food and energy is so volitile and non indicative of true inflation, I personally believe taking them out gives a better picture of inflation. And yes, I realize that when they are taken out, inflation is up a little bit in november...

When food and gas go up or down, do you pay more and less? I don't know about you, but as energy prices go, so does my budget. You can live in a faily tale if you wish and "remove" them, especially if it makes your case look better, but we all pay them regardless of whether they are volotile or not.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

We don't remove them, but since food and energy is so volitile and non indicative of true inflation, I personally believe taking them out gives a better picture of inflation. And yes, I realize that when they are taken out, inflation is up a little bit in november...

When food and gas go up or down, do you pay more and less? I don't know about you, but as energy prices go, so does my budget. You can live in a faily tale if you wish and "remove" them, especially if it makes your case look better, but we all pay them regardless of whether they are volotile or not.

Yes, you pay more. But when I look at inflation, I'm looking at the big picture and the longterm effect on the economy...and while higher energy and food prices are bad for consumers, they are also basically seperate from the rest of the economy as far as inflation goes, in my opinion of course.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

We don't remove them, but since food and energy is so volitile and non indicative of true inflation, I personally believe taking them out gives a better picture of inflation. And yes, I realize that when they are taken out, inflation is up a little bit in november...

When food and gas go up or down, do you pay more and less? I don't know about you, but as energy prices go, so does my budget. You can live in a faily tale if you wish and "remove" them, especially if it makes your case look better, but we all pay them regardless of whether they are volotile or not.

Yes, you pay more. But when I look at inflation, I'm looking at the big picture and the longterm effect on the economy...and while higher energy and food prices are bad for consumers, they are also basically seperate from the rest of the economy as far as inflation goes, in my opinion of course.

Well, your opinion doesn't pay the bills nor does mine. So it's bad for consumers, but not bad for the economy? Business doesn't pay higher energy bills as they go up or reflect savings as they go down? You can call it separate if you wish but I bet your gas bill went up in the last year right along with the rest of us.

Just curious...do you buy more DVD's or gas? PC components or electricity? Clothing or food? Answer these and see where the average American's real inflation (or lack thereof) is.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

We don't remove them, but since food and energy is so volitile and non indicative of true inflation, I personally believe taking them out gives a better picture of inflation. And yes, I realize that when they are taken out, inflation is up a little bit in november...

When food and gas go up or down, do you pay more and less? I don't know about you, but as energy prices go, so does my budget. You can live in a faily tale if you wish and "remove" them, especially if it makes your case look better, but we all pay them regardless of whether they are volotile or not.

Yes, you pay more. But when I look at inflation, I'm looking at the big picture and the longterm effect on the economy...and while higher energy and food prices are bad for consumers, they are also basically seperate from the rest of the economy as far as inflation goes, in my opinion of course.

Well, your opinion doesn't pay the bills nor does mine. So it's bad for consumers, but not bad for the economy? Business doesn't pay higher energy bills as they go up or reflect savings as they go down? You can call it separate if you wish but I bet your gas bill went up in the last year right along with the rest of us.

Just curious...do you buy more DVD's or gas? PC components or electricity? Clothing or food? Answer these and see where the average American's real inflation (or lack thereof) is.

But the point is that the gas prices will go down eventually...and so will food prices...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
You aren't suggesting any sort of changes...you all just deny when any good news comes out. Thats all the liberals do, deny that ANYTHING positive is actually happening. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to argue that consumer prices are down is a bad thing, and yet we still have several liberals in there doing just that.

Would you care to point out where consumer prices are down? All economic indicators show prices rising.

Apparently you didn't read the link in the OP, consumer prices down .6% in November.

Apparently you forgot to remove the volatile energy/food prices which results in a core price increase. Seems you forgot you right-wingers always remove the energy/food costs when they spike upwards. You can't have it both ways.

But, as I showed in my earlier post, prices have increased on the year. That's the indicator to look at, not a monthly value that will end up being an anomaly (as gas prices already shot back up to account for the drop last month.) But, you forgot about that, too.

We don't remove them, but since food and energy is so volitile and non indicative of true inflation, I personally believe taking them out gives a better picture of inflation. And yes, I realize that when they are taken out, inflation is up a little bit in november...

When food and gas go up or down, do you pay more and less? I don't know about you, but as energy prices go, so does my budget. You can live in a faily tale if you wish and "remove" them, especially if it makes your case look better, but we all pay them regardless of whether they are volotile or not.

Yes, you pay more. But when I look at inflation, I'm looking at the big picture and the longterm effect on the economy...and while higher energy and food prices are bad for consumers, they are also basically seperate from the rest of the economy as far as inflation goes, in my opinion of course.

Well, your opinion doesn't pay the bills nor does mine. So it's bad for consumers, but not bad for the economy? Business doesn't pay higher energy bills as they go up or reflect savings as they go down? You can call it separate if you wish but I bet your gas bill went up in the last year right along with the rest of us.

Just curious...do you buy more DVD's or gas? PC components or electricity? Clothing or food? Answer these and see where the average American's real inflation (or lack thereof) is.

But the point is that the gas prices will go down eventually...and so will food prices...

They will? My grocery bill has went up since I started buying my own food. I would dare you to shop at the same place 10 years and tell me that food has remained the same or lower during those 10 years.


I would say that gas is at or near it's low for the next year. I have no more proof than you except that Kuwait has stated that oil is about right and there was a report last week (IIRC, Dept. of Energy? Someone correct me) that stated that gas/oil may indeed not drop further at this point.

Food might go lower as subsidies are lifted and the US farmer is run out of business by imported food.

By the way, I find it funny that you, in your previous inflation thread, removed food and energy when stating your numbers but neglected to do so in this thread. Apparantely, they were not in your favor this round, eh?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Harkonen

Originally posted by: conjurYet again you put words into my mouth. Where did I state anything about "erroneous social issues"? And, what the hell is an "erroneous social issue"? Need I remind you that our Founding Fathers were probably closer to the liberertarian mentality than anything supported or proposed by the current incarnation of the GOP? We're the richest nation on earth and we cannot provide for the poor and the sick. That speaks volumes, imo. Americans have become a bunch of selfish, greedy a**holes (and that's certainly not limited to any particular political persuasion).

fixed.

I would agree the war on poverty has been an failure, billions and billion spent and there has been very little change in the past several decade.

Also, our military spending is more than all other countries on earth...combined! That's just pure insanity and Eisenhower must surely be rolling in his grave as he warned of the danger of the military-industrial complex. It's a beast that has been continually fed by liberal spending policies and imperialistic foreign policies created by the hands of those who stand to gain monetarily and politically by being in a constant state of "war".

But when you compare military spending as percent of gdp, we are very well in line with what the world spends and far less than what china spends in relation to gdp. We are quite a bit below what Eisenhower spent in relation to gdp.

The hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Iraq could have beefed up true homeland security as well as provided for education and healthcare for American citizens. Instead, the U.S. is setting up a massive welfare state in Iraq - all paid for with US taxpayer dollars. Funny how people that support this administration and rail against "liberals" and "socialists" have no problem with spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq to provide them with education, healthcare, state-supported gas prices, etc.

Most services and products in Iraq were rationed out and they are currently being weaned off the old system.

- Taxes will have to be raised (think about it, taxes were higher under Clinton but this country saw one of the greatest economic expansions in its history. People were making money left and right and the budget was balanced for the last three fiscal years.)

IF tax revenues are increasing, why would taxes need to be increased?

- Spending must be cut (military spending must be reduced. We're nearing 3/4 of a trillion dollars per year! That's INSANE! The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill is benefiting who? The drug companies, not the people needing the drugs. Yet it will cost ~$1 trillion. This president has spent more in only 5 years than ALL OTHER Presidents COMBINED)

In order to get to 3/4 of trillion we first have to pass 1/2 trillion. Even at this level it is still pretty low compared to historical level of military spending in relation to gdp.

People up here (including myself) like to post news of any sudden or major change in inflation, deficits, unemployment, approval ratings, etc. However, it's the longer-term view that matters the most. What have we seen under this administration? Not much that benefits the majority of Americans.

Most of America is doing well, but alarmist like yourself like to take any bit of negative news and proclaim your typical doom and gloom.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: charrison
and all things being considered, inflation remains tame.

What is your definition of tame inflation? What is your definition of high and low inflation? I'm just curious.

Right now inflation is below historical averages and about the same as 90 when the economy was great. Inflation is also lower than the economic growth rate.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: charrison
and all things being considered, inflation remains tame.

What is your definition of tame inflation? What is your definition of high and low inflation? I'm just curious.

Right now inflation is below historical averages and about the same as 90 when the economy was great. Inflation is also lower than the economic growth rate.

Supply shocks such as Katrina are very possible even in the world's greatest economy. This news shows us that those shocks will be short term, just as the 2001 recession, thanks to the action taken by the feds and the administration.

 

[conjur]

Lookee, lookee...inflation still on the rise (nice 5.6% annual clip, too...lovely...and that's core inflation)

http://today.reuters.com/investing/fina...RTRIDST_0_MARKETS-BONDS-GDP-URGENT.XML

The government also revised up the core personal consumption expenditures index, the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation measure. The core PCE, which excludes food and energy components, was 1.4 percent in the quarter, up from the government's previous estimate of 1.2 percent.

 

[Engineer]

Edit: I'm not sure the quote that I posted below and conjur's is comparing apples to apples. I'm not sure if his is a 1.4% increase from quarter to quarter or from last year. Also, I'm not sure whether my quote is year to year or from the previous quarter. Anyone who knows, feel free to chime in.

Considering that I didn't get a raise this year (2 years ago was the last), even 3.7% in a year takes a bite out of mine!

Originally posted by: conjur
Lookee, lookee...inflation still on the rise (nice 5.6% annual clip, too...lovely...and that's core inflation)

http://today.reuters.com/investing/fina...RTRIDST_0_MARKETS-BONDS-GDP-URGENT.XML

The government also revised up the core personal consumption expenditures index, the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation measure. The core PCE, which excludes food and energy components, was 1.4 percent in the quarter, up from the government's previous estimate of 1.2 percent.

Throw in food and energy, even though many here don't believe they matter much and you have...

An inflation gauge tied to the GDP rose at a rate of 3.7 percent in the third quarter, the fastest pace in more than a year and up from a 3.3 percent rate of increase in the second quarter.

 

[conjur]

Good thing my salary keeps pace with that.




Oh wait....

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
Right now inflation is below historical averages and about the same as 90 when the economy was great.

Thanks for addressing my question. But would you please actually answer it? To you, personally, what is a high inflation percentage? To you personally, what is a low inflation percentage?

I personally, feel under 2% is low and over 5% is high. I use a 3% average for most of my long term calculations. I am a bit optimistic yes, the historical average is not 3%. Would you agree or disagree with specific numbers like this? If you disagree, what specifically, would you consider high and low?

Inflation is also lower than the economic growth rate

Note: I disagree with the inplications of your last sentence above. They are currently about as equal as we can measure. November 2004 to Nov 2005 CPI inflation was 3.5%. GDP for the last 4 quarters has been 3.3%, 3.8%, 3.3% and 4.1%. Thus for the year it averages 3.6%. That is about as equal as can be given the inherent inaccuracies in these measurements. Technically 3.5% is lower than 3.6% IF you ignore margins of error. If you include them, they are equal.