• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HIDDEN INFLATION - "Fewer Sheets Needed to Get the job Done"

The chart above is more to your liking? Cool! That you disagree with the official metric due to opinion alone is of no use to this discussion; it certainly doesn't support your position! No. Where statistical significance is analyzed within the context of its application.

Don't know what the chart is supposed to represent, but if it does not include the hidden unemployed I don't give a crap what you think it means, it's worthless.
 
I don't disagree with you, and you're probably right about the lawsuits - it would have happened already if it ever was, consider lawyers in the US sue for everything.

But I have to say that the advent of the "all you can eat" dinner buffet, at obscenely low cost, has led to a lot of people, particularly in the US where they're everywhere, even for breakfast, brunch and lunch too, to overeat and then vegg out has been a contributing cause to obesity - when you go to an all you can eat place, there's no such thing as the guy who eats healthy and a normal size meal - he's gotta get his money's worth.

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

For those that frequent these places, I wonder if we will find that as food prices climb, people will be even more determined to "get their money's worth." How much can the average person eat to achieve that, without getting sick? BTW, I have never seen anyone only eating salad and then leaving! :lamo: They have breakfast "all you can eat," too, and you would be surprised to see how many sausages or bacon strips together with mounds of scrambled eggs, with biscuits and gravy added to the mix, that a person can eat! A little fruit on the plate seems like an afterthought, though! I don't know how businesses make money on it! :shock:
 
Ok, I laughed. When it comes to toilet paper, fifty cents more than ten years ago is inflation. Geez...:roll:

I should have probably specified that it was printing paper.
 
Really? So you say I am paying the same price for less, and some voodoo economic system calculates this as inflation but not really bad inflation, just "acceptable" inflation...so that makes it all right that I am consistently getting less value for my dollar? That's because on balance I am still getting value, because although I am paying more for the food I need to survive there is that computer I don't need which is relatively cheaper than previous computers I didn't need?

Oh, and let's not forget all those new inexpensive clothes, that aren't as durable as the old ones I used to get for the price, but because they haven't increased in price (I just have to replace them more often) that somehow "saves" me money too. Then there is the furniture made of balsa wood, and other changes in product quality and durability that create...what was that old term again??? Oh yeah, "planned obsolescence" which keeps me buying the same things over and over as they wear out faster and faster...but they are cheap so that makes up for the waste of money.

Great! I'll just sit and play on my computer and forget I'm hungry until you tell me how else I am getting value to keep my spirits up, okay? :)

No, it just calculates it as regular old inflation and doesn't separate it out in any way... It is included in the number you see in the news for regular inflation.

It is not really that complicated, with regard to your snickers. If 10 ounces was $10 and now 9 ounces is $10, then we have a price increase per ounce of 11 cents. Before, an ounce was $1. Now it is $1.11. This is simple stuff.

With regard to other quality decreases: it was explained to you that they do account for those too, and how they do, and how it gets wrapped into the CPI, the number you see in the news. They are not trying to hide stuff. The business community relies on these numbers and needs them to be accurate to make decisions. If they were "voodoo", you would hear the business community squawking.
 
With regard to other quality decreases: it was explained to you that they do account for those too, and how they do, and how it gets wrapped into the CPI, the number you see in the news. They are not trying to hide stuff. The business community relies on these numbers and needs them to be accurate to make decisions. If they were "voodoo", you would hear the business community squawking.

Why would the business community squawk when the figures make it seem like business as usual, i.e. no real inflation here, your money's still good. Nothing to see move along move along....LOL

The funny thing is I SEE what the prices of goods and services are and how they are increasing while my wages are not. I see the fact it's not worth saving money when the best interest rate I can get is .3% but more likely .1% when I used to get 7.5% back before we went to this "valueless currency."

All your stupid charts and graphs are only fooling people who choose to be fooled. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, really invisible but everyone pretends it's a wonderful outfit.
 
Last edited:
Don't know what the chart is supposed to represent, but if it does not include the hidden unemployed I don't give a crap what you think it means, it's worthless.

If you can't figure it out, i don't give a crap about your opinion on it.
 
I am sure this metric might provide some insight within labor markets but wouldn't the ratio between the number of non-farm employees and the total population provide even a better picture (1-(NFE/POP))?

The not-employed ratio:

fredgraph.png


Still shouldn't be confused with the unemployment rate. :2razz:

Sort of useful. Keep in mind that that's non-farm payroll jobs and excludes a lot of people. Simpler is the emp-pop ratio, currently 59%. The problem is that demographics can affect that. For example the emp-pop ratio is higher now than any time before 1977, so clearly it's not useful as a long term comparison, unless you want to think we have a better labor market now than in the 50's. (and by Cpt Adverse's measurement, we do).
 
If you can't figure it out, i don't give a crap about your opinion on it.

Finally, we agree on something. You think your chart has value, I don't. We agree we don't give a crap about what the other thinks. NOW you understand why I ignored the other "economist" and couldn't care less if YOU ignore me. :)

A meeting of the minds, at last! LOL
 
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

For those that frequent these places, I wonder if we will find that as food prices climb, people will be even more determined to "get their money's worth." How much can the average person eat to achieve that, without getting sick? BTW, I have never seen anyone only eating salad and then leaving! :lamo: They have breakfast "all you can eat," too, and you would be surprised to see how many sausages or bacon strips together with mounds of scrambled eggs, with biscuits and gravy added to the mix, that a person can eat! A little fruit on the plate seems like an afterthought, though! I don't know how businesses make money on it! :shock:

Good afternoon Lady P.

They can do it because food at wholesale is very cheap, particularly in North America - it's only when it gets through 5 middlemen on the way to the grocery store that it starts getting expensive.
 
Yep, out come all the people making excuses. "Oh no this really isn't important..."
Yes, it clearly is unimportant. It's a small increase in a small part of the inflation calculations.

Plus, with normal inflation the amount stays the same, and the price increases slightly -- around 3-4% under normal conditions. If they shrink the size by 3%, and keep the price the same, then... it's the same thing.

As with gas prices, you may notice it disproportionately because it's an everyday item. That doesn't mean inflation has spiraled out of control, and we're all blithely ignorant of it.


But I'm sure you all are sincere, just as sincere as people who buy into the government unemployment statistics which ignore hidden unemployment too. I'll be like chicken little crying that the sky is falling...until it actually falls. :)
There is no "hidden" unemployment.

The government keeps track of a variety of unemployment stats, including U6 (discouraged workers + part-time workers who want full-time work). They also track the percentage who are still in the workforce -- which, by the way, started declining in 2001.

If you want to use U6 unemployment, that's fine by me. Just don't compare U3 in 2004 to U6 in 2013.
 
Why would the business community squawk when the figures make it seem like business as usual, i.e. no real inflation here, your money's still good. Nothing to see move along move along....LOL

The funny thing is I SEE what the prices of goods and services are and how they are increasing while my wages are not. I see the fact it's not worth saving money when the best interest rate I can get is .3% but more likely .1% when I used to get 7.5% back before we went to this "valueless currency."

All your stupid charts and graphs are only fooling people who choose to be fooled. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, really invisible but everyone pretends it's a wonderful outfit.


Businesses would squawk because this is their own money you think is being devalued, and they need to be able to make decisions about future plans based on real inflation, not cooked inflation. Believe it or not, sometimes the consumer participant and the business participant have interests which do align. Think for yourself: If you were in business, wouldn't YOU want to know what the real inflation rate was?

These numbers are developed primarily for business consumption for decision making. There is no business interest (except in isolated cases) that is served by cooked economics statistics, because it would lead to bad decision making.
 
Actually, I have noticed this practice as being rampant over the years, and yeah, it bugs me. Hell, I can remember when a 1-lb can of coffee actually weighed one pound!
 
Yes...of course. When the Economic Assistant goes out to collect the prices, s/he has a list in detail of exactly what is supposed to be priced. If there are any changes in size/composition/features etc, those are noted and the commodities analyst in DC will adjust the price changes. For something like wood to particle board or metal to plastic, they would call those non-substitutes, because they're nowhere near close.

Your blind faith is astonishing.
 
All this b/s talk of CPI showing no or low inflation...let me counter with this video I found on another thread. It is an inteview with Ron Paul regarding how the dollor is going to crash. Only the first five minutes concern economic issues so that's the most you need to watch.



Now I've broken with Mr. Paul due to his stance on abortion, but in many other areas like the economy I agree with him. In this case facts are facts; unlimited printing of money with no intrinsic value automatically causes inflation. The much vaunted CPI is a skewed view, government propaganda supported by political economists which does not take in and address real issues of inflation.
 
Last edited:
All this b/s talk of CPI showing no or low inflation...let me counter with this video I found on another thread. It is an inteview with Ron Paul regarding how the dollor is going to crash...
Yes, facts are facts. And the fact is that Paul is wrong.

1) Gold prices have, in fact, declined since he did that interview.
2) He's wrong that "all paper currencies collapse."
3) The economy hasn't suffered because we're off the gold standard. What's happened is that we no longer have bank panics or deflations.
4) The idea that the value of the dollar has "collapsed" since 1913 is a total failure to understand basic economics, as well as the history of consumer wages and purchasing power. To put it mildly, even a poor person today has dozens of conveniences that were unimaginable in 1913.

If he was right, we'd be in a hyperinflation right now. He fails to understand that we are still in a liquidity trap, and that gold has no intrinsic value.

And really, pointing to Ron Paul and/or Alex Jones does not bolster your cause, in fact it shows that you don't have a good understanding of economics.
 
Yes, facts are facts. And the fact is that Paul is wrong.

1) Gold prices have, in fact, declined since he did that interview.
2) He's wrong that "all paper currencies collapse."
3) The economy hasn't suffered because we're off the gold standard. What's happened is that we no longer have bank panics or deflations.
4) The idea that the value of the dollar has "collapsed" since 1913 is a total failure to understand basic economics, as well as the history of consumer wages and purchasing power. To put it mildly, even a poor person today has dozens of conveniences that were unimaginable in 1913.

If he was right, we'd be in a hyperinflation right now. He fails to understand that we are still in a liquidity trap, and that gold has no intrinsic value.

And really, pointing to Ron Paul and/or Alex Jones does not bolster your cause, in fact it shows that you don't have a good understanding of economics.

It shows I don't have a good understanding of your brand of b/s economics. The term voodoo economics should really refer to voodoo economists who seem to think people cannot see how much less they can buy with their money, and how little in interest they get when trying to save.

You can spout all the mumbo jumbo you wish; I SEE my dollar buying less and less. It's like you are saying "Watch my hands as I dazzle you with B/S, Don't pay attention to the reality behind the curtain."

Do you take the public for utter fools? Do you think we are going to ignore the real world examples of inflation that we endure every day just because you TELL us it isn't so? Geez.
 
You can spout all the mumbo jumbo you wish; I SEE my dollar buying less and less.
Then you're looking in the wrong place(s).

The simple fact is that with an annual inflation rate of 3.5%, prices still double every 20 years. So do wages.

The simple fact is that prices for goods have gone down for years, mostly due to outsourcing, price pressure and increased efficiencies extending from design to manufacture to retail.

You aren't out there calculating prices and package sizes on thousands of consumer goods, fuel, housing and so forth. You're taking your own subjective impressions and mapping them onto a misunderstanding of how economies work.


Do you take the public for utter fools?
No. It's that I know how people take positive changes for granted, and pay more attention to negatives. (e.g. Negativity bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I also recognize that who doesn't know what they're talking about, and discusses it on a national media outfit anyway, primarily to further their own agenda, to be someone you should ignore.
 
Then you're looking in the wrong place(s).

The simple fact is that with an annual inflation rate of 3.5%, prices still double every 20 years. So do wages.

I don't think so. That's just justification for permanent inflation, which would not be so prevelent if our currency wasn't issued by fiat.

The only way to eliminate inflation is to reduce the amount of money available in a society’s economy. Less money causes consumers to focus on how they spend and what they spend money on. It instills a hierarchy of need in the minds of every consumer. I have a limited amount of money, what do I need, and then what wants can I afford after meeting my needs.

This also drives consumers to think of long-term spending goals, which increases saving efforts. Savings provides money for banks to lend to businesses for expansion and development, and to encourage access to more capital to lend from savings accounts banks offer higher interests rates.

Companies competing for consumer dollars offer better services and lower prices to offset competition. Aside from establishing a minimum wage to insure sufficient earnings to pay for necessities, there is no great need to make across-the-board wage increases that are not tied to an individual worker’s demonstrated productivity.

For the same reason that consumer prices will balance, business costs will drop and then balance as raw material suppliers compete for corporate dollars.

Fiat money is worthless, and because it can be printed at will inflation surely accrues. Inevitably, at some point people lose faith in this process. Tying it to a recognized commodity which has intrinsic worth means that the amounts printed are limited and can always be depended upon as having some relative intrinsic value. Inflation would be highly limited in fluctuating up an down under this system, as it would depend on actual levels of the commodity on which it is based. The only people who don't benefit are investment banks who can't juggle so much fiat money in attempts to lay claim to real property that provides their capital assets.

As for your claim that real prices have been going down for years? What fantasy world does that come from? In order for consumer prices to "really be going down" we must focus on those products people would consider "needs;" and ALL of them, every single one, must be lower than any price for a similar item has ever been previously compared to both product quality and the past purchase power of the dollar. Otherwise you are just proclaiming something no one can see when they go out to purchase items in the marketplace.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I laughed.

I can just see fat people rioting over this. "THEY STOLE 0.2grams FROM US! BURN THE FIT INFIDELS!"

..or people running out of the bathroom going "IF ONLY I HAD THAT 2% OF TOILET PAPER! I WOULDN'T HAVE USED MY THUMB."

Great article. Terrible examples.

I suppose you can ridicule over-weight people if you want, but it is pitiful that you think then you prove something by it other than something about yourself.

Paying the same price for less product is hidden inflation and actual content sizes of many products including food is shrinking for the same product price. Your seeing this as your chance to laugh at overweight people is just what it is about yourself. The fact is that all people have to eat - not just people you ridicule and see yourself as superior to - and many people are increasingly having a difficult time being able to afford food.

And since you apparently don't wipe your ass when you **** then yes, the price of toilet paper is irrelevant to you.
 
I believe the future is continued increased inflation - directly by prices increasing and indirectly thru lowered contents and lowered quality for the same price.

Inflation reduces the value of debt and is a gradual decline it individual spending power and in the wealth of the nation. If wages increase in relation to the inflation, this benefits people with fixed debts such as fixed mortgages and overall equalized out. If a person's wages do not increase at the rate of inflation then the person is becoming poorer.

Inflation also is a way to reduce social benefits, public assistance and welfare without voting to reduce it. With inflation, to reduce government assistance to people all the government has to do is nothing and inflation does the reductions.
 
The most notable inflation of course is fuel, which has increased nearly 200% over the last 5 years. Another example is how increasingly bottles and jars with food products are largely indented at the bottom so a person does not see the bottle is smaller than it appears.
 
Anyone want to guess how much real disposable per capita income has increased since 1933? You know, AFTER inflation? If you believe the OP, it would seem that it has either stayed the same or decreased due to "inflation".

Spooky scary inflation!

Anyone?
 
I don't think so. That's just justification for permanent inflation, which would not be so prevelent if our currency wasn't issued by fiat.

The only way to eliminate inflation is to reduce the amount of money available in a society’s economy. Less money causes consumers to focus on how they spend and what they spend money on. It instills a hierarchy of need in the minds of every consumer. I have a limited amount of money, what do I need, and then what wants can I afford after meeting my needs.

This also drives consumers to think of long-term spending goals, which increases saving efforts. Savings provides money for banks to lend to businesses for expansion and development, and to encourage access to more capital to lend from savings accounts banks offer higher interests rates.

Companies competing for consumer dollars offer better services and lower prices to offset competition. Aside from establishing a minimum wage to insure sufficient earnings to pay for necessities, there is no great need to make across-the-board wage increases that are not tied to an individual worker’s demonstrated productivity.

For the same reason that consumer prices will balance, business costs will drop and then balance as raw material suppliers compete for corporate dollars.

Fiat money is worthless, and because it can be printed at will inflation surely accrues. Inevitably, at some point people lose faith in this process. Tying it to a recognized commodity which has intrinsic worth means that the amounts printed are limited and can always be depended upon as having some relative intrinsic value. Inflation would be highly limited in fluctuating up an down under this system, as it would depend on actual levels of the commodity on which it is based. The only people who don't benefit are investment banks who can't juggle so much fiat money in attempts to lay claim to real property that provides their capital assets.

As for your claim that real prices have been going down for years? What fantasy world does that come from? In order for consumer prices to "really be going down" we must focus on those products people would consider "needs;" and ALL of them, every single one, must be lower than any price for a similar item has ever been previously compared to both product quality and the past purchase power of the dollar. Otherwise you are just proclaiming something no one can see when they go out to purchase items in the marketplace.

The only area prices go down is in relation to newly released upgrade electronics which are introduced at very high prices and then the prices rapidly fall.

Another hidden inflation is reduction in product quality - which is one way WalMart seemingly offers "lower prices" - when actually for the value and/or lifespan of the product is it actually far more costly in the future given how often it must be replaced. I've posted about that before on personal experiences.

An example was electrical connectors I bought. It was late at night and I needed some for a boat I was trying to get set up for the next day. I avoid WalMart for quality reasons but had no choice if I wanted to continue to work on the boat. However, after buying them and opening the package they were unusable. They had the same amount of plastic shield as non-WalMart connectors, but the actual metal under it was 1/3rd the length of the plastic shield - basically "a good trick." Not only were they unusable in general, had I tried they would both have a light likelihood of failing but also would have been a fire hazard.

An hidden inflation is cheap crap that doesn't last replacing quality products - which are increasingly difficult to find at any price.
 
Anyone want to guess how much real disposable per capita income has increased since 1933? You know, AFTER inflation? If you believe the OP, it would seem that it has either stayed the same or decreased due to "inflation".

Spooky scary inflation!

Anyone?

Disposable income? LOL Throwing more worthless paper in my direction while telling me "see you have more to buy with" claiming this proven due to cheaper, disposable, poor quality "non-needed" products I only rarely buy does not equate to more "disposable income." Especially when I am paying 50% or more out of those "higher wages" in rent costs when I used to be able to rent for 25% - 30% before fiat money came into play.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom