So basically what you're saying is that any time food and energy are up clearly inflation is happening?

2/11/2011 7:09:09 PM

They're up month after month. Why is our government, specifically, trying to hide the rise in prices?

2/11/2011 7:19:11 PM

You realize your concern can easily be addressed right?
[link]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7X9RihfuzzcJ:typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/Reports_and_docs/Food_price_indices_data_deflated.xls+http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/Reports_and_docs/Food_price_indices_data_deflated.xls&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com[/link]

This data indicates real food price growth, thus dispelling your argument that the growth is nominal.

I understand you are unable to find such simple data, but do I really have to do the same for energy? Maybe we could just assume that there isn't some secret government conspiracy to hide some kind of inflation.

damn crazycode's inability to process nested addresses, you can click the link for the xls format, or you can copy and paste what is inside for google's conversion to normal HTML should you be on a phone or computer without excel.

[Edited on February 11, 2011 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/11/2011 7:32:51 PM

Quote :

"Some thoughts: Things that seem pretty minor to Americans — like $3 gas and an extra quarter for a loaf of bread — are major problems for countries where food and fuel are dominant daily expenses. Based on these reports, today’s inflation is mostly limited to food and energy, with food price spikes being due more to crazy weather than surging demand. So it’s not yet a systemic, generalized, global inflation, and bumper crops in the coming year would ease some of the pressure. Still, the US is clearly exporting inflation. Because we import much of what we consume, newly created-dollars flow overseas where they pump up prices. Could it be that the real limit on the Fed’s ability to inflate will be not the dollar’s exchange rate or US interest rates, but the willingness of the rest of the world to absorb all this hot money? "

- John Rubino


Here is a quote the legendary economist Martin Armstrong made in 1988. Unreal how true it rings 22 years later.

Quote :

"The surprise move of the Fed is, in fact, no surprise. Their choice is to raise interest rates or leave them unchanged. In the process they will be criticized for inflation no matter what they do. Congress spends without concern and then expect the Fed to manipulate the markets to offset their fiscal irresponsibility. The Fed does not have the same size checkbook that the Congress has at its disposal. Its reserves are minuscule in comparison to the national debt."

Gee, I wonder why the Fed has expanded their balance sheet to $2.1 trillion recently?



Just an amazing excerpt here from Jim Willie

Quote :

" A) Rising prices are proof that the USEconomy can handle the higher costs. Not true! They are an indirect effect of massive monetary inflation, as surplus loose money sloshes until it makes higher priced items. A direct effect comes from a falling USDollar in whose terms commodities are priced. B) Rising commodity and material costs mean more profits all around. Not true! The exact opposite is the case, since profit margins are being squeezed. Businesses are making this statement openly. C) Rising prices mean the USGovt and USFed stimulus applied is finally working, as the system is coming alive. Not true! It signals the arrival of the nightmare, in the form of price inflation that the banking leaders said would not arrive. They boasted a year ago that the monetary inflation would not have a spillover effect. That spillover effect is precisely broadly rising prices, most evident in food & energy. Witness the spillover. D) Rising prices mean final demand has arrived, which is pushing up the prices. Not true! Final demand remains weak. Businesses do not anticipate a big rush of new demand, as their business investment is modest to non-existent. Consumers are strapped with weak income and no more home equity to raid. E) The USEconomy is least vulnerable to price inflation effects, since strongest and most resilient. Not true! The chief export in recent years from the United States had been mortgage bond fraud, along with the usual fare of USTreasury Bond empty paper. The chief export in the current period is commodity price inflation. The USEconomy remains a major importer, and thus will import the price inflation, a process already begun with both commodities and finished products. The US is the originator of massive monetary inflation. Since its economy is deteriorating and stifled, the resilience is born of weakness. Its back door will usher in that price inflation. F) The housing decline has kept prices in check from powerful deflation effects. Not true! The housing decline has guaranteed that the rising cost structure cannot be handled by the entire system. With the resumption in housing price decline, the insolvent banks will grow deeper in insolvency, while the households will fall more broadly into insolvency. Demand will not meet the higher prices required by corporations to even remain in business. Watch more job cuts and business shutdowns, since they must but cannot pass along the higher costs to customers. G) Higher prices in the stock market is prologue and harbinger for the growth of the USEconomy and corporate profits. Not true! The massive monetary inflation has spewed new phony money into the system. It leaks through an array of sieves. It finds paths of least resistance. Almost no resistance exists toward the stock market, especially with the Working Group for Financial Markets openly pushing up stocks, no longer in hidden fashion. The USDept Treasury finally admitted as much. H) Being a food producer, the USEconomy does not see rising food prices. Not true! For five years, the USEconomy has turned into a net importer of food products, although only slightly. The farm sector has seen their costs from diesel and other energy sources rise uniformly. The farm end product prices (like corn, wheat, soybean, cotton) are controlled on the commodity exchanges, not by farmers. So higher product and costs mean much higher prices at the US dinner tables. I) Rising producer costs is obvious. The miracle of not ending up in final product prices results in success of the system. Not true! If final products cannot have higher costs passed on, that means the businesses suffer important profit margin squeeze. In parallel, the lack of job or income growth means that households suffer important squeeze also on discretionary spending. The squeeze is systemic, not a success, resulting in lower demand and business layout cutbacks. J) Jobs will come eventually. Not true! This propaganda mantra is losing its mojo totally. Be prepared for a brief rejoice followed by the horrors of recognition that the USEconomy is suffering from broadbased price inflation and continued powerful deterioration. Monetary inflation destroys capital, a concept our clueless cast of economists cannot seem to conceive. In response to failure from monetary inflation, they order more in higher volumes. Prepare for QE3. "

Look at these people debunking your face off. Wake up America.

[Edited on February 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM. Reason : add]

2/12/2011 9:15:54 AM

How is the crap those nutcases are spouting any different than the crap you are spouting. Just because you have no credibility doesn't necessarily mean they have some. I showed the difference between real and nominal food prices was very small.

2/12/2011 10:33:37 AM

This is ridiculous, how is what he is posting any more nutcase than what you're stating? The reality is the path we'll end up taking likely falls somewhere in between the two of your extremes.

At least he is attempting to post external sources/links/etc in support of his statements. I can't remember the last time you attempted that. Instead, preferring to refer to ever banal argument you've ever made as "well known in economic circles" or some other equivalent tripe.

[Edited on February 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason : oh, I apologize, an actual link on this page. The point still stands.]

2/12/2011 10:38:19 AM

Quote :

"At least he is attempting to post external sources/links/etc in support of his statements. I can't remember the last time you attempted that."

Look at the post above his where I link to the FAO food indices showing the real and nominal food prices.

Also how am I "an extreme"?

Quote :

"oh, I apologize, an actual link on this page. The point still stands"

What point stands? That you can't manage to read what a person says before making yourself look like a fool?

[Edited on February 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ]

2/12/2011 10:48:41 AM

Ok, I'll clarify, you make a statement about the numbers (inflation, for instance) and occasionally post charts, but you very rarely post anything like rally posted which is a commentary on the theory or a commentary on why the money printing will lead to prosperity. Instead preferring to refer to yourself as an authority or refer to Keynesian theories as the correct way to address the economy. Its never a question that the economy be run in any other way than how he and his slavish followers would prescribe it.

2/12/2011 11:10:20 AM

Quote :

"but you very rarely post anything like rally posted which is a commentary on the theory or a commentary on why the money printing will lead to prosperity"

And generally I will not do that, I feel it is too close to an argument to authority. If some pundit makes makes some argument, I, myself, must be convinced by some sort of data or logic, I do not see why I should expect others to simply take that pundit's word on it.

Quote :

"Instead preferring to refer to yourself as an authority or refer to Keynesian theories as the correct way to address the economy. Its never a question that the economy be run in any other way than how he and his slavish followers would prescribe it."

Keynesian theories have little relevance to this thread, further proving my point that you fail to read anything someone else posts, instead preferring to claim that they "parrot keynesian theory" or whatever else. I would ask you to post an example of me doing such, but I know that one does not exist, and even beyond that, if I had posted such a thing, you wouldn't have bothered to have read it before posting whatever crap you were going to post anyways.

Since I just called you out for not listening perhaps you will read this and I can fill you in on the context of this thread. ITT face claims the world will fall apart. I have taken no position besides that is wrong.

[Edited on February 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason : ]

2/12/2011 11:33:21 AM

I cant get the link to work but i imagine you are looking at something like beef and saying look its only up 50 cents a pound.

In reality, corn is up a fucking nutload. Which is what animals eat. Just wait until the cost of goods hits final prices.

2/12/2011 11:37:10 AM

Why aren't they already being rippled through? Is competition preventing end goods makers from passing it along? Is it low demand? I can't imagine it takes more than a couple months to see high grain prices ripple through the chain and end up as increases on our table, especially with futures contracts and what not.

2/12/2011 11:48:16 AM

it depends on the length of time for something to come to market.

If you look at a cow which takes several years then a food spike won't hit the final product immediately.

A shorter lifespan like a chicken it will hit faster.


It's similar to a commodity price rising not effecting Boeing in the short term.... whereas General Motors has to pass along higher steel prices much sooner

2/12/2011 12:05:22 PM

Quote :

"I cant get the link to work"

I'm sorry, it does appear to be broken, you can access the data here:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/FoodPricesIndex/en/

Quote :

"i imagine you are looking at something like beef and saying look its only up 50 cents a pound"

I doubt the fao would make such an obvious omission.

Quote :

"If you look at a cow which takes several years then a food spike won't hit the final product immediately."

The market doesn't work like that, changes in corn prices will immediately effect beef futures. Traders obviously know the relationship between the two.

2/12/2011 12:16:59 PM

Is someone seriously arguing that inflation is NOT happening?

Why argue with someone like this?

Money supply goes UP the value of your dollar goes DOWN.

median house price in jan, 1963 17k
1983 75k
2003 182k (although the average was about 300k from 06-08)
2010 218k

2/12/2011 12:38:16 PM

Inflation isn’t inherently bad or good.

2/12/2011 1:06:12 PM

Quote :

"corn is up a fucking nutload. Which is what animals eat."

NO. That's not what animals eat. That's what they are being fed......

2/12/2011 1:18:04 PM

Quote :

"The market doesn't work like that, changes in corn prices will immediately effect beef futures. Traders obviously know the relationship between the two."

Not true. A dramatic increase in corn prices will occasionally produce a fall in been prices as marginal cow owners give up trying to raise them and dump their meat on the market.

2/12/2011 4:15:58 PM

^ Read carefully, I didn't specify whether it would cause them to increase or decrease, only that the effect would be immediate.

Quote :

"Is someone seriously arguing that inflation is NOT happening?"

No, I'm arguing that hyperinflation is not happening.

2/12/2011 4:34:48 PM

^ah. Then I would say you are correct. But the threat/fear of it still looms large. imo

2/12/2011 9:45:46 PM

How is the "threat/fear" of it still looming large, in your opinion? That's odd phrasing too... are you saying it's your opinion that you fear hyperinflation? How is someone supposed to argue that? Can it be my opinion that you don't fear hyperinflation or that you don't feel threatened by it?

We went through deflation a few years ago, and inflation has been relatively low recently. Schiffs and others chicken-little warnings about hyper-inflation have been entirely unfounded.

This is a good article on inflation actually:

http://www.mbaknol.com/managerial-economics/causes-and-effects-of-inflation/

2/12/2011 11:26:37 PM

Quote :

"I didn't specify whether it would cause them to increase or decrease, only that the effect would be immediate."

Nice try, but you are still wrong, as usual. It takes weeks for herders to get the extra meat to market, and until then it isn't obvious which way it is going to go: higher corn prices drive up costs which drive up prices in the long run, while higher corn prices make it less profitable to hold on to fattening cows, causing more meat to arrive in the market in the near term. As such, it isn't obvious the price should change at all immediately, until more information arrives.

2/13/2011 1:43:27 AM

Moron, I think most people still fear rapid inflation, you could say hyperinflation (esp if international groups decouple the dollar), once the economy starts rolling again. I have read that economist expect that to take a couple of years. Then they will have to shrink the money supply. People now are saving money or paying off debt, thus it isnt in circulation (in a consumer sense). Unemployment is high, which keep people from driving up labor costs. Consumer spending is up some, but most are saving, so businesses cant increase their prices. Eventually people will grow sick of not spending and the ball will start moving. imo

And using your link moron,
1. have we not seen an expansion of the money supply? In a time where production decreased.
2. Expansion of Bank Credit
3. Deficit Financing, now at record levels

2/13/2011 12:23:25 PM

unfounded?!?!!?

are you serious?

The entire world is suffering from mammoth inflation right now, what can you possibly be inferring?

The US economy is still deteriorating 4 years later and the fiscal crisis is speeding up.... if anything the chicken little scenarios look more accurate than they did when they were given 10 years ago...

People are so weird

2/13/2011 3:31:48 PM

Quote :

"it depends on the length of time for something to come to market. If you look at a cow which takes several years then a food spike won't hit the final product immediately. "

cattle go from birth to slaughter in 6-12 months. Cattle that are over 3 years old are typically only used for animal feed or really cheap meats.

2/13/2011 6:40:58 PM

Quote :

"but you are still wrong, as usual"

Actually, I was just correct. You lied and said that I claimed it went up, I pointed out that I never said such a thing. I was at least right on that. Other claims I make are a bit harder to prove one way or the other.

Quote :

"It takes weeks for herders to get the extra meat to market, and until then it isn't obvious which way it is going to go: higher corn prices drive up costs which drive up prices in the long run, while higher corn prices make it less profitable to hold on to fattening cows"

That may be true, but irrelevant. Such information will always effect prices. Investors are very quick to react to any information.

2/13/2011 9:42:26 PM

You said there was an obvious relationship between the two and that traders knew what it was. I pointed out that the relationship is not predictable and therefore not obvious, so your statement "Traders obviously know the relationship between the two" was false.

2/14/2011 12:17:44 PM

Quote :

"I pointed out that the relationship is not predictable and therefore not obvious, so your statement "Traders obviously know the relationship between the two" was false"

You are still assuming too much. There is an obvious relationship between the two, knowing specifics about that relationship is irrelevant. I don't have to be able to tell what face a die will land on to know there is a relationship between rolling a dice and it landing on a face.

2/14/2011 1:43:44 PM

What a laughable proposal by obama.

Once again he has no fucking clue. Default is inevitable he can't even try to cut spending. They are waiting until the bond markets forces their fucking hand.

"Debt service cots will climb to 82% of the $757 billion shortfall projected for 2016 from about 12% in last years deficit. That compares with 69% right now for portugal".

So there's a rough timetable for you Kris. 2016.

2/14/2011 2:42:51 PM

Cool, when 2016 comes and the world isn't over, I'll make sure I point it out.

2/14/2011 3:34:44 PM

Quote :

"What a laughable proposal by obama. "

It was expected. The laughable part is he his claiming deep, hard cuts like he accomplished something.

Imagine the relief a patient would have. "You have cancer Mr. Jones. No we arent going to remove it...but after much careful study we are going to give you a haircut."

2/14/2011 4:15:20 PM

You'd bitch about it no matter what, so what's the point?

2/14/2011 6:22:11 PM

^Not true. If he would address the main problems instead of adding to them, I would actually give him credit.

I gave W credit for trying on SS, although I was disappointed bc I think he gave up to easily.

2/14/2011 10:04:37 PM

So rather than do the smaller things that he could actually get the support to pass, you want him to waste time and political capital on impossibilities. You are acting similar to a child who asks for a pony for christmas and then whines and cries because it gets lesser toys.

2/14/2011 11:14:54 PM

Quote :

"you want him to waste time and political capital on impossibilities"

These entitlements are going to consume 100% of our budget in a short time. Not addressing that is cowardly. His is putting his political ASS before the country. Adding another entitlement is also wreckless. Why people support this I will never know, other than people wanting something for nothing. The govt has shown a great history of managing these social programs. An even bigger one is just what is needed.

Oh but the magic rail will cure all of this.

2/15/2011 12:08:44 PM

Quote :

"Not addressing that is cowardly."

It's politically impossible to remove those programs right now. He can't wield a dictator's power over congress and the american people to force them to do something, so what do you want him to do?

2/15/2011 12:53:12 PM

^Im not saying he could eliminate them, or even suggesting to do so. But simply pretending they dont exist is the cowardly part.

He is free to submit any budget with any cuts in funding he wants. It is up to congress to approve. And Im sure he will find people willing to work on reforms for both SS and Medicare if he really wanted.

Like I said, this is like having cancer but the doctor wont do anything but cut your hair. Then he expects to be praised for improving things.

2/15/2011 1:52:44 PM

Quote :

"But simply pretending they dont exist is the cowardly part."

Did he?
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

Quote :

"And Im sure he will find people willing to work on reforms for both SS and Medicare if he really wanted."

Bullshit. Who? Ranny and Ronny Paultard?

2/15/2011 7:24:30 PM

oh look, he created a commission. and then promptly ignored it (even NPR noted this). woo, lets give him a cookie!

2/15/2011 7:25:32 PM

He created a commission aimed at finding long term solutions. I don't think "this year's budget" was what he meant by "long term". He stated that it was in order "to begin a discussion", which it is obviously doing. But the very fact that he created this commission and wants to have this discussion is proof he is not "pretending it doesn't exist".

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 7:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 7:38:05 PM

this may be a shock to you, but "long term" starts today...

Quote :

"But the very fact that he created this commission and wants to have this discussion is proof he is not "pretending it doesn't exist"."

If he ignores everything it says, then what does that say to you? i can create a ton of committees. all that does is waste money

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 8:49 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 8:48:47 PM

Quote :

"this may be a shock to you, but "long term" starts today..."

And this may be a shock to you, but "long term" doesn't mean "do it all right now".

Obama explained this himself in much better words than I can do, and I encourage you to at least hear him out.

"My goal is to actually solve the problem. It's not to get a good headline on the first day."

2/15/2011 8:56:56 PM

Quote :

"oh look, he created a commission. and then promptly ignored it (even NPR noted this)"

well a guest on a show made that comment

2/15/2011 9:17:38 PM

yes. he wants to solve the problem... by tripling the budget. actions speak louder than words, dude. and he's done NOTHING that indicates he actually wants to solve the problem

2/15/2011 9:19:06 PM

Quote :

"You are acting similar to a child who asks for a pony for christmas and then whines and cries because it gets lesser toys."

2/15/2011 9:30:50 PM

The first couple of minutes of this video illustrate why this budget is laughable.

Unless you don't hate America... then it's not laughable its absolutely sickening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy7c5ye_SuU&feature=player_embedded

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 10:11 PM. Reason : edit]

2/15/2011 10:10:34 PM

Quote :

"Based on his recent public comments, Fed Chairman Bernanke seems determined to give the U.S. dollar the reputation of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak: an unwanted relic of the past that everyone agrees must go, but stubbornly clings to a privileged position. The dollar is currently the world’s ruling currency, but, as with Mubarak, I believe that growing public discontent will spur regime change quicker than most pundits expect. Clearly, the most significant problem facing central bankers around the world is the recent eruption of inflation, which is sparking unrest in Asia and the Middle East. With respect to this issue, Bernanke is alternating his responses through two different personas. Sometimes he chooses to act like Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister who, in the opening days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued to deny the presence of American troops even as U.S. tanks rumbled behind him. The parallel to Bernanke's testimony to Congress today is striking. Speaking to the House Budget Committee, Baghdad Ben not only claimed that there is no evidence of overall inflation in the U.S., but that even food and energy prices are rising less than 1% annually. This is simply not true. He then claimed that the Fed’s massive QE purchases of U.S. Treasuries do not distort the yield curve, despite the fact that he has stated repeatedly that the program was specifically designed to lower long-term rates. The reason behind these lies should be evident. Acknowledging inflationary threats would force him to raise rates. But Baghdad Ben knows that the current economic “expansion” is a lie built on a weak foundation of ultra-low interest rates. He knows that even marginally higher rates will trigger a savage return to recession. In his view, the only choice is to sell us an elaborate fiction – even when it obviously conflicts with the facts. At other times, Chairman Bernanke assumes the persona of Marie Antoinette by professing regal indifference to how his own actions negatively impact the great unwashed. In a rare Fed press conference last week, Bennie Antoinette showcased this “let them eat cake” attitude by declaring that U.S. monetary policy is solely designed to benefit the U.S., and that any adverse consequences in other countries are not his problem. As a result, he broadly absolved the Fed of any blame for global inflation, putting it instead on foreign governments for not allowing their currencies to appreciate and for keeping their interest rates too low. It is this type of attitude from our top monetary policy maker – to either deny inflation or to lay blame elsewhere – that will accelerate the day of reckoning for the dollar. Amazingly, for all its flaws, the buck remains the world’s reserve currency. So, for now, the U.S. continues to enjoy all the rights and privileges that come from that status, including lower consumer prices and lower interest rates. But along with those benefits comes the great responsibility of not conducting monetary policy in a vacuum. Since the dollar is the benchmark currency, when it is debased, other currencies must follow suit. Because of the massive printing effort underway for some time now, the dollar has gone from an instrument of stability to an instrument of inflation. A reserve currency must not go on in perpetual decline. Since abandoning the dollar as a reserve implies radical change with unknown consequences, governments have been very reluctant to take the chance. So, they are acting to preserve the status quo. But, in so doing, they're creating inflation in their own countries. Unfortunately, this strategy may prove more risky in the end. Other factors are also influencing foreign central bankers to stick with the devil they know. For one, as emerging markets compete to export to the United States, no one wants to surrender what it perceives to be its competitive advantage. None of these governments yet understand that if the dollar were to collapse, new customers would be instantly created in those countries whose currencies appreciate against the dollar. Emerging markets also feel obligated to protect the value of the trillions of dollars that they already hold in reserve. Like traders throwing good money after bad, their instinct is to average down their cost of their position. The reality is that the more dollars they buy, the more they will ultimately lose. Once they realize that the rise in their own currency will more than offset their dollar losses, they will cut their losses and run. When emerging-market governments decide they do not want to eat Bennie's cake, but rather keep their own bread prices from rising, they will have to pursue the tighter monetary policies. When that happens, the dollar will lose its reserve status. When the rest of the world no longer links their currencies to ours, the Fed will truly not have to worry about fueling global inflation. Instead, all of its inflation will burn through our banks accounts right here at home. And that blaze, so concentrated, will burn a lot hotter than the fires we see abroad. "

2/15/2011 10:22:36 PM

^^^ so, we get it. he wants to get the debt under control. so he then goes out and asks for more than he did last year? and that is a "step in the right direction?" please, fucking explain that, dude
seriously, I can't help but think there is a middle ground between "biggest deficit ever by a long shot" and a balanced budget.

2/15/2011 10:30:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cz-6tYHK8I

"We are in the early stages of a bear market, this bear market is gonna last for a long time...it's probably going to last for another 5-10 years"
-Peter Schiff 2002

Comedic gold.

Quote :

"so he then goes out and asks for more than he did last year?"

Check the budget, he has cut several discretionary areas, he can't really do much about the large contributers of the growth, large entitlements and interest.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 10:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 10:43:09 PM

^ are you retarded? Was 2002-2009 not a bear market? That's 7 years dude. He said 5-10... get out of here

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 10:53 PM. Reason : next page]

2/15/2011 10:46:47 PM

He said there would be a bear market that lasts from 5-10 years. Almost 10 years later there was a recession that didn't even last 2 years.

2/15/2011 10:52:02 PM