First off, it's GDP *per capita*, it accounts for differences in population. Secondly, if you have a suggestion of a better metric to use to compare countries I'm sure the site would be happy to hear your suggestion. Lastly, no one is suggesting that other countries shouldn't be able to do some things better, despite you continuing to prop up that strawman. I do find it interesting though that the country you picked as one the US can't compete with (Kuwait) is actually the country with the lowest overall social progress score among that entire group.
GDP per capita is a deceptive thing to look at and make interpretations of.
I'm sure the makers of that website will be happy to hear any criticisms you may have of their methodology. I don't claim to be anything close an expert on the subject either and don't claim that one site on it's own should be hailed as gospel truth. I do note that the standard they are using does appear to address at least one of the main criticisms in the wiki article you linked to since they are using the World Bank definition of GDP per capita, which does appear to account for "purchasing power parity" at least.
See, all of those are actually the sign of a healthy currency.
The dollar isn't meant to be an investment that gains buying power over time. It's a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and for that reason it's better to be inflationary (at predictable rates) so that people are encouraged to spend your currency. If the dollar was deflationary then not using it becomes advantageous which is bad.
Had you posted the polar opposite for your reasons you may have been closer to understanding how money works.
Really, everything I have read and learned says just the opposite. Inflation stops people from spending, not spend more. The less buying power, the less spent, the more it hurts the commerce of the country. Its already being seen. Look at the empty spaces in malls, abandoned strip malls, malls of all sorts being destroyed and leveled.
When the dollar becomes worth .50, we will see who is correct.
Also, I find it disturbing about the world currency. I really feel if the world enacts a world currency, we will watch the American dollar disappear. Depending on the conversion rate, it could crash the markets worse then the great depression.
Uhh. Where have you read and learned these things? Most mainstream economist will say that a little inflation is a GOOD thing. DEFLATION is the issue that makes people buy less.
A little yes, but what we are seeing is not a little. It is a steady up tick. When your buying power is cut in about half every 10 years for the past 50 years, thats not good.
Quote from Highroller »
bocephus, weren't you the one advocating returning to a land-based economy?
Just getting off the fiat system and base the value of our money off something. Precious metals, land, corn, sugar.. I dont care what, but just not a fiat system.
Well, we have more criminals locked up than any other country...but maybe we have the potential to have as many criminals locked up as the next 10 countries combined! That is potential we can all stand for.
We also have the second highest gun related deaths per capita ranked among developed countries falling second to South Africa...I am sure we have the potential to beat South Africa considering we have the highest gun ownership rate per capita in the world.
Well, we have more criminals locked up than any other country...but maybe we have the potential to have as many criminals locked up as the next 10 countries combined! That is potential we can all stand for.
You can thank a prison system that is driven by profit. Make prisons non-profit and watch the prison population start to shrink.
We also have the second highest gun related deaths per capita ranked among developed countries falling second to South Africa...I am sure we have the potential to beat South Africa considering we have the highest gun ownership rate per capita in the world.
I believe we have had the highest gun ownership per capita for years (decades even). Yet we only recently have had a up tick in gun related crimes. What has changed? Once we figure that out, the gun related crimes will drop.
We are an obese nation also, do we blame the forks? Our education is failing, do we blame the pencil? You are laying blame in the wrong place sir.
Ah, but it is easier to eat if you have utensils just like it is easier to kill people with guns if you have guns. To be fair though, we would be able to do what you are thinking if the Republicans stopped preventing the CDC from investigating it.
See, all of those are actually the sign of a healthy currency.
The dollar isn't meant to be an investment that gains buying power over time. It's a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and for that reason it's better to be inflationary (at predictable rates) so that people are encouraged to spend your currency. If the dollar was deflationary then not using it becomes advantageous which is bad.
Had you posted the polar opposite for your reasons you may have been closer to understanding how money works.
Really, everything I have read and learned says just the opposite. Inflation stops people from spending, not spend more. The less buying power, the less spent, the more it hurts the commerce of the country. Its already being seen. Look at the empty spaces in malls, abandoned strip malls, malls of all sorts being destroyed and leveled.
When the dollar becomes worth .50, we will see who is correct.
Also, I find it disturbing about the world currency. I really feel if the world enacts a world currency, we will watch the American dollar disappear. Depending on the conversion rate, it could crash the markets worse then the great depression.
Uhh. Where have you read and learned these things? Most mainstream economist will say that a little inflation is a GOOD thing. DEFLATION is the issue that makes people buy less.
A little yes, but what we are seeing is not a little. It is a steady up tick. When your buying power is cut in about half every 10 years for the past 50 years, thats not good.
I think you're mixing the implication of terms and missing a huge factor. You keep saying that the buying power of the dollar has gone down, and seem to think that it translates to real purchasing power of people. You're completely ignoring wages. Even by the pure inflation you're referring to, it doesn't hit halving except during the 70/80's which was accepted as bad.
Oh I understand its a package deal. There are a lot of factors in whats going on, but that doesnt erase the fact I can buy less now than I could 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago. The buying power of the consumer has gotten less. Of course there are less jobs, the jobs that are there didnt keep up with the increase in the cost of living. The population is larger. Society has changed for various reasons.
Those that have been around see and understand what is going on. They lived it.
When we have a stagnant economy, unemployment is up, foreclosures are up, bankruptcies, both personal and company, are up, jobs are far and few between and the population is still growing. Things dont look that promising for my kids or grandkids. You can say that America has tons of potential, just the same as draft experts talk about potential in college players coming into the NFL. How often does it pan out? Not very.
Take it from an Indian: His privilege is living. In spite of the fact that he has exactly no legal standing to speak of (outside of fringe legal scholars who tend toward other pseudolaw like tax protestors and such), unlike Indians when we go toe-to-toe with the government.
Try harder.
In what possible sense is everything about that case not a statistical outlier?
I also use to work for the BLM and vastly more loopy things go on with the management of our public lands. As for this being "white privilege" related couldn't any singular example of a minority getting away with anything cancel this out? This ummm method of yours for debating supposedly culture wide structures strikes me as insisting that dinosaurs are alive but hiding somewhere like Scott Adams has theorized because of the discovery of a frilled shark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark
I've lived in states where the number of guns to people was much higher then Washington DC and yet the murder rate was a miniscule fraction (percentage) even taking into account population numbers. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
3.) I'm going to say this (and I'm probably going to get flamed), but I think Reaganomics is a big part of this country being capped. He slashed income tax rates for the wealthy (lowered income for the country), and he removed all trade tariffs (Protects this country from low wage countries like China). So now the wealthy get to keep more of their money (pay less taxes). The idea behind Reaganomics is that the wealthy are FREE to reinvest in however that want. It's their money, they can do whatever they want (hopefully reinvest into this country?).
I think there is some merit to low/non-existent taxation for the upper class as well as corporate entities. Certainly the source of affluence for states such as Singapore or the former British Colony of Hong Kong did not come from their ideal geographical position.
While the United States is too large to serve as a haven for shady dealings, I would describe Reaganomics as putting us ahead of the European Union as the preeminent large, developed market for investing. Hence, why the United States has a higher GDP/PPP per capita and is still projected to grow faster in the long term. (The other reason could be because of population growth.) And, while you make a valid point that there are alternatives to US investment, there is significant reason to invest in a large, developed market like the United States. Hollywood, Apple, etc. do not place such great emphasis on the US for no reason.
Keeping it real here....I think the potential of the USA is great. However it's capped.
1.) I think our high national debt (17 trillion?!) is crazy. Our secretary of state had to go to different countries convincing people that our currency is still good. Politicians are gun shy about sinking more money into this country because of this debt. Everytime someone brings up a bill that requires funding, someone will throw this debt in their face.
2.) Lack of manufacturing. We are not producing our household goods anymore in the US. That means everytime we purchase something a good portion of that money goes to China (the manufacturer). Lack of manufacturing also means less companies in the US which means less companies that can be taxed (income for the country).
3.) I'm going to say this (and I'm probably going to get flamed), but I think Reaganomics is a big part of this country being capped. He slashed income tax rates for the wealthy (lowered income for the country), and he removed all trade tariffs (Protects this country from low wage countries like China). So now the wealthy get to keep more of their money (pay less taxes). The idea behind Reaganomics is that the wealthy are FREE to reinvest in however that want. It's their money, they can do whatever they want (hopefully reinvest into this country?). What ended up happening is they reinvested into low wage countries (No tariffs now remember?), reducing overhead for the company, and thus raising profits for themselves. So now we have corporations and the rich with a lot of wealth (incomes exploded by over 300%), poor and middle class getting poorer (inflation reduces their buying power), and the government with less income. Now the US is stuck borrowing to keep this country going.
Number 3 is a touchy subject. If I'm wrong on #3, tell me and debate me in a civil manner. No name calling and bashing please.
I missed this post debating the other things.
I think you have a very good grasp of what is going on in the country. The Reganomics point is something many dont want to talk about because many feel it was very good for the country short term, but has lead to where we are now. Add in the how easy it became to get credit in the 80s, and that can be directly tied to the number of personal and company bankruptcies. The combo of Reganomics and the recent change from a backed currency to a fiat system (the country went into full print mode for a bit) really had some very bad long term effects. I wont even get into the NAFTA issues that destroyed manufacturing in this country.
In what possible sense is everything about that case not a statistical outlier?
Oh, you want to go through the history of right-wing terrorists? Should we begin with the Know-Nothing Party, move through the Ku Klux Klan, the Cuban exile movement, and the modern-day militia groups like the Oathkeepers and Posse Comitatus?
For contrast, should I begin with Alcatraz and Wounded Knee, go through things like the Dann sisters and the animal-rights activists who were harassing Indians in the 90s/2000s and end with Keystone XL?
Because I can.
Sorry, hoe ann day emm arr ay, but your hood scares me. Sadly, unlike you, I can't use that as a defense.
I can go on listing things, if you want. Shall we go over Duro v. Reina again? I would be happy to, though not happy it exists. Perhaps talk about how fundies are undermining Indian families because other countries have started screening adoptions more?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
See, all of those are actually the sign of a healthy currency.
The dollar isn't meant to be an investment that gains buying power over time. It's a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and for that reason it's better to be inflationary (at predictable rates) so that people are encouraged to spend your currency. If the dollar was deflationary then not using it becomes advantageous which is bad.
Had you posted the polar opposite for your reasons you may have been closer to understanding how money works.
Really, everything I have read and learned says just the opposite. Inflation stops people from spending, not spend more. The less buying power, the less spent, the more it hurts the commerce of the country. Its already being seen. Look at the empty spaces in malls, abandoned strip malls, malls of all sorts being destroyed and leveled.
What? No.
Inflation does cause a loss in buying power, but this encourages people to actually use the currency. Basically if prices keep rising, people buy. Also, during inflation wages rise too since the price on labor also increases. During inflation, wages and prices increase at the same rate so while your dollars DO become less valuable, it doesn't harm you because you make more of them. It DOES however mean you need to keep spending your dollars, which is good for the economy and a sign of health for the currency. A currency that doesn't get spent is failing at it's only job: To facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
Another thing about inflation is that it also can becaused by a good economy. During a good economy workers have more collective power over their wages, and thus can demand higher wages, that gives them more money to spend, that increases sales, which causes more profits, which causes them to hire more, which allows workers to demand more wages, ect. It's more nuanced than that, of course, but it's a feedback loop of inflation. We're not talking about the hyper inflation of Zimbabwe, we're talking about how the fed in America has kept a nice consistent two-ish percent inflation year after year.
When the dollar becomes worth .50, we will see who is correct.
No we won't. We're not comparing investments.
Money isn't something you're supposed to squirrel away and have it appreciate over time. In fact, if you're running an economy that's the opposite thing you want to happen. In an inflationary economy it pays to invest, even if you simply break even. Let's say you invest in a thing with absolute static demand. Let's say it's basic islands. So you've turned all your cash into basic islands, and during this time we have slight inflation. The islands, like all things, had a slight uptick in price too, so now you're ready to turn your islands back into cash you get all your money back plus some extra because they money lost buying power since you invested. So at 5% your $100 island investment turned into $105. You didn't actually gain anything though because that $105 is worth the same as it was at $100 when you bought the islands originally.
Now let's flip the situation. You buy all the islands, and hold onto them. During the same time 5% deflation occurred. You again sell your islands and make $95, again not losing anything because that $95 is worth the same as it was when you made your investment. There's just one small problem: Had you never bought the islands in the deflation example you would still have $100, and actually came out ahead. You would have made money by not spending money since the currency now is more valuable than when you started. If not spending money becomes it's own investment than people with capital won't spend it. In the first example you spent your money and it got to pay around in the economy until you cashed out. In the deflationary example, you would learn to not invest your money and it never goes into the economy and the economy suffers. (Like inflation, deflation can be it's own feedback loop too.)
Another way of looking at inflation is as the cost of not using money. If that cost is greater than zero, people will be forced to use the money in order to avoid having it lose value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
American potential is decreasing. American middle class is now #5 in the World (behind Canada!) and that's after tax income.
Second, America is impotent. It's a harsh (but true statement). Think about it, who runs America? It used to be the people, but now it's the corporations. America is a oligarchy run by the rich and corporations.
Remember that little economic collapse? Where banks basically lied, cheated and stole? The president promised 'harsh' measures. The result? ONE Banker did 30 months.
See, all of those are actually the sign of a healthy currency.
The dollar isn't meant to be an investment that gains buying power over time. It's a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and for that reason it's better to be inflationary (at predictable rates) so that people are encouraged to spend your currency. If the dollar was deflationary then not using it becomes advantageous which is bad.
Had you posted the polar opposite for your reasons you may have been closer to understanding how money works.
Really, everything I have read and learned says just the opposite. Inflation stops people from spending, not spend more. The less buying power, the less spent, the more it hurts the commerce of the country. Its already being seen. Look at the empty spaces in malls, abandoned strip malls, malls of all sorts being destroyed and leveled.
What? No.
Inflation does cause a loss in buying power, but this encourages people to actually use the currency. Basically if prices keep rising, people buy. Also, during inflation wages rise too since the price on labor also increases. During inflation, wages and prices increase at the same rate so while your dollars DO become less valuable, it doesn't harm you because you make more of them. It DOES however mean you need to keep spending your dollars, which is good for the economy and a sign of health for the currency. A currency that doesn't get spent is failing at it's only job: To facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
Another thing about inflation is that it also can becaused by a good economy. During a good economy workers have more collective power over their wages, and thus can demand higher wages, that gives them more money to spend, that increases sales, which causes more profits, which causes them to hire more, which allows workers to demand more wages, ect. It's more nuanced than that, of course, but it's a feedback loop of inflation. We're not talking about the hyper inflation of Zimbabwe, we're talking about how the fed in America has kept a nice consistent two-ish percent inflation year after year.
When the dollar becomes worth .50, we will see who is correct.
No we won't. We're not comparing investments.
Money isn't something you're supposed to squirrel away and have it appreciate over time. In fact, if you're running an economy that's the opposite thing you want to happen. In an inflationary economy it pays to invest, even if you simply break even. Let's say you invest in a thing with absolute static demand. Let's say it's basic islands. So you've turned all your cash into basic islands, and during this time we have slight inflation. The islands, like all things, had a slight uptick in price too, so now you're ready to turn your islands back into cash you get all your money back plus some extra because they money lost buying power since you invested. So at 5% your $100 island investment turned into $105. You didn't actually gain anything though because that $105 is worth the same as it was at $100 when you bought the islands originally.
Now let's flip the situation. You buy all the islands, and hold onto them. During the same time 5% deflation occurred. You again sell your islands and make $95, again not losing anything because that $95 is worth the same as it was when you made your investment. There's just one small problem: Had you never bought the islands in the deflation example you would still have $100, and actually came out ahead. You would have made money by not spending money since the currency now is more valuable than when you started. If not spending money becomes it's own investment than people with capital won't spend it. In the first example you spent your money and it got to pay around in the economy until you cashed out. In the deflationary example, you would learn to not invest your money and it never goes into the economy and the economy suffers. (Like inflation, deflation can be it's own feedback loop too.)
Another way of looking at inflation is as the cost of not using money. If that cost is greater than zero, people will be forced to use the money in order to avoid having it lose value.
What you are missing is the imbalance of salary/prices that are now. It doesnt matter if the go up equally from now on, wages are so far behind more and more people are getting deeper and deeper in the hole. People are not spending now because they cant afford to. What makes you think some inflation will magically make these people start spending? The American economy has been in a nose dive for quite some time.
All inflation will do is make the rich richer and erase the middle class all together. America would become a country of have's, and have not's. We are already heading that way.
We really need to fix whats wrong now, before going forward.
See, all of those are actually the sign of a healthy currency.
The dollar isn't meant to be an investment that gains buying power over time. It's a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and for that reason it's better to be inflationary (at predictable rates) so that people are encouraged to spend your currency. If the dollar was deflationary then not using it becomes advantageous which is bad.
Had you posted the polar opposite for your reasons you may have been closer to understanding how money works.
Really, everything I have read and learned says just the opposite. Inflation stops people from spending, not spend more. The less buying power, the less spent, the more it hurts the commerce of the country. Its already being seen. Look at the empty spaces in malls, abandoned strip malls, malls of all sorts being destroyed and leveled.
What? No.
Inflation does cause a loss in buying power, but this encourages people to actually use the currency. Basically if prices keep rising, people buy. Also, during inflation wages rise too since the price on labor also increases. During inflation, wages and prices increase at the same rate so while your dollars DO become less valuable, it doesn't harm you because you make more of them. It DOES however mean you need to keep spending your dollars, which is good for the economy and a sign of health for the currency. A currency that doesn't get spent is failing at it's only job: To facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
Another thing about inflation is that it also can becaused by a good economy. During a good economy workers have more collective power over their wages, and thus can demand higher wages, that gives them more money to spend, that increases sales, which causes more profits, which causes them to hire more, which allows workers to demand more wages, ect. It's more nuanced than that, of course, but it's a feedback loop of inflation. We're not talking about the hyper inflation of Zimbabwe, we're talking about how the fed in America has kept a nice consistent two-ish percent inflation year after year.
When the dollar becomes worth .50, we will see who is correct.
No we won't. We're not comparing investments.
Money isn't something you're supposed to squirrel away and have it appreciate over time. In fact, if you're running an economy that's the opposite thing you want to happen. In an inflationary economy it pays to invest, even if you simply break even. Let's say you invest in a thing with absolute static demand. Let's say it's basic islands. So you've turned all your cash into basic islands, and during this time we have slight inflation. The islands, like all things, had a slight uptick in price too, so now you're ready to turn your islands back into cash you get all your money back plus some extra because they money lost buying power since you invested. So at 5% your $100 island investment turned into $105. You didn't actually gain anything though because that $105 is worth the same as it was at $100 when you bought the islands originally.
Now let's flip the situation. You buy all the islands, and hold onto them. During the same time 5% deflation occurred. You again sell your islands and make $95, again not losing anything because that $95 is worth the same as it was when you made your investment. There's just one small problem: Had you never bought the islands in the deflation example you would still have $100, and actually came out ahead. You would have made money by not spending money since the currency now is more valuable than when you started. If not spending money becomes it's own investment than people with capital won't spend it. In the first example you spent your money and it got to pay around in the economy until you cashed out. In the deflationary example, you would learn to not invest your money and it never goes into the economy and the economy suffers. (Like inflation, deflation can be it's own feedback loop too.)
Another way of looking at inflation is as the cost of not using money. If that cost is greater than zero, people will be forced to use the money in order to avoid having it lose value.
What you are missing is the imbalance of salary/prices that are now. It doesnt matter if the go up equally from now on, wages are so far behind more and more people are getting deeper and deeper in the hole. People are not spending now because they cant afford to. What makes you think some inflation will magically make these people start spending? The American economy has been in a nose dive for quite some time.
The American economy has not been in a nose dive for some time. You made this up. If you do any amount of research you'd see that the recession has ended and the ecconomy is growing.
All inflation will do is make the rich richer and erase the middle class all together. America would become a country of have's, and have not's. We are already heading that way.
What you're addressing is not caused by inflation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So you are not disturbed now?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
A little yes, but what we are seeing is not a little. It is a steady up tick. When your buying power is cut in about half every 10 years for the past 50 years, thats not good.
Just getting off the fiat system and base the value of our money off something. Precious metals, land, corn, sugar.. I dont care what, but just not a fiat system.
We also have the second highest gun related deaths per capita ranked among developed countries falling second to South Africa...I am sure we have the potential to beat South Africa considering we have the highest gun ownership rate per capita in the world.
You can thank a prison system that is driven by profit. Make prisons non-profit and watch the prison population start to shrink.
I believe we have had the highest gun ownership per capita for years (decades even). Yet we only recently have had a up tick in gun related crimes. What has changed? Once we figure that out, the gun related crimes will drop.
We are an obese nation also, do we blame the forks? Our education is failing, do we blame the pencil? You are laying blame in the wrong place sir.
I think you're mixing the implication of terms and missing a huge factor. You keep saying that the buying power of the dollar has gone down, and seem to think that it translates to real purchasing power of people. You're completely ignoring wages. Even by the pure inflation you're referring to, it doesn't hit halving except during the 70/80's which was accepted as bad.
Those that have been around see and understand what is going on. They lived it.
When we have a stagnant economy, unemployment is up, foreclosures are up, bankruptcies, both personal and company, are up, jobs are far and few between and the population is still growing. Things dont look that promising for my kids or grandkids. You can say that America has tons of potential, just the same as draft experts talk about potential in college players coming into the NFL. How often does it pan out? Not very.
In what possible sense is everything about that case not a statistical outlier?
I also use to work for the BLM and vastly more loopy things go on with the management of our public lands. As for this being "white privilege" related couldn't any singular example of a minority getting away with anything cancel this out? This ummm method of yours for debating supposedly culture wide structures strikes me as insisting that dinosaurs are alive but hiding somewhere like Scott Adams has theorized because of the discovery of a frilled shark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark
I've lived in states where the number of guns to people was much higher then Washington DC and yet the murder rate was a miniscule fraction (percentage) even taking into account population numbers. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
While the United States is too large to serve as a haven for shady dealings, I would describe Reaganomics as putting us ahead of the European Union as the preeminent large, developed market for investing. Hence, why the United States has a higher GDP/PPP per capita and is still projected to grow faster in the long term. (The other reason could be because of population growth.) And, while you make a valid point that there are alternatives to US investment, there is significant reason to invest in a large, developed market like the United States. Hollywood, Apple, etc. do not place such great emphasis on the US for no reason.
I missed this post debating the other things.
I think you have a very good grasp of what is going on in the country. The Reganomics point is something many dont want to talk about because many feel it was very good for the country short term, but has lead to where we are now. Add in the how easy it became to get credit in the 80s, and that can be directly tied to the number of personal and company bankruptcies. The combo of Reganomics and the recent change from a backed currency to a fiat system (the country went into full print mode for a bit) really had some very bad long term effects. I wont even get into the NAFTA issues that destroyed manufacturing in this country.
Oh, you want to go through the history of right-wing terrorists? Should we begin with the Know-Nothing Party, move through the Ku Klux Klan, the Cuban exile movement, and the modern-day militia groups like the Oathkeepers and Posse Comitatus?
For contrast, should I begin with Alcatraz and Wounded Knee, go through things like the Dann sisters and the animal-rights activists who were harassing Indians in the 90s/2000s and end with Keystone XL?
Because I can.
Sorry, hoe ann day emm arr ay, but your hood scares me. Sadly, unlike you, I can't use that as a defense.
I can go on listing things, if you want. Shall we go over Duro v. Reina again? I would be happy to, though not happy it exists. Perhaps talk about how fundies are undermining Indian families because other countries have started screening adoptions more?
On phasing:
What? No.
Inflation does cause a loss in buying power, but this encourages people to actually use the currency. Basically if prices keep rising, people buy. Also, during inflation wages rise too since the price on labor also increases. During inflation, wages and prices increase at the same rate so while your dollars DO become less valuable, it doesn't harm you because you make more of them. It DOES however mean you need to keep spending your dollars, which is good for the economy and a sign of health for the currency. A currency that doesn't get spent is failing at it's only job: To facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
Another thing about inflation is that it also can becaused by a good economy. During a good economy workers have more collective power over their wages, and thus can demand higher wages, that gives them more money to spend, that increases sales, which causes more profits, which causes them to hire more, which allows workers to demand more wages, ect. It's more nuanced than that, of course, but it's a feedback loop of inflation. We're not talking about the hyper inflation of Zimbabwe, we're talking about how the fed in America has kept a nice consistent two-ish percent inflation year after year.
No we won't. We're not comparing investments.
Money isn't something you're supposed to squirrel away and have it appreciate over time. In fact, if you're running an economy that's the opposite thing you want to happen. In an inflationary economy it pays to invest, even if you simply break even. Let's say you invest in a thing with absolute static demand. Let's say it's basic islands. So you've turned all your cash into basic islands, and during this time we have slight inflation. The islands, like all things, had a slight uptick in price too, so now you're ready to turn your islands back into cash you get all your money back plus some extra because they money lost buying power since you invested. So at 5% your $100 island investment turned into $105. You didn't actually gain anything though because that $105 is worth the same as it was at $100 when you bought the islands originally.
Now let's flip the situation. You buy all the islands, and hold onto them. During the same time 5% deflation occurred. You again sell your islands and make $95, again not losing anything because that $95 is worth the same as it was when you made your investment. There's just one small problem: Had you never bought the islands in the deflation example you would still have $100, and actually came out ahead. You would have made money by not spending money since the currency now is more valuable than when you started. If not spending money becomes it's own investment than people with capital won't spend it. In the first example you spent your money and it got to pay around in the economy until you cashed out. In the deflationary example, you would learn to not invest your money and it never goes into the economy and the economy suffers. (Like inflation, deflation can be it's own feedback loop too.)
Another way of looking at inflation is as the cost of not using money. If that cost is greater than zero, people will be forced to use the money in order to avoid having it lose value.
Second, America is impotent. It's a harsh (but true statement). Think about it, who runs America? It used to be the people, but now it's the corporations. America is a oligarchy run by the rich and corporations.
Remember that little economic collapse? Where banks basically lied, cheated and stole? The president promised 'harsh' measures. The result? ONE Banker did 30 months.
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-rise-of-corporate-impunity
What you are missing is the imbalance of salary/prices that are now. It doesnt matter if the go up equally from now on, wages are so far behind more and more people are getting deeper and deeper in the hole. People are not spending now because they cant afford to. What makes you think some inflation will magically make these people start spending? The American economy has been in a nose dive for quite some time.
All inflation will do is make the rich richer and erase the middle class all together. America would become a country of have's, and have not's. We are already heading that way.
We really need to fix whats wrong now, before going forward.
The American economy has not been in a nose dive for some time. You made this up. If you do any amount of research you'd see that the recession has ended and the ecconomy is growing.
What you're addressing is not caused by inflation.