| What is more inflationary? 08:45 - Jun 20 with 1097 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Limitless QE for banks and then the comfortably off (likely with savings) during a pandemic or an extra 10 per cent for those on wages of say £10 to £15/hour during a cost of living crisis.
Makes you wonder who has really been "holding the country to ransom!" |  |
| |  |
| What is more inflationary? on 08:56 - Jun 20 with 1050 views | Darth_Koont |
Indeed.
Also why were steeply rising house prices and rents never talked about as inflationary when it’s the same effect for the majority of people who just end up paying 3 or 4 times as much for the same place to live? Or the “inflationary” effect of stagnant wages for most of the working population?
It’s almost as if the economy – and any state interventions – is seen through the eyes of those who control it and largely live beyond it.
Of course, journalists and politicians worth their salt should have been railing against the cost of living crisis that was already affecting poor people (and increasingly young people) for well over a decade. |  |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:03 - Jun 20 with 1023 views | EdwardStone |
In years to come, Q E will be regarded as the greatest transfer of public money to the already wealthy
The slight disadvatage with giving large dollops of free cash to the already poor is the subsequent surge in the imports of consumer shiny goods like big tvs, X box, cars etc |  | | |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:16 - Jun 20 with 985 views | Guthrum |
| What is more inflationary? on 08:56 - Jun 20 by Darth_Koont |
Indeed.
Also why were steeply rising house prices and rents never talked about as inflationary when it’s the same effect for the majority of people who just end up paying 3 or 4 times as much for the same place to live? Or the “inflationary” effect of stagnant wages for most of the working population?
It’s almost as if the economy – and any state interventions – is seen through the eyes of those who control it and largely live beyond it.
Of course, journalists and politicians worth their salt should have been railing against the cost of living crisis that was already affecting poor people (and increasingly young people) for well over a decade. |
That's not inflation, it's "growth"!
 |  |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:18 - Jun 20 with 977 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| What is more inflationary? on 08:56 - Jun 20 by Darth_Koont |
Indeed.
Also why were steeply rising house prices and rents never talked about as inflationary when it’s the same effect for the majority of people who just end up paying 3 or 4 times as much for the same place to live? Or the “inflationary” effect of stagnant wages for most of the working population?
It’s almost as if the economy – and any state interventions – is seen through the eyes of those who control it and largely live beyond it.
Of course, journalists and politicians worth their salt should have been railing against the cost of living crisis that was already affecting poor people (and increasingly young people) for well over a decade. |
Aka Cl@ss War! [Post edited 20 Jun 2022 9:18]
| |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:34 - Jun 20 with 947 views | Darth_Koont |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:16 - Jun 20 by Guthrum |
That's not inflation, it's "growth"!
|
Greed ... I mean growth ... is good.
Actually it is good for developing countries as it tends to bring about massive rises in quality of life, health, education, democracy, happiness etc. But in developed societies it seems increasingly to funnel wealth upwards and create inequalities so that those hard-won achievements start to wobble and regress.
It’s about time we saw the evidence of where all this is going. On a flat or even downwards trajectory by the looks of it. | |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:44 - Jun 20 with 889 views | Guthrum |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:34 - Jun 20 by Darth_Koont |
Greed ... I mean growth ... is good.
Actually it is good for developing countries as it tends to bring about massive rises in quality of life, health, education, democracy, happiness etc. But in developed societies it seems increasingly to funnel wealth upwards and create inequalities so that those hard-won achievements start to wobble and regress.
It’s about time we saw the evidence of where all this is going. On a flat or even downwards trajectory by the looks of it. |
Growth is good, so long as the proceeds are funnelled into development and improvement of the country (not overseas bank accounts).
However, when pure inflation (the same items simply getting more expensive, as opposed to real-world innovation, increased production and sales) is reclassified as "growth" in order to massage the figures, that becomes a very slippery slope. All to pursue economists' pipe dreams of constant, unending "growth" - or, rather, politicians spouting such nonsense to vainly promise future prosperity and thus garner votes. | |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:58 - Jun 20 with 858 views | NthQldITFC |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:44 - Jun 20 by Guthrum |
Growth is good, so long as the proceeds are funnelled into development and improvement of the country (not overseas bank accounts).
However, when pure inflation (the same items simply getting more expensive, as opposed to real-world innovation, increased production and sales) is reclassified as "growth" in order to massage the figures, that becomes a very slippery slope. All to pursue economists' pipe dreams of constant, unending "growth" - or, rather, politicians spouting such nonsense to vainly promise future prosperity and thus garner votes. |
It's like being in dream, part of a system that is deluding itself so it can go on killing itself for no obvious reason other than "that's what we're supposed to do".
Perhaps that's what it is; a dream? I'm starting to favour the idea of solipsism, beautifully illustrated by Ian M Banks. You might not believe in it, but only because I've decided you don't. For now. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 10:03 - Jun 20 with 836 views | lowhouseblue |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:44 - Jun 20 by Guthrum |
Growth is good, so long as the proceeds are funnelled into development and improvement of the country (not overseas bank accounts).
However, when pure inflation (the same items simply getting more expensive, as opposed to real-world innovation, increased production and sales) is reclassified as "growth" in order to massage the figures, that becomes a very slippery slope. All to pursue economists' pipe dreams of constant, unending "growth" - or, rather, politicians spouting such nonsense to vainly promise future prosperity and thus garner votes. |
growth is always discussed exclusively in real terms. asset prices aren't included in gdp figures or in growth measures. not convinced that pure inflation has been reclassified as measured growth. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What is more inflationary? on 10:10 - Jun 20 with 798 views | OldFart71 |
An example of how wages have fallen in real terms. A former workmate told me that at one time the difference between the average wage and the Company we worked for was about £5,000 by last year it was down to between £1,000-£2,000. When I left the Company in 2002 working on day's 8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. I was on £21,000. Now in 2022, 20 years later there are people working 6a.m. to 2 p.m and 2p.m. to 10 p.m. on around £23,000. [Post edited 20 Jun 2022 10:12]
|  | | |
| What is more inflationary? on 10:13 - Jun 20 with 769 views | WeWereZombies |
| What is more inflationary? on 09:34 - Jun 20 by Darth_Koont |
Greed ... I mean growth ... is good.
Actually it is good for developing countries as it tends to bring about massive rises in quality of life, health, education, democracy, happiness etc. But in developed societies it seems increasingly to funnel wealth upwards and create inequalities so that those hard-won achievements start to wobble and regress.
It’s about time we saw the evidence of where all this is going. On a flat or even downwards trajectory by the looks of it. |
Not quite true. I am, still, reading 'Doughnut Economics' by Kate Raworth and it provides an evidence based and peer reviewed approach to this supposed tenet of modern economics:
'...many millions still lack the most basic means [to live a life of dignity, opportunity and community]...Where, then, do these people live?
...today, the answer has changed and at first it seems counter-intuitive: three quarters of the World's poorest people now live in middle-income countries. Not because they have moved but because their nations have become better off and so have been reclassified by the World Bank as middle-income. Many of those countries, however - including the largest such as China, India, Indonesia and Nigeria - are becoming more inequal, which explains how they can simultaneously be home to the World's poorest people.' (page 164, 2017 Random House hardback edition)
Also
'Between 1988 and 2008, the majority of countries worldwide saw rising inequality within their borders, resulting in a hollowing out of their middle classes. Over those same twenty years, global inequality fell slightly overall (mostly thanks to falling poverty rates in China) but it increased significantly at the extremes. (page 151)
So the apparent effect of growth alleviating inequality is mainly due to the strictest and most authoritarian Communist regime but as soon as China embraced a model of Capitalist growth (without abandoning authoritarianism) the effect has started to ebb away. |  |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 10:54 - Jun 20 with 693 views | Darth_Koont |
| What is more inflationary? on 10:13 - Jun 20 by WeWereZombies |
Not quite true. I am, still, reading 'Doughnut Economics' by Kate Raworth and it provides an evidence based and peer reviewed approach to this supposed tenet of modern economics:
'...many millions still lack the most basic means [to live a life of dignity, opportunity and community]...Where, then, do these people live?
...today, the answer has changed and at first it seems counter-intuitive: three quarters of the World's poorest people now live in middle-income countries. Not because they have moved but because their nations have become better off and so have been reclassified by the World Bank as middle-income. Many of those countries, however - including the largest such as China, India, Indonesia and Nigeria - are becoming more inequal, which explains how they can simultaneously be home to the World's poorest people.' (page 164, 2017 Random House hardback edition)
Also
'Between 1988 and 2008, the majority of countries worldwide saw rising inequality within their borders, resulting in a hollowing out of their middle classes. Over those same twenty years, global inequality fell slightly overall (mostly thanks to falling poverty rates in China) but it increased significantly at the extremes. (page 151)
So the apparent effect of growth alleviating inequality is mainly due to the strictest and most authoritarian Communist regime but as soon as China embraced a model of Capitalist growth (without abandoning authoritarianism) the effect has started to ebb away. |
I think that’s still the same thing. Development generally lifts people out of poverty, improves health and happiness, and has other social effects like greater democracy and bringing girls and women into education and work.
But as you say once the country starts getting close to the kind of developed nation position, then problems with that model like inequalities of wealth and power start to rear their head again. The feudal stuff is largely over but a different ruling class emerges.
It’s the inherent flaw in our belief in markets and fairly loose concepts like freedom, democracy and prosperity. Because while these principles should work as a system they don’t take into account that many human beings will always look to control and shape it for personal gain. And once people start colonising and exploiting the system for their own selfish interests, the wider socio-economic benefits start evaporating.
Climate change gives us a good excuse to re-examine the underlying system but it would be good if we actually recognised its diminishing returns for humans too. | |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 15:56 - Jun 20 with 547 views | WeWereZombies |
| What is more inflationary? on 10:54 - Jun 20 by Darth_Koont |
I think that’s still the same thing. Development generally lifts people out of poverty, improves health and happiness, and has other social effects like greater democracy and bringing girls and women into education and work.
But as you say once the country starts getting close to the kind of developed nation position, then problems with that model like inequalities of wealth and power start to rear their head again. The feudal stuff is largely over but a different ruling class emerges.
It’s the inherent flaw in our belief in markets and fairly loose concepts like freedom, democracy and prosperity. Because while these principles should work as a system they don’t take into account that many human beings will always look to control and shape it for personal gain. And once people start colonising and exploiting the system for their own selfish interests, the wider socio-economic benefits start evaporating.
Climate change gives us a good excuse to re-examine the underlying system but it would be good if we actually recognised its diminishing returns for humans too. |
Here's where I am up to in 'Doughnut Economics':
'In the early 1990s, US economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger discovered a striking pattern. Studying trend data for GDP [Raworth starts the book with an argument for discarding GDP in favour of the doughnut model but hey ho] side by side with data on local air and water pollution in around 40 countries, they found that pollution first rose then fell as GDP increased...an inverted-U when plotted...resemblance to that famous inequality curve [Kuznets Curve, which she had debunked earlier], this new one was soon known as the Environmental Kuznets Curve...economists could not resist the urge to use statistical modelling in order to identify the level of income at which the curve magically turned...lead contamination...$1,887 (1985 prices)...sulphur dioxide...$4,053 ...black smoke...$6,151...they claimed, growth would start to clean up air and water pollution before countries hit the $8,000 ($17,000 in 2017) per capita...
...explanations for the curve's rise then fall don't stand up to scrutiny...citizens do not have to wait for GDP growth to...demand clean air and water...It's people power that protects local air and water quality. Likewise it is citizen pressure on governments and companies for more stringent standards, not the mere increase in revenue, that compels industries to switch to cleaner technologies. Third, cleaning up a nation's air and water by shifting from manufacturing to services industries doesn't eliminate these pollutants: it sends them overseas...(pages 207-210) | |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 13:21 - Jun 21 with 397 views | Darth_Koont |
| What is more inflationary? on 15:56 - Jun 20 by WeWereZombies |
Here's where I am up to in 'Doughnut Economics':
'In the early 1990s, US economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger discovered a striking pattern. Studying trend data for GDP [Raworth starts the book with an argument for discarding GDP in favour of the doughnut model but hey ho] side by side with data on local air and water pollution in around 40 countries, they found that pollution first rose then fell as GDP increased...an inverted-U when plotted...resemblance to that famous inequality curve [Kuznets Curve, which she had debunked earlier], this new one was soon known as the Environmental Kuznets Curve...economists could not resist the urge to use statistical modelling in order to identify the level of income at which the curve magically turned...lead contamination...$1,887 (1985 prices)...sulphur dioxide...$4,053 ...black smoke...$6,151...they claimed, growth would start to clean up air and water pollution before countries hit the $8,000 ($17,000 in 2017) per capita...
...explanations for the curve's rise then fall don't stand up to scrutiny...citizens do not have to wait for GDP growth to...demand clean air and water...It's people power that protects local air and water quality. Likewise it is citizen pressure on governments and companies for more stringent standards, not the mere increase in revenue, that compels industries to switch to cleaner technologies. Third, cleaning up a nation's air and water by shifting from manufacturing to services industries doesn't eliminate these pollutants: it sends them overseas...(pages 207-210) |
Very interesting. Cheers for that.
At the very least it shows that environmental measures need to take into account or be adapted to the local/regional situation because the population may be in a completely different economic stage. And the opportunities/incentives and resulting behaviours are very different as a result.
Also that, in certain countries, perhaps changing the economic picture (foreign aid, subsidies, credits etc.) might be the most pressing step, rather than environmental measures per se. | |
| |
| What is more inflationary? on 13:37 - Jun 21 with 361 views | WeWereZombies |
| What is more inflationary? on 13:21 - Jun 21 by Darth_Koont |
Very interesting. Cheers for that.
At the very least it shows that environmental measures need to take into account or be adapted to the local/regional situation because the population may be in a completely different economic stage. And the opportunities/incentives and resulting behaviours are very different as a result.
Also that, in certain countries, perhaps changing the economic picture (foreign aid, subsidies, credits etc.) might be the most pressing step, rather than environmental measures per se. |
Another surprising finding:
'Where high-income countries have broken their promise of financial redistribution, global migrants have stepped in. Out of their earnings, the remittances they send to their families back home are now the single largest source of external finance in many low-income countries, outstripping both ODA [Overseas Development Aid] and foreign direct investment. These worker remittances constitute around 25% of GDP in countries like Nepal, Lesotho and Moldova...' (page 199) [Post edited 21 Jun 2022 13:39]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
