For a general outline of the debt issue at a basic level try the following secondary source. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm
"If 70% of households own a home, 70% will be hurt by dropping home values."
You seem to believe that I am advocating a systematic deflation. Take a couple of deep breathes and read what I have written.
In any event, in a stable / honest money environment, until homeowners sell, the only conceivable harm"harm" is that the refi cash extraction cycle based on asset appreciation is not available. When the homeowner ultimately sells the dollars they receive under a stable [honest] money approach would have the same purchasing power as the dollars they borrowed. The economic position is the same with any gain or loss reflective of a true change in economic value as opposed to being a function of the liquidity sloshing around.
Based on the exchanges we have had until now I believe that you fancy yourself a free markets sort. Why then do you believe that the Government and the Government's proxy should consistently dink around with the price, and quality / quantity of money.
There is nothing written in stone that the Government must continuously debase the currency to benefit debtors.
"Borrowers real interest rate will be higher."
Sounds like an admission that it is theft or if you prefer a milder term, another form of subsidy or transfer payment. Or maybe price controls in terms of manipulating the price of money [interest]. If you are looking for a welfare payment, be honest about it, if only with yourself.
"Manufacturers, farmers, commodity producers will be hurt by falling prices for their goods."
And benefited by lower costs.
"They will lay off workers."
Maybe, How about some facts [and if you are going to cite the 1930s please look at the rest of the series post World War I.
[In regard to the usefulness of the "core rate calculation] "Do you agree?"
Sure, I think you were quoting me. Additional analysis can be useful.
" CPI numbers are there for all to see. Whining about "Core is great if you don't eat or use energy" is juvenile.
If the purpose of the headline number is tell the average Joe what happened to his purchasing power last month, the full up number is more appropriate. Often times the five minute news blurbs on radio only report the core.
Over longer periods of time, core rate is indeed only a better measure of the general price level if you don't eat or use energy. What part of that statement is inaccurate or emotional? "
Those airbags keep more people alive. That's got to be worth something."
Quality improvements are worth something. I will restate what I wrote in an earlier post about quality hedonics. These adjustments have some merit, but could be used to report whatever adjusted number desired, if that is the intent. Absent motive, the adjustments are conceptually valid, but are still highly subjective.
"That's funny. Yes, when filet [sic] gets too expensive and people substitute chicken, I think it's safe to say the chicken is lower quality. That's why it's cheaper."
Yup and via the substitution process for lower value items, the new and improved CPI market basket gets a lower price going forward without reflecting what the index would have been with the fillet. That is how many substitutions work. The fact that a consumer can scrimp is not a drop in the general price level for consumers.
" Neither is deflation and depression."
I have never, and am not advocating "deflation and depression." OTOH, you are apparently advocating theft by deception.
"I'm sorry, which part [of the Constitution ed.] was ignored?"
Read what the constitution has to say about money. Read the tenth amendment. Then try to determine how the Fed and systematic monetary debasement fit into a Constitutional framework.
You seem to be fearful of deflation, but unconcerned about debt. Are you unaware that it is cascading debt defaults that drive significant deflations? Based on that, you should be concerned about the willingness of American and Americans to pile on more and more debt. As debt builds, it becomes increasingly difficult to strike a balance. One a tipping point is reached -- Weimar or Japan [or worse].
Party hardy dude.
You seem to think I'm advocating a systematic inflation. Because the Fed is not perfect and monetary policy works with a lag, 2% inflation is safer than 0% because there is a smaller chance of going from 2% inflation into deflation than going from 0% into deflation. Yes, in a perfect world, if possible, 0% inflation is better than 2%.
Sounds like an admission that it is theft or if you prefer a milder term, another form of subsidy or transfer payment.
No, just an admission that if you make real interest rates higher you will get less borrowing. If that doesn't bother you, that's fine. If the reduced borrowing leads to less output and fewer jobs and that doesn't bother you, that's fine.
Based on the exchanges we have had until now I believe that you fancy yourself a free markets sort. Why then do you believe that the Government and the Government's proxy should consistently dink around with the price, and quality / quantity of money.
If there were a workable way to set the money supply so it wasn't "dinked around with" I'd be all for it. Gold won't work anymore, so dink we must.
And benefited by lower costs.
Unfortunately, the savings won't outweigh the pain. Consumers will benefit. During the Great Depression, the 75% who were employed probably enjoyed the lower prices. The other 25% were screwed. Manufacturers who aren't driven out of business will benefit, the rest (and their employees, creditors, suppliers) will be screwed.
Often times the five minute news blurbs on radio only report the core.
The MSM reports whatever makes Bush look worse. And then they report the Core rate with the if you don't eat or use energy snarkiness.
The fact that a consumer can scrimp is not a drop in the general price level for consumers.
I thought CPI was based on a basket of goods purchased by the "typical consumer"? If the typical consumer changes the items purchased.......
Read what the constitution has to say about money. Read the tenth amendment. Then try to determine how the Fed and systematic monetary debasement fit into a Constitutional framework.
If only gold and silver were still practical.
You seem to be fearful of deflation, but unconcerned about debt.
Who said I'm unconcerned about debt? I do know deflation makes it more difficult to pay off debt.
Based on that, you should be concerned about the willingness of American and Americans to pile on more and more debt.
Yes, debt is rising. And so is net worth.
Party hardy dude.
Keep looking for the black lining.