But none of that is sufficient for inflation to occur. Inflation is a fall in the value of a unit of currency. In your terms, it can only occur when currency supply is higher than currency demand.[1]
But in other terms, while it is true that shortfalls in the supply of food, oil, and circuitry lower the value of a dollar, it is not true that they are able to cause inflation; if the number of dollars is lowered commensurately with the loss in value, that will offset the effect.
Talking in terms of the currency often puts the issue backwards.
So? It's not maintaining its value. Who cares whether it's maintaining its value measured in baht? That would just mean the baht is also losing value.
And it's also true that the pound sterling can experience inflation while maintaining its exchange rate against the Thai baht.
But those two things cannot happen simultaneously; if the pound is experiencing inflation and maintaining its exchange rate with the baht, then the baht is also experiencing inflation.
a currency is "devalued" by, eg., money printing, only in the sense that eventually the new cash drives prices up
when speaking about "inflation" we're always talking about some sets of prices... even in the case of "general inflation", this does not mean global prices for all products -- it means a certain subset, eg., CPI
so the GBP can maintain its value in many senses whilst the person-on-the-street experiences CPI.. the value of GBP isnt only in "general purchasing power relative to market relative to baskets"
trivially, arbitrage opportunities do exist, markets aren't perfectly efficient.. so there can be cases where UK CPI inflation is "ahead of the global curve"
I'm not sure this statement makes that much sense, won't demand always go up when prices drop, and drop off when it goes up? Demand does not exist in abstract, if I could get an iPhone 13 pro for $10 I would take 5, if it costs $2,000 I will take 0. If oil cost $1 a gallon instead of $4, won't the demand increase? And if it is $10 a gallon won't the demand decrease?
Maybe to simplify, cite something that backs your claim that demand is higher than supply.
And then maybe further, can you clarify: will demand not increase when people are given more money? Won't for example trillions of direct and indirect stimulus drive up demand? And if price stays constant won't the increase in demand not have to result in prices going up in order to avoid supply shortages?
Maybe this is an aside to you, but would you expect heating cost to increase or decrease if you are using fossil fuels for heating, and the government has promised to end fossil fuels?
I guess we can point all fingers to Putin, but decreasing the supply of fossil fuels seems to be an implicit campaign promise of the Biden administration, and he has the most popular administration in history, so I'm not sure why people are upset with paying more for heating and gas.
I see the data quite differently. No President since World War II ended has a lower approval rating on day 523 of their administration.
What accomplishment does Biden have that's going to counterbalance how pathetic his administration's response to the repeal of Roe v. Wade appears? It's become a meme among the left that the only thing the Democrats had prepared in response were fundraising letters.
Well he is not if you take the poll numbers, but as Biden has said, the low poll numbers are mainly a side effect of the negative sentiment for his administration in the right wing media. You will need to compensate for this to get an accurate picture.
"Compensating" for perceived reasons why a President is not liked, admired, or supported seems antithetical to the goal of measuring popularity. That would seem to me more like "fudging the data" (if I'm being polite) or "making shit up" (if I'm going for clarity).
No, this was just a lie though, the media has always been right wing, they lie and say they are not, but they are.
> What accomplishment does Biden have
He ended COVID, he pulled out of Afghanistan, he restored US reputation on the global stage, he put Russia in it's place, he was busy ending fossil fuels. I dunno there are many things, you just don't hear of them because the media is trying to tank his presidency.
I'll grant that he was more competent at administrating the response than Trump, but COVID hasn't ended, the pandemic is still in progress.
>he pulled out of Afghanistan
Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster. You can argue that he shouldn't be blamed for that, and I might agree, but it didn't make him look good even when reported on honestly.
>he restored US reputation on the global stage
Citation needed. NATO got a credibility boost from Russia's invasion, but the US wound up looking weak and indecisive. And I don't think you can restore the stain on America's reputation that was Trump so easily, or unburn that many bridges. Maybe, if Trumpists don't take power again in 2024, but at the moment being the country in which guns have more rights than women (and soon to be LGBTQ and black people) is not good optics.
>he put Russia in it's place
In what sense? Is Russia's "place" right on top of Ukraine? Did I miss the news about the American negotiated surrender and Russian retreat? I don't understand.
He gave US the vaccines, without which the pandemic would have been much worse.
> > he pulled out of Afghanistan
> Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster.
No it was not, this is just further misrepresentation by the media.
> > he restored US reputation on the global stage
> Citation needed.
https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-donald-tr...
> > he put Russia in it's place
> In what sense?
He sanctioned norstream 2: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/feb/23/biden-u...
Also he said he will make Russia pay for election interference [1].
[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/joe-biden-vladim...
That can be caused by supply-side inflation, eg., a sudden general drop in supply. Or demand-side, a sudden general increase in available cash.
Central banks increasing money supply is demand-side inflation. The issue with this, as a "final theory", is the last decade+ where it didnt hold; and in japan where inflation and money supply are entirely uncorrelated.
The only difference today, with inflation, is the supply-side shock. If central bank policies were causing inflation, they'dve caused it over the last decade; and likewise in japan.
Whilst central bank policies have raised asset prices, etc. there's very limited evidence they've raised, eg., the CPI
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
They money supply (M1SL) increase by 500% since March 2020 - don't tell me that this is purely a supply side shock.
Or at the very least cite something that shows supply has dropped. And then explain to my why policies that increase the money supply by 500% is not expected to cause historic inflation while a pandemic is affecting supply?
However, we should be careful not just to say inflation is caused by the money supply. This is a theory of why inflation could occur, it isnt inflation. Inflation is just the general rise in prices.
Given that everything is suddenly more expensive when energy prices rise (since energy is required for everything), etc. And given supply chain crises, etc.
We are seeing a case where the supply-side is undergoing huge general shocks. If you want to say that M1 has caused a demand-side inflation, fine... but it seems to me that 1/2ing the price of oil would 1/2inflation; whereas doubling interest rates wont.
So if money supply is the cause of inflation, interest rates will entirely solve the problem. If the supply-side is, then it wont.
I'd place a large bet on supply side being the major part. I think 1/2ing oil price would take inflation down to (4-6)%, at which interest rates would then be effective.
I would like to see some evidence for this, as I don't think this is the case, I think this is just propaganda from fossil fuel companies and their political allies. Like Biden said the economy is just in transition. I think restricting oil and gas supply further will be much more more likely to lower inflation. Maybe Biden should outlaw all oil refining on US soil to help drive the transformation faster.
If people were just less greedy and cared more about the environment than their wallets then they would buy electric cars instead of driving gas guzzling SUVs that are destroying our planet.
Does it work like that in real world? If gas price doubles does that mean that folks who commute by car go only half way to work or stay at home every other day? If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them? What would you do with extra four? Browse hn on five screens at once?
Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.
There are a lot of behavior that can be changed, not all of it, but people could skip some trips, maybe only 10% - but it is not 0%.
> If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them?
I have 5 umbrellas but just one body. I sometimes forget it at some place, or misplace it. Nice to have a spare when I need one. I could then leave an iPhone at work for when my battery runs out for example.
> Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.
Fair enough, my examples were a bit contrived and absurd, but my point is more just that neither supply nor demand is fixed. But yes they are not infinitely elastic, but they are somewhat elastic.
My reading of the figures is US supply has either recovered or is limited because of restricted imports (chips etc)