Can attest. Right now we're priced out of the housing market because of inflation.
If inflation was running hot persistently at like 6% then long term interest rates would be higher and housing prices would fall in nominal terms compared to wages.
The low-inflation, low-interest rate environment has produced high asset valuations due to the cheapness of borrowing money.
There is an important distinction on the spectrum between consumable things bought with wages and investments bought with borrowed money, and the rise in prices in those categories are different.
If you want to play the semantic game that all rises in any prices are inflation there is a real distinction that you're missing -- in which case we should talk about asset inflation vs. price inflation vs. wage inflation as being different inflations and stop talking about it like its the same thing (which economists would tell you it isn't by arguing that you're talking about assets and not inflation, but now we've just gone in a circle talking past each other because of definitions).
We’re insulating an aging gerontocracy at the expense of the next generation.
That’s ageism.
We’re on the hook for their contracts, their businesses agreements. I never signed anything.
They’ve successfully leveraged their propaganda spewing media companies to convince us to coddle them and fuck the next generation; no one else matters!
That’s the only real thing going on here. Everything else is semantic games.
A bunch of elders raised in a more religious era built “flocks” of employees whose agency they exploit to avoid real work.
Inflation causes asset prices to rise.
> If inflation was running hot persistently at like 6% then long term interest rates would be higher
This is not true.
> housing prices would fall in nominal terms compared to wages
I suggest you reconsider your assertion that 6% inflation would result in lower housing prices.
> The low-inflation, low-interest rate environment has produced high asset valuations due to the cheapness of borrowing money.
The high asset valuations as a result of low interest rates is textbook monetary inflation.
> There is an important distinction on the spectrum between consumable things bought with wages and investments bought with borrowed money, and the rise in prices in those categories are different.
The prices in both those categories are affected by dilution of value as a consequence of monetary expansion and that increase in prices has a name, 'inflation'.
> If you want to play the semantic game that all rises in any prices are inflation there is a real distinction that you're missing -- in which case we should talk about asset inflation vs. price inflation vs. wage inflation as being different inflations and stop talking about it like its the same thing (which economists would tell you it isn't by arguing that you're talking about assets and not inflation, but now we've just gone in a circle talking past each other because of definitions).
The point of semantics is to enable us to communicate by having mutually understood meanings for the words we use. If you want to talk about price increases that are not a result of monetary factors, then you can just talk about the price of things going up without misappropriating the word 'inflation' and making it seem like you don't understand what the word even means.
The distinction you speak of was cleverly crafted by the rich to provide cover for them because they own most of those assets and wage earning people can no longer afford them.
In the end who gives a shit if you dissect inflation into categories or not if my standard of living keeps dropping, which is what inflation does. Robs purchasing power from the people.
Was told last year the payment will be abt 500. I reckon after rate jumps it’ll be closer to 800.
Sigh.