That's right... it is directly related to a particular currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation pretty much details it and gives examples from history.

In the US, the civil war confederate dollar would be the last example. More recognized examples are Argentina1970's +, Zimbabwe 2008, Germany 1923.


.

Of course, but we also make our own bread... so I know what the raw materials cost.

How much have your raw material costs gone up over the last decade? Outside this year...

We don't have a decade of stats, excluding this year our raw costs have gone up about 25%, with this year it's a pretty big ass jump.

I see what China is doing, while it may cost us both more today, it should in the long term create a longer stable price, allowing us to forecast our future costs with much better accuracy. Something China has been bitching about with the various markets for awhile now, and kinda a smart business move if it ends up happening.

Go in with a couple other companies next time and buy in even larger bulk... the price will go down. That's what they want, less small orders, more larger orders, and we distro here ourselves, lowering the projected costs for them.

No it's not because:

1) it is only taking into account specific items while ignoring others.

2) hyperinflation is currency dependent. That means that base prices are accelerating out of control for the currency in question. If the base prices you're citing are also going up in other currencies, you are simply observing higher prices.

You are also using a definition of hyperinflation that is not used in mainstream economics.

It's fine if you guys want to make up your own definitions, but recognize that for what it is.


.

Does that mean the inflation rate, itself, would be like 26%? Then for it to be hyper inflation that compounds for 3 years?

I guess I'm glad Americans still produce wealth, goods, etc. and looking at it, we would need to damn near stop producing anything to reach the numbers of true hyper inflation.

This may be true, but if he knew a bit more he would have never appointed two Wall Street stooges like Geithner and Summers to manage the economy.

And had he not done that, he just might have had the balls to pursue criminal investigations of Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, the entire Financial Products Division of AIG and the rest of the shysters who deep sixed the economy.


Still in all, aside from (possibly) Ron Paul, Obama's far better than anything the Republicans have to offer.

My degree is in mechanical engineering. Even though I haven't done much engineering work in the last 10 years my daily tasks are solidly in the business and management side of manufacturing. I will concede the word hyper.

That being said,since 1999 when we added the plastics division the last 6 months have been the largest cost increases we have seen. In 1999 a pound of raw poly cost 54 cents.
Though the 2000's it rose annually at a bit over COLA.

We purchase now in the largest bracket. We order train cars(180,000 lbs) every three weeks. Rubbermaid pays the same price as we do.

Damn, train cars, that's kinda cool. They make them in China and send them to the States? That's nuts...

Or worse... But you have to look at inflation in totality. Try http://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables.htm

Simply selecting areas of prices that are higher and then citing hyperinflation is an abuse of the term, which is what Minte was doing.

We had high inflation in the 1970's (upwards of 13%), but it was not considered hyperinflation. Compare that to 2008 +3.8%, 2009 -0.4%, 2010 +1.6%.

Then compare those to These Hyperinflations where prices were doubling from every 15 hours to every 6 days.

If you witness people scrambling to get their hands on their money as fast as they can so that they can immediately spend it because it will be worth much less the following day, that's hyperinflation.


.

He knows shit about business and it shows, remember the stimulus package, he thought that would be shovel ready,

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the...ke-joke039s-us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

too bad we keep killing civilians, we should be better than that

What you describe above is more a result of supply and demand.

It is simply a brute fact that with the rise of emerging markets, there are more dollars, euros, pounds, yen, yuan/renmimbi, rupees, etc. chasing the same resources.

WTS, There is no doubt that weakening / strengthening currencies play a role.

But until you see the US Dollar Index and US bond market collapsing, the world doesn't have even accelerating inflation considered as a significant risk at this point.

It could happen, so I'm not saying it's impossible. It just looks to me as the US is struggling to maintain inflation and prevent a slip back into the deflation we saw in 2009.


.

I think Herman Cain would be good for us all. Very pro libertarian and business.

I gotcha... well clearly we're a hell of a long ways from that, even if you doubled the numbers.


Any idea how more can they force inflation before deflation kicks in, while hyper inflation would suck, I don't see it around the corner.. I do see hyper deflation, if that's even a phrase, just around the corner.

I haven't followed the cast of the new sitcom, "who wants to be the GOP dominee?"

I'll wait a bit, then look at what's offered.

Still pissed at the lack of back bone the GOP has had of late

First, anything from fox and damn sure rush, is complete and total shit, spin, bullshit.

The stimulus worked in many various ways, that's been proven many times over. Was it perfect? Of course not... nothing at that scale is, but without question, 100% for sure, it worked in many many many ways, proven ways.

Yeah, we killed civilians... it started with the American Revolution and has happened in every war afterward. Is that Obama's fault? Is the next President going to totally make that stop? Of course not.... stop picking out stupid shit for stupid reasons.

You're quick to dismiss anything that fox says because cnn doesn't? I guess Fox doctored the video clip right? LMAO

And I love how fast you make excuses for bad leadership of killing civilians, have you seen how many? Have you looked at how many drone attacks there has been versus militants we killed?

Fox get's dismissed because it's not real news... let's just look at the simple fact that 800 billion hasn't been spent, they can't even get the starting facts straight.

Reagan was a bad leader then? He killed civilians as well in his conflicts. Should our Presidents review every attack before it happens to ensure our Military doesn't kill civilians?

Again, look at the video and tell it's wrong.

So according to you 10 civilians for every militant killed is acceptable? Reagan or any other president never had that bad of numbers.

BTW, keep on subject, we were talking about the idiot in office we have now, just because another president did something, doesn't make it right. Comparing Obama to Reagan is like comparing Pelosi to Einstein. Obama is no where near the league Reagan was in, Reagan didn't take shit from other countries, Obama bows to them.
First thing Reagan did when he was in office was to stop the shit Carter got us in with Iran.

Ven, I just went and looked at the stats.

Looks like our civilian killings under Obama is down from a peak in 08. Just think of the 800,000+ civilians that died in the war of lies, Iraq. And it appears in 2011, 75% of civilian deaths have been caused by Taliban forces, and not ours.



Looks like Obama has improved things... are you going to give him credit or dismiss it because fox news told you otherwise?

By continuing to inject liquidity in the system or in the case of a serious rebound in the economy failing to mop up the liquidity.

I agree with you that deflation is much more of a risk than hyperinflation. I think hyperinflation has more potential after a deflationary collapse if that were to happen.

I've never heard the term hyper-deflation. I think by the very mechanics of deflation they are "hyper" if they cannot be stopped.

Take Minte as a businessman for example. Imagine what he would do if he saw collapsing prices for the commodities or other resources he manages as part of his business. I imagine he would be hard pressed to buy the commodities he needs, invest in infrastructure, labor, etc. if, tomorrow or next week or whatever his horizon was, he expected the cost of all these things to be cheaper.

Add to that the fear that by the time he produced the items he sells they would be down in price and he would be trying to sell to others who also may be anticipating still lower prices so they too refrain from making purchases.

Once people understand how deflation would play out in today's world, they would understand why it is the worse possible outcome.



.

I don't see a video?

I assume it's pointing out what Obama said... he's said many things about it, good and bad. Would you rather he lie or slightly twist the facts like fox does?


Looks like you need to research the numbers again. Our military killing civilians is down.... if you remember correctly, that is one of Obama's ideas for the military, kill as few civilians as possible.

Reagan's policies, created the mess we're in today... his theories failed, trickle down failed, tax cut failed, he spent more money than Obama by far.

We don't need a President to be a jack ass, we need one that respects others.... one thing I actually like about Obama is that he does show other leaders respect, respect they deserve to have.

oh yeah, totally agree... they're walking a very fine line right now, at least I think so. They should just let it deflate, them forcing inflation higher and higher is just going to make the drop that much worse. Then again, maybe they can find the balance... they have for a 100 years now.

How do you twist video, that shit head laughed about the stimulus money he spent

And your numbers are where?

We need a president at works for peace, not some asshole that escalates it, when Obama took office, we had 2 countries we were killing people in, how many are we killing people in now?

When Reagan took office, we had the cold war, he worked to end that by bankrupting the USSR.

Funy how you want to change the subject towards other things that you don't even lay out

If the US deflates, the whole civilized world is going to enter a depression that would be of a larger degree than the Great Depression.

As much as I have distaste for many things that are happening and have happened leading up to the current crisis and until today, I think the consequences of letting it deflate (collapse) are so catastrophic any attempt to "find the balance" is the only reasonable thing to do.


.

Classy.

Maybe he meant that "money put into a "shovel ready project" will have a more immediate impact on the economy than money spent on a project on which a great deal of time must elapse for architecture, zoning, legal considerations or other such factors before labor can be deployed on it" and that either 1) it was not as immediate (shovel ready) as expected 2) More stimulus was required.

I mean, I realize how his statement is being used politically, but is that the only explanation??




.

I never saw the video... and why not laugh?



Not coming from fox news... where are yours?


You point out the most pointless shit. We're in two wars, and like 50 countries, and killing in like 20 at once, all the fucking time. Peace? Fuck peace, he did what Bush should have done, went and got the damn bad guy, not giving a shit where he was! That's being a leader!

Statistically speaking, and proven, the cold war would have ended for the same reason, either way, with or without Reagan. Shit the Pope had WAY more to do with it ending than Reagan ever did. If you want to give out real credit where credit is actually due, thank the Pope.

What did I change? I simply responded to your misunderstandings, that's not me changing anything.

So you admit you feel that the way the stimulus was used was stupid?

I gave links, use your power of hooked on phonics

Ohhh, that's your research? No wonder you have no idea what's going on...

You gave a link to fox news transcript from a fox talk show (not news) and a wiki link on drone killings in Pakistan. You might want to try Google, and not just read one thing, and totally avoid anything ever produced by Fox... then you'll start to see the facts, maybe... if not keep reading.

This is a great example of what I'm talking about above.... being that you don't understand how the stimulus was used, your quote really makes you sound completely uneducated on the subject.

Let me help... Every State had to use the money in the percentages laid out by the Administration. One State would use the money correctly, and it worked/helped and things are good today. Another State, let's say like Texas, took the stimulus money, spent it how it should have been - which did work - however THEY spent the 'actual state school budget' on something else & did not use it with the Stimulus as it should have been, so when the stimulus funds dried up - they were fucked, and blamed Obama.

If it was used stupid, it's not Obama that did it... it's the States. Point your hate the right direction and you might not be so blinded by it.

How do you get that out of what I said? :disgust


.

So now you're saying you don't understand my response? Nice come back, not biting, arguing with you is an exercise in futility

Yet you didn't even look at it because you responded with what video?
You act like I'm the only guy on the planet that thinks Obama had his head up his ass with the way the stimulus was spent. He started it saying it would keep the unemployment rate from hitting 8 percent, couple years later, have you noticed where it's at?

If you have a question to ask, then ask it.

I was contrasting your way of looking at things with an alternative. Clearly, that went over your head.

It appears so blatant to me that you use your political ideologies -- which are developed more by culture, tradition or what pulls on your heart strings -- to inform and discuss economics rather than using actual economics to inform your politics.

If discussing economics with me is futile, it's because you don't understand economics well enough.

If futility is me not getting sucked into a political discussion with a hack, then yes again.


.

A video isn't proof of anything, damn sure not a spin... you're supporting my point greatly though.


Yeah I know, it saddens me greatly so many Americans refuse to educate themselves on this subject. I mean really, how hard is it to understand that Obama doesn't spend the stimulus money?

Oh, so he was 'off' by a point or two?? So he walks in, stops a major drop, and missed his mark by a point, and you're ripping on him?

Wow man... just wow.



Yep, I noticed where it's at, 3 years in and compared to say someone like Reagan which you praise, Obama is just about on par... both walked into a mess, and it took 3+ years for it to turn around, and into his second term.

You're bitching just to bitch... or hating to hate. With no logic to back it.

LMAO, yeah, clearly, get off your high horse, I just hate the present administration, the guys that used Bush's stance on wars, then escalated them, Bush's stance on the Patriot Act, then extended it to get in office
then lied and said the economy is getting better.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43395857/US_H...t_Depressi on

Yet, I get labeled as a right wing nut job when I don't back what they are saying either, they have no back bone anymore since the religious right took over the party.

Last time I got into it with you, you tried to belittle me because my opinion is different from yours. that in itself is the sign of an asshole and requires no response from me other than to say Go Fuck Yourself

Denying the revalance of him laughing it off doesn't make it sound any better
9.1 unemployment, 14 % on food stamps and it's his administration, so yes, it's him and his guidance, making excuses just doesn't cut it anymore
thing is, the way Reagan did it, and succeeded, is not the way Obama is doing it and it's not working, funny how a year ago you said the same thing, and nothing is changing under Obama, worse housing market ever, unemployment at 9.1% when he spent or HIS administration spent a trillion dollars to keep it below 8% and 14 million on foodstamps, yet he's pushing for statehood for a 51st state to get more votes, which is all he care about

You know the U.S. housing market isn't in a crisis right? To fix it would mean banks giving out a shit ton of total trash loans to create another fake bubble of value.... if it is in a crisis, it's related to banks being the largest property owner in America now.

So to be fixed, it needs to crash, all the way, as low as it can go...


You're labeled right wing because most of what you write up, share, talk about is skewed to the slanted view points of the right and almost always is missing core information that actually explains what's going on.

What's really laughable... is you have no idea how it was spent, at all... why would you ever understand why he laughed in the first place? It's like a kid being told an adult joke, they won't get it until they grow up enough to understand how things really work.

Deny relevance of him laughing about how the stimulus was spent? I'm trying to find even .1% relevance of importance, and it's not possible.


In the same period, nothing changed for Reagan.

The housing market will never improve unless you want fraud back.

Unemployment will change the moment companies start to hire, the President can't force that. And they 100% do have the money to hire.

His administration DID NOT SPEND A TRILLION to keep unemployment down. Wow, you even saying that... just wow.


I'm done, you're so twisted, fucked up, and so misinformed... it's pathetic and simply not worth discussing this shit with you.

I don't know the first thing about submarines, so I doubt I would characterize you as being on a high horse if you corrected me on something to do with this topic.

I've spent 25 years in investment banking, financial operations and markets. I was owner and a finop for an nasd broker dealer and had economists on the payroll, I owned a commodity brokerage company, I sit on the board of an investment firm and sit on an advisory board to a small hedge fund. It's not just a difference of opinion. Your opinion on economics / markets is simply poorly informed and smells only of political rhetoric.

I understand that you hate them. I'm sorry that this is the response you find most available. That said, I share the frustrations of the things you mention above.

In all honesty, you come off clearly as a right winger. Of course, that doesn't mean that you support everything on that side. Pointing this out does nothing to lessen your general stance.

This is GFY. :1orglaugh

Look, last time we discussed inflation it was going down the same road as seen in this thread. I pointed you directly at the numbers and all you could do was put your mental earmuffs on and point to gas and food. (notice that you have been quiet on oil prices recently since the last time you started that thread. hmmm.)

Then we had the discussion about outsourcing and free trade where you displayed another narrow view.

I think I offered a simplified example like this:

Vendzilla makes dildos. They cost you $10 to make and you sell them for $20 and earn $10 in income.

Jang can make them for the equivalent of $5. She sells them for $10 and the shipping cost to Jang's country is $1.

Julie wants to buy a dildo.

Before outsourcing: Vendzilla earns $10. Jang earns nothing. Julie spends $20 on a dildo.

After outsourcing: Vendzilla earns nothing. Jang earns $5. Julie gets a dildo for $11 and therefore saves $9.

Vendzilla is $10 worse off. Jang is $5 better off. Julie is $9 better off.

Suppose we want to restore Vendzilla's income, even without asking you to do anything for it (rather generous . . . but then Jang wasn't doing anything before was she). Then via an internationally-applied PVAAC ("Protect Vendzilla At All Costs") tax, we transfer $7 from Julie to Vendzilla and $3 from Jang to Vendzilla.

After side-payments: Vendzilla "earns" $10, Jang earns $2 and Julie still saves $2.

Vendzilla is as well off as before. Jang is $2 better off than before. Julie is $2 better off than before.

Opposition to oursourcing/offshoring is only ever based on the distribution of income. Protectionism can redistribute income but only by lowering it overall, which is wasteful for the world.

Then, of course, empirical observation is overwhelmingly that Vendzilla does find alternative income and such transfer payments are rarely necessary.

I tried to explain to you that you outsourcing / free trade were good for society globally and that there were benefits of lower manufactured goods prices that you were ignoring or hadn't factored in to your analysis.

IOW, there are larger gains than losses. They don't accrue to everybody equally, but it would be theoretically possible for side-payments to make everybody better off including the person whose labor was outsourced.

Your attitude was more mental earmuffs.

So, please either get a clue or go fuckyourself as well with your $20 dildo. :winkwink:


.

Vendzilla

You need to understand that repeating anything that Fox news has to say...is just their spin...just as repeating anything that MSNBC has to say...is just their spin.

Fox news is no more than a Democrat hit organization just as MSNBC is no more than a Republican hit organization. Both are the most biased "news" organizations out of all of the news media. The spin that both put on events bears little resemblance to the truth of events. Anything that either of these organizations say must be taken with a large degree of skepticism.

Almost every word you say is nothing more than Fox news talking points.

I know this because I watch Fox News as well as MSNBC among others.