Comments on: Another reason why inflation is a good idea A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: McChavelli Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:06:20 +0000 inflation is a good idea for banks and funds managers; for 90% of the population as well as for the REAL economy, the inflation is destructive

By: Joel Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:00:11 +0000 I do agree that we should axe the corn subsidies. But political reality forbids that from ever occurring. I mean, can you ever imagining being the president that was responsible for doubling the price of a McDonald’s hamburger?

By: brooklyn Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:41:39 +0000 He’s very young. All these ideas are academic until one has more experience of life, and (for most of us) of real adversity. As soon as Mr. Salmon has a family, or loses his job, or someone gets sick, he’ll join the rest of us and realize that the middle class is greatly beleaguered, and that will hurt everyone.

By: Jojo Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:35:54 +0000 Man, this guy Felix is pretty dumb.

Inflation acts like a drag on the economy as real as any wage DECREASE.

If you make $100 and your wages drop to $96, you have to cut $4 worth of stuff to buy.

If you make $100 and inflation increases prices 4%, you have to cut the same $4 worth of stuff.

Why don’t you ask Germany or any other country that experienced massive inflation how that works.

This piece is just a prelude to the MASSIVE inflation we’re going to see from this stimulus spending, and to convince everyone it’s all OK.

It’s not.

By: Jojo Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:31:46 +0000 This is what the left believes: kill the economy to make life more “sustainable” and “fair”.

Kill America’s economy to bring equality for everyone in America and the rest of the world.

Increase fuel costs so we’re forced into alternatives.

These people are mindless leftists blithely chasing a NON-EXISTANT utopia. All it’s going to do is make everyone miserable and hateful.

By: Alan Vanneman Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:12:54 +0000 Amen to everyone who said that this post is lame. If a store is actually selling clothes so cheaply that replacing them is almost as inexpensive as cleaning them, that’s a good thing, not a bad one. The notion that people ought to lead frugal lives when they don’t have to is ridiculous. Apparently, Felix feels that people have a moral duty not to spend money in a way that irritates him.

By: Amagnon Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:44:40 +0000 The US and western countries are living on credit, and consuming items produced by countries with much lower labour costs – this effect is ending now as free trade is equalising international labour costs.

If globalism is the aim – then wages and living standards will be equalised throughout the world – so averages will lie between African and American standards.

This is a pure outcome of free trade – labour is a commodity like any other, and if corporations are free to pursue competitive labour markets, they will chose the cheapest – and this obviously reduces the living standards of all western nations.

By: Michael Ham Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:34:50 +0000 Leo, income being higher doesn’t equal standard of living being higher. The average american has less spendable income after their necessities and bills are paid for now than they did 40 years ago.

By: jerry lee Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:36:31 +0000 Clothes aren’t too cheap. Dry cleaning is too high.

By: Leo Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:19:46 +0000 I’d heard that the middle class are still vastly better off today than they were forty years ago. Googling for support I found
which shows a near doubling of per capita income over 25 years.
Likewise, I understood inflation to come from Nixon taking the US off the Gold standard. Wikipedia supports this. The consequent inflation is can be measured by the fact Gold is no longer $35.00 per ounce.
Inflation is toxic to economies. The blog’s headline is badly phrased, implying as it does that inflation is a good thing, rather than that including externalities in prices is a good thing.
However, even this second proposition has a number of dubious assumptions. Is cure always more expensive than prevention? Would higher prices accurately reflect the cost of the externalities? Do the ‘green’ alternatives truly have the environmental benefits they allege, and on which it is proposed to interfere with market forces? Consider the environmental impact of mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs, the insane environmentalist phobias against genetic engineering and nuclear power, the externalities of biofuel causing starvation. The answer is we shouldn’t fiddle with markets, because we have only a little knowledge. It’s a dangerous thing. And at the end of the day, the green alternatives will still suck.