The fed has stopped adding to the money supply and making it more expensive to borrow. That alone will make a big difference in inflation. If it hasn't peeked we are close to it.
My fear is that getting to 2% inflation is going to be very painful to many. The economy will have to slowdown. And that usually means many people will slow their spending and many will lose their jobs because of it.
Official inflation stats will probably cool down. Prices are already so high that a return to "normal" inflation would still be misery.
But actually I suspect that "core" inflation will fall somewhat. The problem is that energy and food are basically just running out. Whether it happens from rising prices or falling incomes, dinner tables are going to get pretty lean
In America, actually I think we won't run out of food. Our dinner tables will stop having the variety that we are accustomed to and the quality of meat we have grown to expect, but most of us will still get enough calories.
But the world is running out of energy, running out of food, and running out of people producing either of those things, and the fed moving money around can't make up the shortage.
Do you doubt weather forecasts from NOAA? What about projected trajectories of hurricanes? The pint of these rhetorical questions is to point out that we all rely on “government projections”. We rely on the Department of Agriculture’s projections. Etc. Your comment is in no way helpful or insightful or humorous.
Do you have any valid reasons to doubt the CBO’s work in this instance?
the NOAA generates data sets from well known and vetted methods, their methods result in datasets that coincide a huge percent of the time with weather datasets generated by similar but unrelated agencies all around the world.
have you looked at the data sources the CBO cites?[0]
and, aside from that -- is there a name for when it's the sources of data you mistrust rather than the aggregator? I trust the DHS and other related three-letter-agencies about as far as I can throw them -- and I most especially mistrust their submitted budgets.
The CBO and other government agencies use well known and well documented methods for their inflation predictions. Again, if there is a reason to not trust the CBO then it should be stated. Just saying, essentially, “government can’t be trusted” is a terrible position.
I would doubt NOAA if it were tasked with evaluating the consequences of the government's actions.
NOAA mostly writes about the weather, and most of the time they aren't trying to claim that the government did or did not cause the weather.
If NOAA were to put out a report on, say, the effectiveness of the current ruling party's approach to weather control, then yes I would doubt them too.
You missed entirely the point made. Obviously I was pointing out that your stated reasoning was flawed. Government regularly publishes data and predictions that are trustworthy and useful. Therefore merely disagreeing with this report because it is a government report is sloppy thinking. Also, even saying “government” as if it is a single entity is sloppy thinking. The federal government has areas of expertise and it is better at some things than others. The CBO is generally held in high regard. The White House Budget Office is the one that people tend to discount as being overly partisan regardless of who is in power.
Well sure, I understand the implication you're making (something like "the government is investigating a problem that's mostly, but not completely, caused by government policy and has determined that things are fine, and we should be skeptical of this conclusion because of the inherent conflict of interest").
But ... it's still useful to take what CBO says as another data point to calibrate how you think about these things on your own. It's not completely useless.
Sounds good but it also means that prices are going to continue to rise at something higher than 2% for the next 2 years. Ouch, but at least they won't be going up forever at a big pace.
Given that energy prices, which are a partial driver of inflation, are high and will certainly remain high through the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023 due to demand from cold weather and China coming back “online”, I really don’t see how the 2022/2023 predictions make sense. They may be solely focusing on how supply chain disruptions will cease soon, but that also implies increases in energy demand which will offset some of those supply improvements.
The prediction is not that prices will fall. The average prices will stay high. They just won't go up as fast. So oil can stay at $100+ but it won't be rising as fast as it has in the past year. Prices rise as supply tightens but as supply stops tightening the price rise will slow. Also the fed is tightening the money supply so even if the prices are trending up there won't be as much money to chase the goods. In a sense the prediction says that the price shocks to the economy are slowing. I hope so because I don't want to deal with any more surprises.
Well two articles down the strippers say we’re in a recession. Who ya gonna believe? Not joking, I honestly think strippers might have a better handle on which way the wind is blowing.
16 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 51.0 ms ] threadMy fear is that getting to 2% inflation is going to be very painful to many. The economy will have to slowdown. And that usually means many people will slow their spending and many will lose their jobs because of it.
But actually I suspect that "core" inflation will fall somewhat. The problem is that energy and food are basically just running out. Whether it happens from rising prices or falling incomes, dinner tables are going to get pretty lean
In America, actually I think we won't run out of food. Our dinner tables will stop having the variety that we are accustomed to and the quality of meat we have grown to expect, but most of us will still get enough calories.
But the world is running out of energy, running out of food, and running out of people producing either of those things, and the fed moving money around can't make up the shortage.
Do you have any valid reasons to doubt the CBO’s work in this instance?
the NOAA generates data sets from well known and vetted methods, their methods result in datasets that coincide a huge percent of the time with weather datasets generated by similar but unrelated agencies all around the world.
have you looked at the data sources the CBO cites?[0]
and, aside from that -- is there a name for when it's the sources of data you mistrust rather than the aggregator? I trust the DHS and other related three-letter-agencies about as far as I can throw them -- and I most especially mistrust their submitted budgets.
[0]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57325
NOAA mostly writes about the weather, and most of the time they aren't trying to claim that the government did or did not cause the weather.
If NOAA were to put out a report on, say, the effectiveness of the current ruling party's approach to weather control, then yes I would doubt them too.
But ... it's still useful to take what CBO says as another data point to calibrate how you think about these things on your own. It's not completely useless.