patrick.net

I can agree with you that we can't really just "force" inflation ideas onto the middle/lower class. Lower class is just forced to go along with whatever they can afford. I feel for them, because even small changes can be terrible for them. Middleclass has options, not as many, but they can change things up. I'm not saying this isn't an issue, I'm saying there are a lot of washes here. Switch this for that. Switch that for this. Overall, I'm not really sure how much food has gone up. I changed my eating habbits over the last few years, and I know I spend a lot more on food these days, but I'm also buying a lot more fresh foods and doing a lot of buying at whole foods, which is far more expensive than lucky and making sandwiches :)

I know pop is the same price. I know a lot of general foods are roughly the same, but I don't have empirical data on that. I know gas / corn have gone up, and are pretty noticeable. Apples, and strawberries seem to be the same price.

What we eat changes even from season to season! I don't buy strawberries in winter because they're expensive. In summer they're like $7 for a huge box! At the start of the season a little container is like $5. If New Zealand has a bumper crop of apples and their currency is hurting and oil is down, I expect to pay little for apples. If they go through the roof, I simply don't buy them. I switch to oranges, or bananas, etc. This isn't inflation, but just the market place of food changing.

In the end, the way they are calculating things seems fairly reasonable. Inflation might be forcing some changes, but changes happen. How would you incorporate our spending of cell phones into a 1970's inflation calculation (no cell phones back then)? The way we live changes over time, even what we eat, it's about how we live and the cost of living this way that is pretty important. That seems to be a realistic version of inflation to me.

pkennedy says

I feel for them, because even small changes can be terrible for them. Middleclass has options, not as many, but they can change things up. I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, I’m saying there are a lot of washes here. Switch this for that. Switch that for this. Overall, I’m not really sure how much food has gone up.

The "inflation" happening in commodities, especially food an fuel, is mostly not a monetary phenomena. It's a function of booming world demand, and flat supplies. It is beyond the control of the fed or any monetary authority.

That's why gas and basic foodstuffs have gone up much more than anything else in the US. It's also true for everywhere else in the world. So different people experience the cost of the things they buy changing at different rates. No doubt poorer people in the US have felt inflation more in the last 10 years than those more well off.

You think it's bad in the US? Try counties where food was typically half your income. Malnourishment is booming around the world, the flip-side of the world economic boom.

Yes, I heard that poor Mexicans suffered directly when Americans decided to start converting corn to ethanol. Drove up the cost of corn, and that's mostly what those guys eat.

Funny (or not) but it's about feeding poor people vs feeding your car. Or SUV.

Corn is a useless crop for producing fuel. Not only did it drive up corn prices, but it drove up all prices for things like wheat, because people converted wheat crops and others to corn!

I'm all for bio fuels, but corn is useless! It's something like 4 units in, 5 units out.

The only thing that aggravates me more is the tar sands in Canada. They have enormous amounts of oil, there is a good chance the most oil in the world. But it requires heat to free it from the sands, and they burn an astronomical amount of natural gas to free the tar! A clean burning fuel to get at the oil! That is why natural gas prices took off down here, because Canada supplies so much to the US, and they started using up all the supplies to free up the oil in the tar sands. I'm all for that oil, but not doing it that way. If it's heat, they should be using solar at the very least! Argh.

I agree with you Mark, what the poor felt here was very minor. In fact, I'm guessing that it might have helped the poor in America eat better. That is just a guess, but I'm betting that beans, rice, and other staples are far better than corn based cereals and high fructose syrup based foods which did go up in price. Prepared food are hugely expensive and almost completely non nutritional, so stopping people from eating those doesn't bother me :)

I feel bad for the people in other countries who rely on the basic foods like corn itself, wheat and rice. Those people really hurt.

Bankers want inflation to get out of the sink hole. Ordinary people want deflation to live affordably. With the current levels of unemployment, I am not sure why there will be inflation. It is about time to short the stock market since the artificial bubble is reaching its limits. Any good news or bad news now moves the market for few points up.

johnroberts says

Ordinary people want deflation to live affordably

Noone should want deflation...

Commodity prices go up because of speculators, lobbies and manias - rarely from any real shortages.

Austinhousingbubble says

Commodity prices go up because of speculators, lobbies and manias - rarely from any real shortages.

Who said anything about shortages? Flat supply, increasing demand = higher prices.

Speculators in commodities can only drive prices up for a short while. It's not like stocks, because they *must* sell to end users of the commodity when a futures contract is expiring. The spike in 2008 was probably caused by speculators, but it was not sustainable, because like I said, they *had to* sell their contracts to real consumers of the product. Oil is still in the 80's, and it's not because of speculation.

I’m all for bio fuels, but corn is useless! It’s something like 4 units in, 5 units out.
I'm certainly not going to race to defend corn, but it can become a much more efficient process if you combine it with a feed operation and use anaerobic digesters on the manure. Biogas is then used to produce electricity and heat for the ethanol plant (and the corn oil is used for biodiesel, if you really want to get fancy). YMMV...

EBGuy says

I’m all for bio fuels, but corn is useless! It’s something like 4 units in, 5 units out.

I’m certainly not going to race to defend corn, but it can become a much more efficient process if you combine it with a feed operation and use anaerobic digesters on the manure. Biogas is then used to produce electricity and heat for the ethanol plant (and the corn oil is used for biodiesel, if you really want to get fancy). YMMV…

Most alternative energies are akin to buying a package of dehydrated water that says "just add water". Everything they cook up in the energy market should have a "just add energy" label on it. Nuclear is our best option.

tatupu70 says

johnroberts says

Ordinary people want deflation to live affordably

Noone should want deflation…

It amazes me how you reject every single thing someone says to you yet you buy into Ben Bernanke's life's work without a single question.

Austinhousingbubble says

Commodity prices go up because of speculators, lobbies and manias - rarely from any real shortages.

if you believe that, then oil should go back down to $10 a barrel, no?

theoakman says

It amazes me how you reject every single thing someone says to you yet you buy into Ben Bernanke’s life’s work without a single question.

Huh? I don't even know what Bernake's life work is... And I don't disagree with everyone--there are many here that are very intelligent and articulate. I wouldn't even say that I object to everything you write. Ad Hom, Ray, and Abe on the other hand...

Who said anything about shortages? Flat supply, increasing demand = higher prices.

When oil peaked at 143. a barrel, demand was down; there was actually an oversupply. Look here...

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/05/oil_speculation.html

...just take a look at that chart and tell me whether you think that reflects a reasonable demand curve.

My point remains, it's speculation in the physical-commodities markets that drives prices up, not so much booming world demand. I think that might be an eventual scenario with regard to certain physical-commodities, but not that's not the historical or present reality.

Austinhousingbubble says

Who said anything about shortages? Flat supply, increasing demand = higher prices.

When oil peaked at 143. a barrel, demand was down; there was actually an oversupply. Look here…
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/05/oil_speculation.html
…just take a look at that chart and tell me whether you think that reflects a reasonable demand curve.
My point remains, it’s speculation in the physical-commodities markets that drives prices up, not so much booming world demand. I think that might be an eventual scenario with regard to certain physical-commodities, but not that’s not the historical or present reality.

You just proved his point. Short term speculation can't drive long term prices. Why don't you explain how prices rose from $10 a barrel to $85 a barrel today?

in '98 i paid .80 cents for a gallon of gasoline, that costs 2.89 today at the exact same store. not to mention, now i'm getting 90/10 gas/ehtanol mix.

gas price inflated 3.5x over 12 years

not to mention gas cost, when you factor in the trillion dollars spent in wars to keep the usd hegemony game going.

i can't think of anything that doesn't require petroleum

theoakman says

Austinhousingbubble says

Who said anything about shortages? Flat supply, increasing demand = higher prices.

When oil peaked at 143. a barrel, demand was down; there was actually an oversupply. Look here…

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/05/oil_speculation.html

…just take a look at that chart and tell me whether you think that reflects a reasonable demand curve.

My point remains, it’s speculation in the physical-commodities markets that drives prices up, not so much booming world demand. I think that might be an eventual scenario with regard to certain physical-commodities, but not that’s not the historical or present reality.

You just proved his point. Short term speculation can’t drive long term prices. Why don’t you explain how prices rose from $10 a barrel to $85 a barrel today?

$10 a barrel was an abberation that only lasted a very very short time. That price was way below production costs. Oil exploration pretty much came to a halt in the late 90's. Speculation will create short term price booms and busts but ultimately production costs will dictate the price. The only problem is exploration rises and falls on price speculation creating shortages. This cycle has been going on for 100 years. No one can produce $10 barrel oil any more.

Which is actually a good thing. As the underling production price increases usage will drop and alternatives will become more price competetive. We should have had a tax policy that put a floor price on oil since the 1970's so the alternative energies could have avoided an ongoing series of booms and busts in counter sync with futures market traded oil prices.

Gas didn't really go up in price for a long long time. Oil/gas from Saudi Arabia was always cheap, and could hold prices down by supplying enough at a low cost. Other countries can't extract it for that much, and when they're called upon to extract they're pricing it way higher. Over the last 15 years, India and China both took off, using up a lot more oil. Oil was pushed up due to speculation, but probably at $80, it's at a decently fair market value. Many of these countries believe that they can keep power in their countries with high oil revenues. The saudis have always wanted to push oil costs down because they know when they hit a high enough level, people will rethink how they buy cars, where they drive, and how to cut down on gas costs. Once those habits are learned, they don't go away, but high prices will go away once supply starts to come down, at which point they're screwed.

We've got hybrid cars getting 50+ mpg now. We've got electric cars working their way down the pipe. Sure they aren't great, sure it's going to take another 15 years before anything happens, but during that time we're going to change our habits. People will realize that 40 miles on a charge is enough for them. That the odd time they need more, there will be a gas engine there to back it up (eg the volt). Tesla has enough distance now for most people. But with a mix of hybrid like the prius, with the prius coming out with a plug in model and possibly a 10 mile range on it, people will change their habits.

As for BIO fuels, and alternative energy. Solar is great, it has come a long long ways, but it's still far too niche market, 50% of the total cost of solar engery is in install the things. That to me says niche market, which has a lot of room to properly grow. Wind can be pretty good at offsetting costs.

As far as BIO fuels, we've got a long way to go, and using corn is just the wrong way to start things off. Using corn is just wasteful, there are too many other plants out there that grow faster, producing more energy per crop. Sugar cane is pretty good. Bio diesel is much easier to make, and probably a better path to take.

Austinhousingbubble says

Who said anything about shortages? Flat supply, increasing demand = higher prices.

When oil peaked at 143. a barrel, demand was down; there was actually an oversupply. Look here…
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/05/oil_speculation.html
…just take a look at that chart and tell me whether you think that reflects a reasonable demand curve.

Hmmm... Odd that you post that link, since it very much supports what I'm saying. The conclusion:

Now, I personally do accept the view that the "paper oil" speculation has made a contribution in recent months to the increase in the price of physical oil. I believe that this speculation has resulted in a slight decrease in the quantity demanded that has required some modest supply reductions or accumulation of inventory by producers. But I expect that producers will find these changes not to be in their best interests as the demand adjustments become more prominent, at which point the price must return to that governed by the underlying physical fundamentals.

Ultimately, the price must be such that the quantity of physical oil demanded at that price is equal to the quantity of physical oil supplied. Any speculator who promises on paper to buy oil for more than the physical stuff is actually selling for will find themselves at that point with a big, fat paper loss.

And guess what? 2 months after this blog article was written, oil came tumbling down. It's not possible for speculators to keep a consumable commodity price elevated for a sustained period using paper trades.

Hmmm… Odd that you post that link, since it very much supports what I’m saying. The conclusion:

Never mind the article -- I was pointing to the chart which illustrated my point rather well. That spike reflects an asset bubble, not a natural supply/demand curve.

This from Rolling Stone:

"Between 2003 and 2008, the amount of speculative money in commodities grew from $13 billion to $317 billion, an increase of 2,300 percent. By 2008, a barrel of oil was traded 27 times, on average, before it was actually delivered and consumed."

And this from Sen Carl Levin:

“A major contributor [to high oil prices] is the rise in speculation. This is not a supply and demand issue.”

This speculation on physical-commodities has not disappeared by the way, because there's been no move toward reform, and since there's only so many commodities available for speculation, it's probably a matter time before oil is back over a hundred dollars a barrel.

Austinhousingbubble says

nd this from Sen Carl Levin:

“A major contributor [to high oil prices] is the rise in speculation. This is not a supply and demand issue.”

This speculation on physical-commodities has not disappeared by the way, because there’s been no move toward reform, and since there’s only so many commodities available for speculation, it’s probably a matter time before oil is back over a hundred dollars a barrel.

This is called a free market. People have always speculated. Now you can trade the speculations themselves without having to store the physical product. If the price rises enough demand drops and additional supplies are brought to market. Then prices go lower demand rises and supplies drop again (assuming there exists marginal production that will not be profitable at the lower cost). Keep repeating forever. It's the same for all commodities. It's a good thing, at a certain price point innovation into alternatives and conservation take hold. The only caveat is that the futures market must be free of manipulation and open, which is where regulators come in (or all to frequently fail to come in). Why is it no one complains about the futures market when it drops?

Austinhousingbubble says

Never mind the article — I was pointing to the chart which illustrated my point rather well.

Correlation is not imply cause. Many people looked at the fundamentals of commodities, and decided it was a good speculative bet.

BTW, most of the growth in the futures market was in "side bets" that were tied to the price of the underlying commodity, e.g. the ICE futures market in London. Side bets on the price of oil can no more influence the price of oil than side bets on the throw of a pair of dice can affect the throw.

BTW, most of the growth in the futures market was in “side bets” that were tied to the price of the underlying commodity,

Actually, in 2008 when oil was at about $130-45 a barrel, an estimated 99% of the oil market was controlled by speculators - namely JP Morgan and GS. Again, we have the lack or reform (abolishing the 'Enron loophole' for starters) to thank, and to also ensure that more excessive speculation in the oil market is just a matter of time.

The verdict is in on this. The position that supply/demand is what ultimately dictates the oil market is simply not the reality.

This is called a free market.

No -- a $13 billion to $317 billion increase in speculative money in less than five years is not free market phenomena. It's very much a gigged market.

Austinhousingbubble says

The verdict is in on this.

I agree, and it points to paper speculators having only a temporary effect. Usually they keep price volatility low, but sometimes they can amplify it, like in 2008. But even that isn't even clear, since commodities prices were very volatile long before futures markets, and in fact that was part of the point of creating them.

You quote Rolling Stone, and a politician. But almost every economist and expert on commodities trading says speculators have little long term effect, unless they are somehow manipulating the futures market or hoarding physical supplies, and there was little evidence of that.

You mention JP Morgan. Some traders, like JP Morgan played the contango trade by buying oil at spot, selling futures contacts for higher price, and keeping it in tankers for delivery at the higher price a few months later. They burned some very stupid dumb money speculators that paid too much for those contracts. The point is dumb speculators are often met by smart speculators who are happy to take their money, and that keeps the price in check in the long run. If only it were possible to speculate on the fall of real estate prices. RE bubbles would not get so out of control.

You quote Rolling Stone, and a politician.

It was a damn good article, but that particular snippet was merely highlighting established facts/figures spanning 2003 to 2008, which clearly illustrate the level of manipulation going on as opposed to natural peaks & troughs in the supply/demand curve.

But almost every economist and expert on commodities trading says speculators have little long term effect,

Certainly not economists like Mark Zandi, or Gerry Ramm of Petroleum Marketers Association of America, or former CFTC director Michael Greenberger -- all of whom have been very vocal about the major role that excessive speculation has played in juicing the cost of oil/oil futures.

unless they are somehow manipulating the futures market or hoarding physical supplies, and there was little evidence of that.

In fact, back in '08 Michael Greenberger came out against the Wall St investment banks for manipulating the oil futures markets and for hoarding heating, crude and gasoline. My worry going ahead is that since there's been no financial reform, and since bad policy like the Enron Loophole and the decidedly deregulatory CFMA is still in place, this problem is not going away and that oil prices are bound to go ape again. Sooner than later.

One of the most recent articles I read was from April 6th. You can check it out here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36194255/

"Al-Attiyah, whose country is one of 12 member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, said that speculation remained a key force behind the price rally—an impetus that eclipsed supply and demand fundamentals .... The Qatari oil minister said global crude inventories remain very high."

Maybe a speculative casino-style economy is the only viable framework left in America. Long term investment in enterprise is dead, even on the individual consumer level, as evidenced by the resurgence in house flipping and HELOC abuse. I forget who said it, but without fraud and speculation, there would be nothing left of the American economy but porn and donuts.

Tatupu, why would you say that no one should want deflation?

Regular people, who are paid in fiat money, should want that fiat money to be further debased and to decrease in value?

Mild deflation is exactly want the average person wants. Not intense enough to slow the economy down, but enough so that daily necessities become mildly cheaper over time and the value of one's savings increases. The steady increase in human productivity -- producing more and better goods for less labor and energy input -- should provide people with this situation.

Michinaga says

Mild deflation is exactly want the average person wants. Not intense enough to slow the economy down, but enough so that daily necessities become mildly cheaper over time and the value of one’s savings increases. The steady increase in human productivity — producing more and better goods for less labor and energy input — should provide people with this situation

By definition, deflation means the economy is slowing down. It is shrinking--think recession. I agree that I like it when things that I buy go down in price, but the problem is that it eventually leads to job losses and high unemployment.

tatupu70 says

Michinaga says

Mild deflation is exactly want the average person wants. Not intense enough to slow the economy down, but enough so that daily necessities become mildly cheaper over time and the value of one’s savings increases. The steady increase in human productivity — producing more and better goods for less labor and energy input — should provide people with this situation

By definition, deflation means the economy is slowing down. It is shrinking–think recession. I agree that I like it when things that I buy go down in price, but the problem is that it eventually leads to job losses and high unemployment.

No it doesn't. Deflation has 2 definitions in economics. Keynesians and Monetarists refer to deflation as falling prices. Austrian economists refer to it as the contraction of money supply. Keynesians and Monetarists believe deflation (falling prices) leads to economic slowdown (Ben Bernanke's thesis). But it doesn't. In fact, at the end of the 19th century, we had nothing but a booming economy with falling prices throughout.

Deflation doesn't mean the economy is slowing down. Falling prices can be a product of increasing supply through productivity. People always like to point to LCD TVs as a "sign of deflation". Well, LCD & Plasma TVs used to cost 10 times more than they did at the beginning of this decade. Yet, as the price has come down, much more people have been employed selling and manufacturing LCD TVs than before. People buy more goods as prices come down. That increases employment.

Austinhousingbubble says

This is called a free market.

No — a $13 billion to $317 billion increase in speculative money in less than five years is not free market phenomena. It’s very much a gigged market.

Did you read my post past the first 6 words? I didn't comment on the manipulative bubble of 2008, I commented on the futures markets as they usually and are supposed to run. I was very clear that futures markets must be free of manipulation and open ie not being run by backroom deals from Goldman Sachs. You must have missed the paragraph in the article were Taibbi says that MANIPULATION turned a once solid market into a casino. The same article points out that the regulators collaborated in secret with Goldman.

You also fail to note that oil crashed back to $33 per barrel. That's what happens every time with bubbles. At that point the article tries to have it both ways. It rants about evil speculators for driving the price up then talks about ordinary people who lost out in the crash. Which is it? The same exact people who bought on the way up lost out on the way down.

didn’t comment on the manipulative bubble of 2008, I commented on the futures markets as they usually and are supposed to run

.
The qualifiers here are "usually" and "supposed to" -- on paper, perhaps these markets work this way, but certainly not in practice -- certainly not during the last few administrations. The last ten or so years of our economy have been fueled primarily by speculation; lacking any meaningful reform, the excessive speculation that peaked in 2008 will not be an isolated incident. Of course, the bunch who suddenly fancy themselves the Austrian school like to bandy around the rather oversimple notion of zero government regulation in any iteration, preferring the market regulate itself and the government just get out of the way -- but given the piss poor track record of the SEC, CFTC and the watered down attempts at reform, zero oversight was and remains the reality we presently enjoy. And it sucks.

By the way, oil crashed back to $33 a barrel because of the total financial meltdown, not because of a natural deflection in the supply/demand curve. Show me a market that didn't tank between 2008 and now (I know of only a few). The banks were broke and the consumers were in a panic. Cash was where you wanted to be. Now that the shit storm has abated and there's pennies from heaven again, you will notice the price of oil steadily increasing. You will also take note of the quote above by the OPEC oil minister, that this is almost purely because of speculation. There's a butt load of supply and demand is at a stasis.

theoakman says

No it doesn’t. Deflation has 2 definitions in economics. Keynesians and Monetarists refer to deflation as falling prices. Austrian economists refer to it as the contraction of money supply. Keynesians and Monetarists believe deflation (falling prices) leads to economic slowdown (Ben Bernanke’s thesis). But it doesn’t. In fact, at the end of the 19th century, we had nothing but a booming economy with falling prices throughout.
Deflation doesn’t mean the economy is slowing down. Falling prices can be a product of increasing supply through productivity. People always like to point to LCD TVs as a “sign of deflation”. Well, LCD & Plasma TVs used to cost 10 times more than they did at the beginning of this decade. Yet, as the price has come down, much more people have been employed selling and manufacturing LCD TVs than before. People buy more goods as prices come down. That increases employment.

Yes, LCD TVs have enjoyed strong productivity as they have gone from zero sales to a high percentage of the market. This is partially due to economies of scale and partially due to technological advances. Unfortunately, a great percentage of our economy is made up of mature industries where productivity gains are much harder to come by. Any price declines in those industries would have to be offset by layoffs--there would not be enough productivity gains to enable the companies to survive.

roftatupu70 says

theoakman says

No it doesn’t. Deflation has 2 definitions in economics. Keynesians and Monetarists refer to deflation as falling prices. Austrian economists refer to it as the contraction of money supply. Keynesians and Monetarists believe deflation (falling prices) leads to economic slowdown (Ben Bernanke’s thesis). But it doesn’t. In fact, at the end of the 19th century, we had nothing but a booming economy with falling prices throughout.
Deflation doesn’t mean the economy is slowing down. Falling prices can be a product of increasing supply through productivity. People always like to point to LCD TVs as a “sign of deflation”. Well, LCD & Plasma TVs used to cost 10 times more than they did at the beginning of this decade. Yet, as the price has come down, much more people have been employed selling and manufacturing LCD TVs than before. People buy more goods as prices come down. That increases employment.

Yes, LCD TVs have enjoyed strong productivity as they have gone from zero sales to a high percentage of the market. This is partially due to economies of scale and partially due to technological advances. Unfortunately, a great percentage of our economy is made up of mature industries where productivity gains are much harder to come by. Any price declines in those industries would have to be offset by layoffs–there would not be enough productivity gains to enable the companies to survive.

Completely false. We had a healthy housing market for over a decade with houses selling at half the price of what they were in 2005. Price declines, in these cases, reflect the dire need for the economy to shift production into a different sector. Housing related employment was completely over bloated and the only way the market can correct this imbalance is with lower prices. Price declines aren't the problem. They are the solution.

By the way, about 200 years of American Economics from 1700 to 1925 proves this idea of a deflationary spiral to be completely false.

theoakman says

Completely false. We had a healthy housing market for over a decade with houses selling at half the price of what they were in 2005. Price declines, in these cases, reflect the dire need for the economy to shift production into a different sector. Housing related employment was completely over bloated and the only way the market can correct this imbalance is with lower prices. Price declines aren’t the problem. They are the solution.

huh? Not sure what you mean about the housing market. You mean prices were less before 2005? Yes, of course they were. It's not a decline if prices rise over time...

Sometimes price declines are the solution. In one sector of the economy as you say. But, deflation in the whole economy is bad.

Most of the members of Opec want higher prices, and want to put the blame on others when it happens. The only Opec country that I know of that actually wants prices low is Saudi Arabia, and even if they quoted what Opec said, they would have their own views. What they say and do are two different things unfortunately, it takes some knowledge and skill to fully understand what they are saying most of the time. They are friendly to the west, but also hate the west. They are friendly to many other arab countries as well. They're the friend who tries to please everyone, by telling them everything they want to hear. So using any quotes from them, or Opec I'm always suspicious of.

I wouldn't say LCD's deflated in price, they came down due to technical advances, not due to deflationary pressures. Computers don't "deflate" in price either, I don't have an economic term for how computer pricing behaves, but saying deflationary sounds just wrong. I'm sure someone could point out the technical reason for it.

At this point in the economy, we've really removed most of the fat from most businesses. Other countries still don't have the same competition as the US has, but we're essentially down to the bare bones for most stores. Mistakes put companies out of business here. 10% might be a healthy profit margin, but that's also includes a business performing perfectly. Other countries might yield 10% as well, but those businesses are making huge mistakes that are costing them dearly. Mistakes might include advertising in the wrong places, buying the wrong products, hiring the wrong people, etc. One big advantage expats say they have in other countries when starting up businesses is that they can make mistakes and still survive, while their counter parts in the US go under. One bad mistake in the US and you're gone, while it can take multiple mistakes in other countries to really take a business out.

Because of this, I don't see deflation happening in the US, unless it comes at the expense of wages. Raw materials, and construction costs simply can't be reduced further here. Deflation would be pretty harsh if it happened here.

actually, raw materials and construction costs have deflated hugely! drywall, lumber, concrete all have dropped since 2005, and today, electricians and framers are begging for work. The cost to build a home for a builder in Phoenix is down 20 to 30%, before even considering that land prices have plummeted. We are seeing builders buy up approved leveled lots for less than the costs of the improvements, and place homes on them they can sell profitably at 130K. New 3/2 1400 sq ft with 2 car garage and a yard, they can compete with the foreclosures presently.

azrob00 says

actually, raw materials and construction costs have deflated hugely! drywall, lumber, concrete all have dropped since 2005, and today, electricians and framers are begging for work. The cost to build a home for a builder in Phoenix is down 20 to 30%, before even considering that land prices have plummeted. We are seeing builders buy up approved leveled lots for less than the costs of the improvements, and place homes on them they can sell profitably at 130K. New 3/2 1400 sq ft with 2 car garage and a yard, they can compete with the foreclosures presently.

Of course they have. We are just towards the end of a bad recession. If you like the way the last two years played out, then you'll love deflation.

deflation over a long period is very bad. I'm just very unhappy with how the govt (both bush and obama) have handled this: try to bailout the status quo. We have wasted a ton of money on gimmicks that won't help at all, and bailing out the very people who caused the problems: the worst banks, the worst home buyers.

Instead, had we spent our deficit spending on say modern nuclear power, public transit, whatever, anything that will help this country economically in the future, and created jobs now, it would have made much more sense.

Bailing out failed banks, bailing out homeowners who will eventually default, giving credits to get people to buy a home are all gimmicks. Gimmicks that make it appear we have turned a corner, but fundamentally nothing has changed.

inflation is defacto devaluation for foreign lenders without the embarassment of formal dollar devaluation