Retirement?

Your style of responding to me is beyond lame. You push me to give you a thoughtful response. Maybe the response is a bit jumbled -- I am working and am trying to digest thoughts quickly and just type.

What do I get for it? Just stupidity.

Then you say something trite that ignores what I said and lay gems like this on me (what I quoted above).

No, all of my thinking is based on actually THINKING. Stop trying to characterize me like the cartoon character you have in your head and READ what I actually write. I read what you actually write.

And stop throwing around lame and trite things like, "Maximum employment and stable prices," if that is what you are going to write.

First of all, a price administrator has the ability to create that kind of slogan nirvana the way that a monkey has the ability to dribble a football. The Soviet Union would have been the land of puppy dogs and rainbows if that kind of newspeak bore any relation to the reality of price fixing schemes.

But. ... let's take that trite term at face value. The dollar has lost 99 percent of its value because of the Federal Reserve -- since its creation. That is reality. You can't be any more of a failure in creating "stable prices" than that -- they have been (deliberately) the enemy of stable prices. There is a reason that for a long period of time in the 1800s in which the U.S. operated without a central banking authority, prices actually DID remain stable -- prices barely moved.

To rationalize the extreme measures they needed to take after 2008 to prop up the mess they had created in the first place, rather than deal with the consequences (but who cares, right?). ... "stable prices" magically morphed into 2 percent inflation (using the term as misnomer -- a proxy for price levels).

That in itself is nonsense -- they purposefully measure "inflation" (using the term incorrectly) in an ever-changing way designed to underreport the real level of prices -- the ones that people other than you see, because their household expenses have gone up and up thanks to the deliberate debasement of the dollar.

This is how insidious that is (if you actually think) about what you are saying. 2 percent inflation -- if that was ALL they were doing and it is not -- specifically would mean that they exist to rob savers of 2 percent of their money a year. But stable prices! It means that loaf of bread that costs $5. ... 10 years later costs you $6.10. At the same time, anyone trying to plan for their retirement (to tie it into the thread). ... they put $100 into a mattress. 20 years later they have the equivalent of $60 in purchasing power.

It's way more complex than you will even understand. But most normal people go out every weekend and look for deflation (using the term incorrectly). They want to buy things for less, not more. Yet, the people robbing them of that deflation are in the business of telling people that what actually benefits them isn't what they need. Given productivity gains and technological advances, we should be in a period of glorious aggregate price deflation right now. For example, 25 years ago a desktop computer with a tiny fraction of the power one has now cost 3 times as much as one now. Now expand that across all kinds of things. Yet. ... your money buys you less and less and it has been done deliberately. But who cares about any of that?

 

My bad. I should have just said mischaracterized you somehow, and said, "tough shit" and called it a day.

Because that is thoughtful.

Look, you engaged me. Not the other way around. Don't ask me a question if you don't actually want the answer or can't handle realities you don't like (although I can't understand why), and are just going to be dismissive of me (without acknowledging what I said) when I respond.