I am "left of center" (whatever the heck that means these days) and I don't always align with these lecturers politically, but I really appreciate the Mises institute putting this content out and making it freely available on UA-cam. Always worth listening to.
@@jorden9821 maybe, you never know! I’d like to believe we can try to find the best parts of different positions/analyses and cobble them into something new that makes sense for the world we live in today. Sometimes I read an anarchist and think “yeah, that’s a good point.” Sometimes I read a libertarian and think the same. And sometimes even the Marxists *gasp* make a valid observation. I don’t think any of the major isms are entirely without merit or entirely without fault.
"I am "left of center"... " Obviously you are around the center, because you appreciate this video. You are obviously not one of the usual lefty regressives who blindly follow the radical policy agenda.
I appreciated the speaker’s ‘Let’s figure this out’ approach and attitude as opposed to the usual ‘Let me tell you exactly what happened’ hubris. On a separate note, I’m getting real tired of the YT propaganda Covid context warnings.
Even back in the 2010s, you had big price increases in things people actually need to live a middle class life: housing, education and health care. It's just now that those price increases have come to consumer goods as well.
I’m curious if a factor that differentiates these two episodes is that peoples’ savings increased due to lockdowns, as well as the stimmy checks enabled people to put a down payment on things such as home renovations, cars, and other longer term consumption goods. This effectively bids up prices on these goods which I think are contained in the CPI
QE didn't lead to price inflation in 2008 because of all the money lost. And the QE-to replace that lost money-wasn't big enough to cause widespread price inflation. So, if QE had been a lot bigger in 2008, price inflation would have happened. For starters, if QE in 2008 had replaced more than just the money that was lost in the financial crisis, you would expect price inflation. There are only so many resources in an economy, so if you print enough claims on those resources (i.e. money) then prices go up. EDIT: My explanation is a combination of the reasons discussed in the video, not one explanation. So, no, my explanation was not addressed in the video. Thus, the guy commenting below did not address what I said. He then went on a red herring about asset prices.
Did you listen to the video? There was price inflation in the instances of real estate and the stock market, not reported under CPI which is what he is referring to the entire time.
I sort of skimmed through the video, so maybe I missed it. But it seemed like he didn't specifically talk much about the details of how supply chains were impacted. I think what people underestimate is just how finely tuned an instrument the modern global economy is (or was and still is to a degree), and that disruptions can ripple out in time to create long term consequences of much greater magnitude than the initial shock. But then again maybe the audience already understands that perfectly well, and this discussions was meant to primarily focus on the significance of supply chain disruptions relative to monetary inflation by central banks. I notice conservative pundits who are against free trade will use this to try to justify protectionism, they ironically used the intentional destruction of the economy as evidence of so-called "free trade" - or "globalism" as they call it - failing. There is an element of truth in what they say of course, as international supply chains are fragile and thus come with some risk, but of course we know full well that no bureaucrat can better calculate the costs and benefits of international trade better than individuals themselves.
Yeah the balance between free trade, and obviously the better prices and efficiency, have to be balanced with some practical concerns, for example if you are reliant upon a country that is adversarial to your for medicine or food than you might wish to sacrifice and have higher prices in exchange for more autonomy as a country and security in the case of conflict. Additionally, many companies’ inventories started being taxed in funny ways which let to just in time production being more popular that it otherwise might have been. (Not that all just in time production is a result of the tax structure but it does incentivize it more than it otherwise would be present in the economy) Just some things to think about
I have a question for mises institute You always blame the fed for making the dollar lose his value But is having a week dollar against the other money is by default a bad think ? It's not having a strong money value the reason that america lost it's trade deficit with china ? And it's not the reason why america most all it's industry for country with week money value ? The majority of country in asia and specially china is making are making their policy to always have a week money value against the other country to keep all it's industry
They would always say that a trade deficit and surplus is not inherently good or bad. There are good articles you can read on this at the Mises Institute website.
I think what modern supply chain problems shows is how misguided the policy towards Peoples Republic of China has been. Trade with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc has been fine; it is becoming too dependent on the communist and former communist powers that has hit the West with killer inflation now. Putin visavis fossil fuels, PRC visavis manufactured goods.
Not to complain about a free video, but one would think the Mises Institute would have the knowledge, skill, and resources to make a video where the speaker's laser pointer is shown on the slide. Otherwise, a nicely done video.
I am "left of center" (whatever the heck that means these days) and I don't always align with these lecturers politically, but I really appreciate the Mises institute putting this content out and making it freely available on UA-cam. Always worth listening to.
Keep listening and you'll end up being on the other side of things economically
@@jorden9821 maybe, you never know! I’d like to believe we can try to find the best parts of different positions/analyses and cobble them into something new that makes sense for the world we live in today. Sometimes I read an anarchist and think “yeah, that’s a good point.” Sometimes I read a libertarian and think the same. And sometimes even the Marxists *gasp* make a valid observation. I don’t think any of the major isms are entirely without merit or entirely without fault.
"I am "left of center"... "
Obviously you are around the center, because you appreciate this video. You are obviously not one of the usual lefty regressives who blindly follow the radical policy agenda.
@@podzycie3567that's smart.
The 🐐
I appreciated the speaker’s ‘Let’s figure this out’ approach and attitude as opposed to the usual ‘Let me tell you exactly what happened’ hubris. On a separate note, I’m getting real tired of the YT propaganda Covid context warnings.
Even back in the 2010s, you had big price increases in things people actually need to live a middle class life: housing, education and health care. It's just now that those price increases have come to consumer goods as well.
I’m curious if a factor that differentiates these two episodes is that peoples’ savings increased due to lockdowns, as well as the stimmy checks enabled people to put a down payment on things such as home renovations, cars, and other longer term consumption goods. This effectively bids up prices on these goods which I think are contained in the CPI
It's Murphin time
Lol, haven’t thought of this one before.
Mighty Murphin mises rangers
Best libertarian slogan in years.
Ha
Still my favorite scene
QE didn't lead to price inflation in 2008 because of all the money lost. And the QE-to replace that lost money-wasn't big enough to cause widespread price inflation. So, if QE had been a lot bigger in 2008, price inflation would have happened. For starters, if QE in 2008 had replaced more than just the money that was lost in the financial crisis, you would expect price inflation. There are only so many resources in an economy, so if you print enough claims on those resources (i.e. money) then prices go up.
EDIT: My explanation is a combination of the reasons discussed in the video, not one explanation. So, no, my explanation was not addressed in the video. Thus, the guy commenting below did not address what I said. He then went on a red herring about asset prices.
Did you listen to the video? There was price inflation in the instances of real estate and the stock market, not reported under CPI which is what he is referring to the entire time.
Peter Schiff likes to say, it prevents prices from falling (in the case of 2008)
@@kylewatson5133 exactly true.
Not to mention the price of Labor, which is gone up significantly since then.
@@planetsized Agree, one can persuasively argue (IMO) that the inflation was just sequestered better in specific asset classes.
I sort of skimmed through the video, so maybe I missed it. But it seemed like he didn't specifically talk much about the details of how supply chains were impacted. I think what people underestimate is just how finely tuned an instrument the modern global economy is (or was and still is to a degree), and that disruptions can ripple out in time to create long term consequences of much greater magnitude than the initial shock. But then again maybe the audience already understands that perfectly well, and this discussions was meant to primarily focus on the significance of supply chain disruptions relative to monetary inflation by central banks.
I notice conservative pundits who are against free trade will use this to try to justify protectionism, they ironically used the intentional destruction of the economy as evidence of so-called "free trade" - or "globalism" as they call it - failing. There is an element of truth in what they say of course, as international supply chains are fragile and thus come with some risk, but of course we know full well that no bureaucrat can better calculate the costs and benefits of international trade better than individuals themselves.
Yeah the balance between free trade, and obviously the better prices and efficiency, have to be balanced with some practical concerns, for example if you are reliant upon a country that is adversarial to your for medicine or food than you might wish to sacrifice and have higher prices in exchange for more autonomy as a country and security in the case of conflict. Additionally, many companies’ inventories started being taxed in funny ways which let to just in time production being more popular that it otherwise might have been. (Not that all just in time production is a result of the tax structure but it does incentivize it more than it otherwise would be present in the economy) Just some things to think about
I have a question for mises institute
You always blame the fed for making the dollar lose his value
But is having a week dollar against the other money is by default a bad think ?
It's not having a strong money value the reason that america lost it's trade deficit with china ?
And it's not the reason why america most all it's industry for country with week money value ?
The majority of country in asia and specially china is making are making their policy to always have a week money value against the other country to keep all it's industry
They would always say that a trade deficit and surplus is not inherently good or bad. There are good articles you can read on this at the Mises Institute website.
I think what modern supply chain problems shows is how misguided the policy towards Peoples Republic of China has been. Trade with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc has been fine; it is becoming too dependent on the communist and former communist powers that has hit the West with killer inflation now.
Putin visavis fossil fuels, PRC visavis manufactured goods.
A 4th covid jab makes more sense now. Wonder if a 5th jab will be necessary?
Not to complain about a free video, but one would think the Mises Institute would have the knowledge, skill, and resources to make a video where the speaker's laser pointer is shown on the slide. Otherwise, a nicely done video.
*yawn*
The rub is trying to make a fiat and fractional reserve currency appear to work ----and in reality it can't.
At best it's just an illusion.