prior to industrial revolution people lived in dire poverty starving to death. That is why they took horrible sweat shop jobs in horrible factories at horrible wages. So, their needs and wants were not met until the indistrial revolution began. 1+1=2
Actually if velocity did raise wages significantly the Fed would intercede since their job is to control inflation. Do you understand?
Constantly upward, that is. The target, I believe is now 2% per year, or a rate at which takes 35 years to double considering that people are living longer today and gradual enough for most people to not complain. Over my life it's more than quadrupled so far. birth to 1956 - doubled (21 years) 1956 to 1975 doubled (19 years) 1975 to 1985 doubled (10 years) 1985 to 2009 doubled (24 years) 2009 to ???? double again Considering the debt held by not only the Federal government, but also State and local governments, as well as a growing number of individuals and even businesses, I suspect the Fed will at times allow/impose inflation at more than 2% to boost the appearance of GDP growth in order to claim a reduction in the debt to GDP ratio. If my Grandfather was alive today he would be astounded to know many people are living poorer lives than he did while earning more than 64 times his weekly income and having sizeable unpaid debt as well.
No. Those who had secure access to land were able to live comfortably (until their teeth went, of course). Uh, the sweat shop factory jobs began with the Industrial Revolution, Speaking of 1+1=2, how did population increase by an order of magnitude over the previous few thousand years, then?
of course thats absurd!! The entire world moved to the cities just like China is doing now because the jobs are far easier and pay far more despite the illiterate way liberals describe those great jobs.
population growth was far far greater after the Industrial Revolution. Do you understand? Far greater wealth allowed the earth to support far more people. 1+1=2
You're making things up. I never said anything about wages. I simply corrected you on your misunderstanding. Do you understand now?
You're making things up again. Population growth was far greater during and before the Industrial Revolution. Do you understand now?
Actually, the population growth from 1800 to 1810 was 1,931,398 and from 2000 to 2010 32,712,033 while a smaller percentage increase nearly 17 times as many people as in 1810. A population of 10,000,000 increasing by 1,000,000 would be a 10% increase A population of 100,000,000 reduced to a 3% growth would result in 3,000,000 more people, 1/3 the rate of growth but 3 times the number of people
it would be interesting to learn the component cost of labor as a percentage of total cost then and now.
Your chart does show the 'growth rate' to be less, but... A population of 10,000,000 increasing by 1,000,000 would be a 10% increase A population of 100,000,000 reduced to a 3% growth would result in 3,000,000 more people, 1/3 the rate of growth but 3 times the number of people
Has nothing to do with the growth rate. If he was worried about population as a whole, there is no need to add the word growth, as population growth is far less than before, no matter how you want to justify that.
The post you responded to claimed an increase in growth, not an increase in the growth rate. growth noun 1. the process of increasing in physical size. 2. something that has grown or is growing Once again: A population of 10,000,000 increasing by 1,000,000 would be a 10% increase A population of 100,000,000 reduced to a 3% growth would result in 3,000,000 more people, 1/3 the rate of growth with a growth of 3 times the number of people Neither post was wrong, and that's the reality of inflation without offsetting deflation.
Growth is relative when you want to compare different periods of time. If he wanted to imply the nominal size of a population he would just say population. I understand basic mathematics. There is no reality "of inflation without offsetting deflation", lol. That's something you guys are making up.
Growth or increase, is the reality of inflation without offsetting deflation and it applies to debt, population, income and wealth disparity, cost of living, etc.
As long as you're comparing relative values and not nominal values we're good. I have no clue what your reality of inflation without offsetting deflation even is.
You don't understand inflation. So challenging others on the topic really isn't a good idea. Inflation isn't just too much money. If that were the case we would have seen massive inflation in the US these last 8 years when the US expanded its money supply in order to fight recessionary pressures and we haven't. The lay definition of inflation goes like this; too much money chasing too few goods and services. There is both a supply and demand component to inflation. A large supply by itself, doesn't create inflation. A large supply of money coupled with a large demand for goods and services causes inflation. That's why we haven't seen significant inflation in the US economy over the course of the last 8 years. We have had the monetary supply, but we haven't had sufficient economic (i.e. aggregate) demand to cause inflation.
I'm sorry if you're having difficulty understanding, did you try to keep breathing without exhaling? Or perhaps it might be easier if you were to take a balloon and keep inflating it without allowing any air to escape. Take into account that many of the wants of two or three generations ago have become viewed as needs or entitlements today, all of which add to the cost of living of those who fully support themselves as well as those who government has taken the responsibility of providing fully or partially of a growing number of some who are unable as well as a large number who are unwilling to live within their means demanding government make up the difference by taxing or borrowing. If you're still unable to make sense of what I'm saying, fine but at least provide your definition/explanation of the reality of inflation. I did agree with your posts of "Most needs are met now and the rest is just what people want." and "There's more dollars.", so are you trying to say that the 'reality of inflation' is that people just want more?
inflation is when the govt prints more money before more goods are produced thus causing prices go up. Econ 101 class 1 day one
The above has nothing to do with inflation. Inflation is just about money and prices . What you are describing is economic growth and a rising standard of living. It does not appear that you know what your point is.
