Mad Max RW said:
First, I never said I was experiencing hyper inflation. It's a totally different thing from inflation, which IS happening NOW. However, hyper inflation is something we're heading toward if we continue printing trillions of dollars and injecting it into the economy. And it will happen overnight. The stock market will crash much harder than 2008 and the next day a loaf of bread will cost $100. This has happened many times in the last century, most recently in Zimbabwe.
I'm going to post a very simple fact here: the USA is not Zimbabwe and those economies are not in any way remotely comparable. A good comparison would be, say, Japan in the early '90s. It's an instructive example, and one that not surprisingly supports my argument.
Again, you are consistently repeating tired old Austrian economics cliches that have been debunked thoroughly and consistently. And, most importantly, every bit of data on the current recession disagrees with your premise. A premise that you, most importantly, cannot actually substantiate in any way. Go back through your posts and try to find any evidence for your assertion that there will be hyperinflation. Your reasoning consists of "They're adding money, this means hyperinflation!"
Moreover, inflation is not some kind of tipping point phenomenon. It won't be "well now we've crossed a line so this completely modest inflation will suddenly turn into hyperinflation now!". No, if the current path would cause hyperinflation in the long term we would expect to see high levels of inflation now. Instead, we are seeing very low levels of inflation. In fact, that is what all the models that you are basing your predictions on say: we should see high inflation now that the Fed is pumping money into the economy, and that will eventually lead to hyperinflation. That's the model that your story is based on (implicitly, whether you realize it or not). That model has been disproved by reality.
Mad Max RW said:
Also, I'm going to tell Sanders and everybody something that might blow your minds. Statistics and percentages on a website are the furthest thing from reality. It's like the Baghdad Bob for economists. They mean very little. You can show all the numbers you want but it doesn't change what's happening here on the ground. Until you live and breath it yourself the whole argument is a waste of my time.
This is the biggest load of crap. We are talking about
macroeconomics. That is, changes to an entire economy on a very large scale. If hyperinflation is going to occur, it is not going to occur 'on the ground' (by which you mean: to me). No, it's going to occur on a macroeconomic scale. And that means that the best way to analyze what is happening and what is going to happen is to look at -- boom -- macro-level statistics. *mind blown*
Now, you could argue that the statistics I'm citing aren't the right statistics. You could try to come up with counter-evidence, or a reason why the fact that inflation is at a modest level by every single measure you can think of is not relevant. But "my personal cost of living is rising" is none of those things.
By the way, all the models you're citing, like the idea that printing money in a liquidity trap will cause hyperinflation (it won't, and hyperinflation is a very very hard thing to create)? Those ideas are all based on macroeconomics and macroeconomic concepts, substantiated by statistics. Trying to substantiate them with what you're experiencing 'on the ground' may make sense intuitively, but it's a typical Austrian logical fallacy. It's like pretending that running a government is like running a business. It's not, and different rules apply to what you experience than to what happens on a larger scale.
Another point: the fact that your cost of living is rising (in your perception) does not mean that the cause is a) macro-level inflation or b) printing money. A lot of different factors go into that.
What is a waste of time is you thinking that your own personal experience can be extrapolated to an economy of 300 million people. That's not just a waste of time, it is completely and utterly false.
It is a neat little fictional bubble you've created, though. A bubble where you can dismiss all evidence because it's meaningless, without actually explaining why it's meaningless. A bubble where you don't actually need to substantiate your own claims because I don't "live and breath it" myself, as if somehow that makes the facts disappear. A bubble where somehow, statistics aren't accurate. Not because you can actually provide any evidence that they're not accurate, but because they don't fit with the narrative you have created for yourself (or rather, Austrian economics has created for you).
tl;dr: if you're going to make predictions about macroeconomics, don't claim that macroeconomics is bullshit and ignore any and all evidence.
