A Short History on Inflation - Why Component Costs and No Costs Are Going Down Soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes sir, won't see a change in ammo/components until at least one year into the next Republican president's first term, hopefully that is 2026 and not 2030 or longer. They will never come back to where they were, $35/1000 primers and $20/lb powder will not be seen again.
I believe you are correct. I haven't seen $20/lb powder in a long time anyway. I have seen primers in the $40.00 per th. a few months ago. 5.56 Ammo is now in the 0.53 per round presently, still dropping. It was a little over a year ago it was $2.00 per round.
 
I'm a bleeding heart liberal who believes the purpose of government is to protect vulnerable people from being exploited by persons and entities having the power to do so, and I love going to the range and putting holes in paper. So now that that's out of the way I'd like to point out that this discussion seems to be missing one very important point that even Allen Greenspan admitted he failed to consider - greed. It's a very fuzzy line between necessary justifiable increases and excessive price increases. Remember Katrina and the rampant price gouging that occurred? Opportunistic exploitation of unfortunate situations hasn't gone away. Regrettably, it's part of human nature, and again, it's part of why we need effective government.
 
I think there is way too much credence given to theoretical mumbo jumbo like MMT. I think it all boils down to good old fashioned supply and demand. Take primers for example. I really, really need small pistol primers, which are unicorn farts right now. If I walked into a shop, and they had a brick for $140, I'd probably begrudgingly pay it, because it seems to me I might not be able to get any at any price for a long, long time. Now if I knew in two weeks every store around would be flush with them, I'm not paying $140 today. The reason I'm willing to pay $140 doesn't have one iota to do with the money supply, I'm only thinking about my primer supply. Same with the reason people are paying absolutely insane prices for a new truck these days. People don't care at all about the amount of bonds on the Fed's balance sheet, they care about the amount of F-150s on their local dealer's lot.
 
I'm a bleeding heart liberal who believes the purpose of government is to protect vulnerable people from being exploited by persons and entities having the power to do so, and I love going to the range and putting holes in paper. So now that that's out of the way I'd like to point out that this discussion seems to be missing one very important point that even Allen Greenspan admitted he failed to consider - greed. It's a very fuzzy line between necessary justifiable increases and excessive price increases. Remember Katrina and the rampant price gouging that occurred? Opportunistic exploitation of unfortunate situations hasn't gone away. Regrettably, it's part of human nature, and again, it's part of why we need effective government.
Interesting analysis that assumes that only the private sector is capable of greed.
 
Interesting analysis that assumes that only the private sector is capable of greed.
One important distinction between government and the business sector - the government doesn't jack up taxes so a disillusioned public will vote it out of office.
 
My next house was at 7.5%. I thought it was a bargain.
My dad pointed out to me in the early 60's where interest rate was at. He said that probable going to be the lowest it will every be. I believe it in the 6% area at the time. A few months ago it was in the 2% area. The interest rate has been to low for to long. I remember the late 70's early 80's when interest rate were at 20% for homes. Nice, but wrong. The lenders gotten stupid again. Nothing down and nothing a month that was happening in the late 90's and early 2000. Clinton got that in, allowing the commercial banks to combine with the non-commercial banks and brokerage firms to combined. What one couldn't think of the other one did. House were going up @ 25% to 30% per year. It hit the wall and most can remember what happen in about 2006. Wages only generally go up about 3% per yr. No way people could hold up to purchase the homes. They called the loans a it click in about 5 years, where the payment increased and interest when up. Now we are at almost the same point. The 2nd Bush finally got it stop, but to late. The Glass Seco Act in Clinton 2nd term.
So hold onto your horses, we are headed to hard times again, for sure. Laying Dumb Bast**d Biden has cause a lot of problems. The Oil prices were going come up anyway. It takes about $50 per barrel to brake even. The Oil companies stop drilling, no money in it, and that hasn't help. L.D.B.B didn't help it at all in stopping the pipeline.
The smartest thing we can do is go to atomic powder for our electric. THE REAL PROBLEM IS YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM DRINK. Solo Power really doesn't work. It's cost are to great for now. Kills to many birds and other things.
 
Yes interest rates on home mortgages went all the way to 21%
until Reagan hired Sheriff Paul Volker to put the fire out.

He did but it took brute force at the FED, and we had to have a whopper of a recession in 1982 to get things under control.

Double B Ugly......

To give credit where it is due, Jimmy Carter appointed Volcker in 1979. Reagan stuck with Volcker through the recession and high unemployment and reappointed him for a second term.
 
One important distinction between government and the business sector - the government doesn't jack up taxes so a disillusioned public will vote it out of office.
Huh? Its only happened about 1000 times in history! What was the Boston Tea Party? What happened to tax rates in 2016? They were lowered.

Mark my words, there is about to be change in places like California and New York. Folks cant pay 85% of earnings in state, local, and federal taxes and feed their families.

Governments and Politicians have been guillotined for making remarks like "Just let them eat cake".

Big govermnent becomes bloated goverment and vaccums up everything not nailed down twice to feed itself. And it is not efficient allocation of capital to productive means in the economy as a whole.

Is it more productive to spend ta dollars on hi speed rail in California that will never seemingly be built on time, on cost, or to leave the money in the hands of an Elon Musk to build electric cars, satellites, and rocket ships? Which way produces more national GDP and wealth for the nation? Use any example you want.

Smaller, more nimble goverment that keeps taxes low and doesnt
try to be cradle to grave for every last citizen one size fits all is better. It wont hurt if they remember they serve the citizens and not the other way around, and it wont hurt if they only serve legal citizens of these here United States too, and not the whole wide world w our tax money.
 
To give credit where it is due, Jimmy Carter appointed Volcker in 1979. Reagan stuck with Volcker through the recession and high unemployment and reappointed him for a second term.
Ok, I hadnt remembered Carter appointed Volker. Bully for him.
One thing he did right. But most of the fireworks and hardwork were under Ronnie. And the Fed gets more help when the administration coordinates and executes good fiscal policy on spending and good tax policy on stimulus.
 
Huh? Its only happened about 1000 times in history! What was the Boston Tea Party? What happened to tax rates in 2016? They were lowered.

Mark my words, there is about to be change in places like California and New York. Folks cant pay 85% of earnings in state, local, and federal taxes and feed their families.

Governments and Politicians have been guillotined for making remarks like "Just let them eat cake".

Big govermnent becomes bloated goverment and vaccums up everything not nailed down twice to feed itself. And it is not efficient allocation of capital to productive means in the economy as a whole.

Is it more productive to spend ta dollars on hi speed rail in California that will never seemingly be built on time, on cost, or to leave the money in the hands of an Elon Musk to build electric cars, satellites, and rocket ships? Which way produces more national GDP and wealth for the nation? Use any example you want.

Smaller, more nimble goverment that keeps taxes low and doesnt
try to be cradle to grave for every last citizen one size fits all is better. It wont hurt if they remember they serve the citizens and not the other way around, and it wont hurt if they only serve legal citizens of these here United States too, and not the whole wide world w our tax money.
I wholeheartedly agree that bureaucracies can become self-perpetuating monolithic pseudo-governments that require serious oversight, but I can not agree that gross wealth inequity is the solution to our national problems. Taxes are required for any civilized society to function. The question, as always, is who pays and how much? In the current period of gross wealth inequality it makes sense that wealthy individuals who've benefitted most from the system should put the most back into it. And there's the rub, their power, political influence, and purposeful economic decisions have pushed that burden onto average wage earners whose individual lives are most affected by inflation. So, rising prices translate to unhappy voters which usually results in a change in political parties in the next election. Never mind whether or not it's big, the bottom line is that big business doesn't like government that calls for raising taxes, or in anyway interfering with what big business desires to do.
 
People are forgetting the other side of the equation. Wage growth is strong and employees are in high demand. My company added 6 vacation days this year to sweeten the benefits package. We got zero US holidays but got 26 days of PTO last year, then they added 6 more days this year. We are giving employees the option of being partially, 100%, or 0% remote, with nothing written in stone or mandated, so if you choose one option and it isn't working for you, you can switch.

Wage growth is strong, as is inflation. Real estate prices are up, but so is home equity (and so are rents). Remember that house you bought 3 years ago at 3.5% for a 30 year? Inflation makes that less of a burden each month, and the asset itself is very likely worth quite a bit more today. Asset up, real borrowing costs down makes for a pretty good return.

I'm not saying everything is rosy and not everyone owns their home, nor does every job have the same wage growth. But what I am saying is that you can't lament inflation alone without mentioning other factors that help offset the impact. Every single piece of the economy is tied together and should be looked at holistically.
Inflation, fuel and wages are synonymous...raise one..raise them all...the more money you give an employee, more you raise inflation and spending....wages haven't gone up diddly squat compared to EVERYTHING else....construction materials in Canada are up 400+ %, natural gas to heat our homes 30% last month...wages are down. And it's always been at least here at home...raise the price of anything,anything, (always something to blame) Oh it's Covid now ....raise the price 100% , never goes back down to WHAT WAS but it might drop 40% and become the new what is and we're all told to be happy!
 
Inflation, fuel and wages are synonymous...raise one..raise them all...the more money you give an employee, more you raise inflation and spending....wages haven't gone up diddly squat compared to EVERYTHING else....construction materials in Canada are up 400+ %, natural gas to heat our homes 30% last month...wages are down. And it's always been at least here at home...raise the price of anything,anything, (always something to blame) Oh it's Covid now ....raise the price 100% , never goes back down to WHAT WAS but it might drop 40% and become the new what is and we're all told to be happy!
The only way to crush the spiral in inflation unfortunately is to crush the economy and demand.

So, the FED is on course to raise interest rates 7 times this year to try to make a dent.

In 1982, rates had to go to 21 % to crush the economy and demand and we had a God awful terrible Double B Ugly recession in 1982 to get things back under control.

Spiral up = crash Down. Put on seat belt before getting on the roller coaster of an economic cycle.

But, its really bad when the government sees the brakes being applied by the FED and shouts no! no! and hits the gas petal with
a 4 trillion dollar spending stimulous. Then you get the roller coaster with a brake and accelerate modulated wave form as you go through the cycle upside down and nauseated.......:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top