mondongo said:
Dude, you don't understand the term inflation. Read the above post by DR1's own economist,frederic. I will post more after I eat my Breyer's Butter Almond ide cream.
You better re-read your post while you eat your ice cream. This is Fredericks's opinion, and he points out that ECONOMISTS also call a rise in prices, inflation, and that's what most people consider inflation to be, a rise in prices.
Whether the rise is an event, or a continuous movement is irrellevent and a matter of definition. In practical terms, it doesn't matter whether the prices increase inch by inch or in one fell swoop.
He went faster. He accelerated. One is a discrete increase in speed, the other is a sustained increase in speed. Close enough for this argument, bucko.
Besides, an increase in oil price DOES cause a sustained increase in prices. You charge me more, I charge him more, he charges you more, you charge me more ... until equilibrium is reached.
Both concepts are discussed within a discrete period of time (until the time when the price is no longe rising), and it is a play on words, a subtle and unimportant difference, for the layman.
After all, the word sustained in and of itself doesn't exist unless you limit the examination to a discrete slice of time and all that matters in the end is the accummulated dollars spent, aka, the integral for you mathemeticians.
Plotting price over time, we have the rate of price change as the first derivative (velocity) and the rate of change of the rate of change of price (accelleration) as the second derivative. The area under the curve is the integral and represents all dollars spent over time, and that's what people care about now. Not where prices are going because nobody knows that. Calculus 201.
There cannot be a change in price without a non-zero velocity (inflation per the definition of sustained price increases) over a small slice of time. So you could say we had a sustained increase in price over the time period of the price increase. I don't know where Frederick gets the year-after-year part of the definiton, but I'd say the time period is irrellavant, and he is making the distinction between adjustment and inflation. Adjustment is the word I should have used, but you see, it's irrelavent unless you trying to extrapolate or quantify. We are doing neither. We are simplying noticing that <b> things cost more</b> and it is <b> because oil costs more</b>.
All we care about is that more expensive oil means more dollars will be spent to live. Continuous, a one time event, who cares.
In a pure sense, inflation of a balloon is the process of increasing the amount of air inside, the act of inflating, a "sustained" entering of more air. If I put more air in the balloon and am done, I inflated the balloon by the act of inflation using a technique called "inflate". In simple terms, when air costs more, the baloon costs more.
Here's a consenus. Search Google using ""oil prices do not cause inflation" and again using ""oil prices cause inflation". Causes wins 8 to 2.
Let me reword the original post however for technical correctness. "Hipo does not control oil prices, and that's the number one reason for <b>the increase in prices</b> right now, not the borrowing."
No charge for the lessons.