[OscarCunningham]

> If you look at graphs and charts of inflation, it's breathtaking.

I don't see what you're seeing. Inflation has been close to (the Fed's target of) 2% for the last 10 years. That's much lower than its historical values. So if anything the US has chosen less inflation in recent times.

[freedomben]

If the 2% is accurate (which I don't believe it to be. There's no shortage of people much more educated and informed than I that are talking about this), then it's certainly not "breathtaking" as I said. I had in mind a graph (which I inconveniently cannot find now) that showed inflation over the last 100 years prior to the US coming off the gold standard. There was basically none, but it has since sky rocketed.

I did a quick google and found this right at the top: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/the-consu...

[OscarCunningham]

> inflation over the last 100 years prior to the US coming off the gold standard. There was basically none, but it has since sky rocketed.

Sure, but I don't think that the high inflation between 1934 and 1976 can be used to judge the current system with an independent central bank and an explicit 2% inflation target.

> I did a quick google and found this right at the top: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/the-consu...

The proposed measure merely claims to be faster to respond to changes in prices. Note how the new measure is lower than CPI during the crisis, but higher elsewhere. In the long term they should be the same. So I don't think that this suggests that inflation is being systematically underestimated.

[srtjstjsj]

There's no debate about the obvious fact that intentionally inflationary currency has less inflation than intentionally deflationary currency. The debate is whether the inflationary currency generates more economic growth than deflationary currency (by stimulating productivity in otherwise idle labor/capital), and most economic policymakers believe it does.