[staticman2]

Okay, let's phrase this another way.

If your ability to consume food, water, shelter, and entertainment has not been impaired but you are complaining about "asset inflation" because you learned economics from message boards perhaps you are being haunted by nonexistent boogeymen and need to chill out?

[roenxi]

There has been a big leap in technology over my lifetime. "Not impaired" isn't the target, if all the wealth gains weren't being directed to asset owners by asset price inflation then the people who were working to create them would be getting a bigger share.

I've done the obvious thing and bought assets, but it keeps getting harder and at some point maybe all the people who are working hard might notice that they are doing all the work and people with assets are getting all the benefits. The government should be more neutral on whether asset owners or workers get the benefits of work - the market is naturally slanted enough without it being further tipped towards asset owners.

You might be happy in stasis. But this is an age of wonders and the people who do the work to bring it about should be compensated roughly in line with their contribution. As would be happening if the government didn't keep leaning in with monetary policy to prop up asset prices relative to wages.

As a bonus, if the government did leave the market alone, people would probably work harder and there'd be more stuff to go around, even ignoring the fact that more of it would be distributed to the sort of people who work hard.

[staticman2]

65.8 percent of americans own a home according to an internet search. (An asset). If you want to discuss wealth inequality, I don't think a term like "asset inflation" is necessarily the right way to go about it. Can't we just use terms like home affordability?

I just think reinventing the term inflation encourages sloppy fringe conspiracy thinking.

It's my understanding if the government didn't intervene in markets we'd get events like the great depression returning periodically, which probably are in nobody's interest.

We should really be discussing the right government policies or the wrong one, but I doubt the answer to the problems of our time is zero policy.

[lotsofpulp]

When you need to pony up an extra $100k for a down payment and your monthly payment goes up $300 for the next 30 years because real estate prices rise, is that not impairing your ability to consume other things?

[staticman2]

It stinks that housing prices have gone up, but fortunately you can rent instead, which is accounted for in CPI measures of inflation.

I would think we could discuss the affordabity or unaffordability of homeownership without making up terms like "asset inflation" and falling into alternative fact rabbit holes about the collapse of U.S. currency.

[lotsofpulp]

Renting is not owning, and I question the utility of CPI’s method of measuring it that way.

My contention is increased real estate prices are affecting people’s lives in various ways, such as delaying families, not having families, moving people away from their networks, and at least allowing for a smaller portion of spending on other things in life due to a larger portion going into real estate.

Personally, I would label this asset inflation, but I don't know about the whole currency collapse thing.

[staticman2]

I don't disagree with your main points but we have terms like Housing Affordability Index we can use to discuss this. We don't need to use imprecise terms like "asset inflation" which can mean different things to different people.

[imtringued]

It's a problem in a lot of developed countries.

I don't know how to describe it, it's almost as if they have stopped "developing".

[nocommentguy]

If you’re not being hurt by the fire alarm, maybe you should stop spreading conspiracy theories about there being a fire?

[staticman2]

I wouldn't call some random person howling at the moon a fire alarm.

Never mind that online people have been predicting super inflation since at least 2009. I remember a Youtuber in 2009 that knew economics more than President Obama's advisors because Duck Tales did an episode on inflation.

But I guess by defining inflation as "stocks going up" the Duck Tales expert could have made it categorically impossible to be proven wrong since stocks tend to go up, further removing Duck Tales guy from the mainstream.

[nocommentguy]

Ok you’ve convinced me, I’m going to consume products instead of holding capital assets /s

Take a look at ag futures my dude.