by MrBill » Fri 23 May 2008, 04:52:43
I have never seen the term biflation before, but it is interesting. I would compare it to fixed and variable costs. Or discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Therefore, I suppose biflation could last until all net income is essentially spent on non-discretionary spending. That is food, energy and shelter.
Currenty in the USA approximately 70% of spending in non-discretionary (incl. healthcare). So that figure could conceivably rise further leaving less and less money in the economy for any discretionary spending. However, we have to assume within that 70% basket of non-discretionary spending that there could and would be a reallocation between food, energy, shelter and healthcare as disposable income fell.
What is that term for earning just enough to feed oneself, so that one can keep working? Minimum subsistance, but I thought there was a name for it? In any case biflation like stagflation is a public policy nightmare.
Ironically, I have been watching some documentaries on the Summer of Love, the '68 May Riots and the fortieth anniversary of those watershed events. As socially liberating as those times must have been I cannot help but get the feeling that the Me Generation tore down the fabric of a conservative society with absolutely zero clue as to what to replace it with, and here we are forty years later with the results. How do you like dem apples? ; - ))
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t this point, moderating inflation seems more of a hope than a forecast. By all rights, the credit crisis, closing in on its one-year anniversary, should have constrained inflation: Money and credit are the stuff of which inflation is made. But it hasn't happened yet.
In the minutes of the April 29-30 policy meeting, released yesterday, Fed officials were ever-hopeful once again, expecting ``inflation to moderate in coming quarters, reflecting a projected leveling-out of energy and other prices and an easing of pressures on resource utilization.''
1 + 0 = 1
In other words, if only those pesky raw materials prices would stop going up, why the rate of increase in overall goods and services prices would slow!
This is more an arithmetic observation than an economic forecast. If commodity prices stop rising, and all other components of the consumer price index keep to their existing trend, then, yes, the rate of inflation would be lower than it is now.
The prices of commodities, which account for 42 percent of the CPI, rose 4.8 percent in the year ended in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Without the jump in food and energy, core commodities rose just 0.1 percent, according to the BLS. So food (up 5 percent) and energy (up 16 percent) are the primary culprits.
At the wholesale level, crude materials prices were up 34 percent in the past year, led by a 52 percent surge in energy. Without food and energy, crude materials prices were up 25 percent, according to the BLS.
Source: Funds Rate Set to Battle Crisis, Not Inflation: Caroline Baum
Bloomberg, May 22
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.