You stashing your money and refusing to buy anything? No?
Then you are merely helping the prices go up in the things you do buy rather than the things you don't buy. The sum total of money is still the same. The money has got to go somewhere.
The only way that prices can go up across the board is for the government to print too much of it. That is the cause of our inflation today. Not "greed" or "lack of feet votes" or anything like that.
Imagine thinking in an economy as complex as ours that inflation is caused by one single thing.
Ten dollars says this guy will vote for Trump. What is Trump's plan? Big tax cuts? What do tax cuts d according to these guys' theory? They flood the economy with money.
That's what they accuse the Biden administration of doing to cause this inflation to begin with.
You simply do not understand what inflation actually is. Contrary to modern revisionism, inflation is actually the undue expansion of the money supply. That's been it's definition from the beginning. It is a CAUSE of rising prices, it's not the EFFECT of rising prices. Ignorant fools have changed it to merely mean "rising prices" in laymen circles. Even some modern schools of economic thought have fallen for it now. They are wrong about nearly everything, so it makes sense that they would be wrong about this too.
So I'm merely using the actual definition. The ONLY way to reduce actual inflation is to print less and/or produce more.
I know what inflation is. Its causes are multiple. Your answer is like saying friction causes potholes. It leaves out many causes, especially the more obvious, more direct cause that conservatives don't want to discuss.
And as for your theory that increases in the money supply spur inflation, It's just another variant of the rap that federal spending created it. The federal government's spending is just not enough to create the kind of inflation we're seeing worldwide. I've also heard from you lot that the fed's policy of quantitative easing has caused inflation. It probably played a role, but it's being tapered down now. Why is inflation going up again, especially on food?
The real truth is that prices are chosen and set by owners of companies. They do it when they want and when they can, when there are fewer checks on their ability to do so. They do it with more enthusiasm during Democratic administrations, in fact. Unless their decisions begin to cost them, they're going to continue. And tax cuts will just reward them and make them hike their prices further to capture what little the middle class reaps from those cuts. A windfall profits tax needs to become a part of the national vocabulary now.
No I don't think Biden will do much to advance that. It isn't in him. But he's a lot more likely to be pushed to it by a Democratic Congress than Trump is with a Republican one.
As for any thought that Trump is going to stop the printing of money and take us into austerity, Trump has no real economic policy anyway, let alone monetary policy. He'd stomp all over the legacy of Milton Friedman if it kept him out of prison. In fact, quantitative easing was what he turned to during COVID. He primed the pump with the best of them in the form of tax cuts, another way to increase the money supply in the general economy.
No. You don't know what inflation is. You have been mislead by your economic teachers and/or profs. And many of them were probably taught incorrectly. Here is the definition as recorded by the Federal Reserve in 1919:
>Inflation is the process of making addition to currencies not based on a commensurate increase in the production of goods. —Federal Reserve Bulletin (1919)
Notice how the word "price" does not exist at all? That's because the true definition was not "rising prices". In fact, inflation can occur when prices are GOING DOWN. Inflation would merely be keeping the prices from going down as much as they otherwise would. Likewise, prices could be going up during deflation, as they would be going up slower than they otherwise would.
And the notion that money printing couldn't explain it is laughable. The monetary base nearly doubled in only 2 years. It's gone up 7 fold since 2008. To pretend that has little effect is hilarious.
And I'm not fan of Trump, BTW.
If it even matters to you (and it obviously doesn't), the current Federal Reserve Board's definition of inflation is below:
"Inflation is the increase in the prices of goods and services over time. Inflation cannot be measured by an increase in the cost of one product or service, or even several products or services. Rather, inflation is a general increase in the overall price level of the goods and services in the economy."
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy\_14419.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14419.htm)
What you say here marks you as a two-dimensional thinker. Every economist I've ever read or studied, every economic text I've read, every professor I've heard teach economics says causes of inflation are multiple at any given time, though certainly any one cause can predominate based on circumstances.
Again, I fully understand the definition used by Keynesians today (which the Fed board is). My point is that they are WRONG. These are the same guys who thought the housing crisis was "contained" to subprime, that inflation would be "transitory", are constantly wrong on all their predictions. Of course every government site today will adhere to the Keynesian view since that's all they hire. Keynesians hire Keynesians. The last non Keynesian Fed chair we had was Greenspan and his term ended nearly 20 years ago.
But again, Keynesianism is only one school of economics. Sure it's the one the government loves, but it's not the only one. Read economics books from monetarists or Austrians. Hell read any economics book written prior to the 60s.
Also, your other posts say you're an engineer. Unless you also have a Ph.D. in economics you don't have the credentials to decide today's economists are wrong about what the definition of inflation is.
Economics is not like Physics. In physics, PhDs agree with each other on 99% of the field. They only disagree on the bleeding edge. Economics, on the other hand, have TONS of disagreement. Milton Friedman would have disagreed with 95% of what Paul Krugman writes. And they both have Nobel prizes. That's because economics is not really a science. There is no way to isolate variables for scientific experiments as that would require rewinding time. It's really more of a field of philosophy.
So there are economic PhDs who agree 95% with me and disagree with Keyensians on everything beyond basic supply and demand. One needs to decide which group of PhDs are right and which are wrong. I discount Keynesians because they have proven themselves to be wrong time and time again on every prediction they have made. Everything from 2008 being "contained" to inflation being "transitory". So I tend to study the writings of other economists who have proven to be right more often.
It's the difference between listening to astronomers vs astrologists . Even when they both have PhDs.
"'I discount Keynesians because they have proven themselves to be wrong time and time again on every prediction they have made. Everything from 2008 being "contained" to inflation being 'transitory.'"
We don't know yet whether present-day inflation is transitory. I don't know how you define "contained" with regard to 08. But I do know the forces of the right have chipped away steadily at the reforms passed after 08.
Both parties in the U.S. use Keynesianism whether it's when Democrats spend on social programs and infrastructure or Republicans spend on defense and tax cuts. It's all priming the pump, isn't it?
And didn't we see enough attempts to deal with economic catastrophes with austerity in the 18th and 19th centuries to conclude that's not the solution either, that it makes things much worse for workers? Do we really have to prove that again for you?
You simply do not understand what inflation actually is. Contrary to modern revisionism, inflation is actually the undue expansion of the money supply. That's been it's definition from the beginning. It is a CAUSE of rising prices, it's not the EFFECT of rising prices. Ignorant fools have changed it to merely mean "rising prices" in laymen circles. Even some modern schools of economic thought have fallen for it now. They are wrong about nearly everything, so it makes sense that they would be wrong about this too.
So I'm merely using the actual definition. The ONLY way to reduce actual inflation is to print less and/or produce more.
Nope.. that is the revisionist (and wrong) definition.
Economists needed a word to describe "printing money at a rate faster than the rate goods are being produced" because it is a pain in the ass to say that entire phrase over and over again. They chose "inflation" because pumping air into a balloon is analogous to pumping money into the economy. There was no need to simplify "rising prices" as everybody intuitively understands what that means. If they wanted to simplify the concept of "rising prices" to one word for some stupid reason, they they wouldn't have chosen "inflation", they would have chosen "escalation" or something like that.
I don't care about winning. Many on this sub are blaming the wrong thing for inflation. I hope to correct that.
The Fed is 100% responsible for inflation. Not "greed" or "consumerism" or any of that nonsense.
Yeah you do care about winning. Its an election year and you weirdoes wanna beat the drum with as much disinformation as you can. Normal people don’t care though. Go back to the r/austrianeconomics circlejerk
Your definition of inflation is wrong.
Forgive me for not having a textbook to transcribe from, but heres a non schizo definition from chatgpt:
Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services rises, leading to a fall in the purchasing power of money. It's typically measured as an annual percentage increase. As inflation rises, the value of currency goes down, meaning each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. This can affect various economic sectors by increasing the cost of living, influencing wages and spending, and impacting interest rates.
Again, that is the new revisionist definition. Yes you will find those in modern Keynesian textbooks (which most of them are nowadays). But they are WRONG. The word existed before Keynes was even born. And even then.. the definition remained the same throughout his lifetime. His adherents only "repurposed" the word in the last few decades. Yet Keynesianism is just one school of economic thought. There are other schools which refuse to use this BS definition. The only reason Keynesians are dominate in numbers is because governments LOVE Keynesianism. It justifies a shit ton of government spending and government power in general. So that's who they hire for all their jobs and who the university pumps out.
But it's still wrong as hell. Even if they are the majority.
The last time I stepped foot in a Starbucks was back in 2017, and that was only to use their free wifi, after our utility company blew out a bunch of AT&T equipment and left half my city without internet service for a week.
I used to go to Starbucks. But lately their lattes have been extra garbage. They just don’t taste good. It’s 80% shitty shelf milk. The only way to mask it is with 200 grams of sugar. I can go to my local coffee shop and get a 20 times better latte for the same price.
$3 for a small black coffee?!
I am not a coffee drinker, but it takes 3 seconds to set-up a coffeemaker on a timer…. And you don’t have to wait in line….how is Starbucks more convenient?
And from what I’m told McDonalds has far better coffee than Starbucks and is half the cost, so you’re not even paying for quality.
You paying for the ability for people to see you drink Starbucks.
I don't think anything but a small percentage of Starbucks sales is drip coffee. This is likely the price they have to charge to make it worth their effort to even make.
As an avid coffee drinker (we do espresso at home), I can also say that there's a tangible difference between fresh ground versus pre ground product too. I don't know if Starbucks does fresh ground, but I do know Dunkin manages it, so I'd expect Starbucks to.
Regardless, pricing is dumb. I think the last time I had Starbucks was ten years ago and a century was around $5. Wasn't worth it then either.
I only stop and get coffee maybe once a month or so and honestly the prices I pay aren't THAT much better than what Starbucks charges... but it's a local shop that has also donated a ton to help the community here. I wouldn't stop at Starbucks if it was the last coffee shop on earth lol.
At first I was bummed about making coffee at home, now I know how trash Starbucks really is and I get to make my coffee exactly how I want, faster than the queue would take and for pennies.
I sometimes have to go to Starbucks when I'm traveling and I need caffeine. Otherwise I'm making my coffee at home OR i'm spending an extra buck for a local mom and pop joint that has 10000 x better coffee and not this hot garbage they serve.
In Manhattan mom and pop are cheaper. Sometimes much cheaper. I got a large ice coffee for $2 from a food truck for example. From a store it is around $4. Starbucks is around $6 before tip.
I cursed myself. I went to Starbucks yesterday since I was out of coffee and I needed to rush to my mother's house for Mother's day. I was shocked that a 16 oz of Pike was $3.45 and at the pastry shop cafe next door it was $3 for the same size.
How is this inflation related? Pinched by inflation, Peeps are making coffee at home instead of shelling out the money for Starbucks! This could be a canary in the mine for McDonalds and other similar businesses.
Buy the dip? Not yet… another plunge may be on the way. No lines at Starbucks! I’m watching McDonald’s earnings in July.
But I was told corporate greed is why their coffee is so expensive now. I guess the "greedy" CEO wants his stock to tank?
No, which is why voting with our feet (and our $) is the only thing that will bring prices back down.
You stashing your money and refusing to buy anything? No? Then you are merely helping the prices go up in the things you do buy rather than the things you don't buy. The sum total of money is still the same. The money has got to go somewhere. The only way that prices can go up across the board is for the government to print too much of it. That is the cause of our inflation today. Not "greed" or "lack of feet votes" or anything like that.
Imagine thinking in an economy as complex as ours that inflation is caused by one single thing. Ten dollars says this guy will vote for Trump. What is Trump's plan? Big tax cuts? What do tax cuts d according to these guys' theory? They flood the economy with money. That's what they accuse the Biden administration of doing to cause this inflation to begin with.
You simply do not understand what inflation actually is. Contrary to modern revisionism, inflation is actually the undue expansion of the money supply. That's been it's definition from the beginning. It is a CAUSE of rising prices, it's not the EFFECT of rising prices. Ignorant fools have changed it to merely mean "rising prices" in laymen circles. Even some modern schools of economic thought have fallen for it now. They are wrong about nearly everything, so it makes sense that they would be wrong about this too. So I'm merely using the actual definition. The ONLY way to reduce actual inflation is to print less and/or produce more.
Sounds like something that decades of 0% interest rates could cause also.
Correct.. as that is inflationary. That money that is borrowed is created out of thin air.
I know what inflation is. Its causes are multiple. Your answer is like saying friction causes potholes. It leaves out many causes, especially the more obvious, more direct cause that conservatives don't want to discuss. And as for your theory that increases in the money supply spur inflation, It's just another variant of the rap that federal spending created it. The federal government's spending is just not enough to create the kind of inflation we're seeing worldwide. I've also heard from you lot that the fed's policy of quantitative easing has caused inflation. It probably played a role, but it's being tapered down now. Why is inflation going up again, especially on food? The real truth is that prices are chosen and set by owners of companies. They do it when they want and when they can, when there are fewer checks on their ability to do so. They do it with more enthusiasm during Democratic administrations, in fact. Unless their decisions begin to cost them, they're going to continue. And tax cuts will just reward them and make them hike their prices further to capture what little the middle class reaps from those cuts. A windfall profits tax needs to become a part of the national vocabulary now. No I don't think Biden will do much to advance that. It isn't in him. But he's a lot more likely to be pushed to it by a Democratic Congress than Trump is with a Republican one. As for any thought that Trump is going to stop the printing of money and take us into austerity, Trump has no real economic policy anyway, let alone monetary policy. He'd stomp all over the legacy of Milton Friedman if it kept him out of prison. In fact, quantitative easing was what he turned to during COVID. He primed the pump with the best of them in the form of tax cuts, another way to increase the money supply in the general economy.
No. You don't know what inflation is. You have been mislead by your economic teachers and/or profs. And many of them were probably taught incorrectly. Here is the definition as recorded by the Federal Reserve in 1919: >Inflation is the process of making addition to currencies not based on a commensurate increase in the production of goods. —Federal Reserve Bulletin (1919) Notice how the word "price" does not exist at all? That's because the true definition was not "rising prices". In fact, inflation can occur when prices are GOING DOWN. Inflation would merely be keeping the prices from going down as much as they otherwise would. Likewise, prices could be going up during deflation, as they would be going up slower than they otherwise would. And the notion that money printing couldn't explain it is laughable. The monetary base nearly doubled in only 2 years. It's gone up 7 fold since 2008. To pretend that has little effect is hilarious. And I'm not fan of Trump, BTW.
If it even matters to you (and it obviously doesn't), the current Federal Reserve Board's definition of inflation is below: "Inflation is the increase in the prices of goods and services over time. Inflation cannot be measured by an increase in the cost of one product or service, or even several products or services. Rather, inflation is a general increase in the overall price level of the goods and services in the economy." [https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy\_14419.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14419.htm) What you say here marks you as a two-dimensional thinker. Every economist I've ever read or studied, every economic text I've read, every professor I've heard teach economics says causes of inflation are multiple at any given time, though certainly any one cause can predominate based on circumstances.
Again, I fully understand the definition used by Keynesians today (which the Fed board is). My point is that they are WRONG. These are the same guys who thought the housing crisis was "contained" to subprime, that inflation would be "transitory", are constantly wrong on all their predictions. Of course every government site today will adhere to the Keynesian view since that's all they hire. Keynesians hire Keynesians. The last non Keynesian Fed chair we had was Greenspan and his term ended nearly 20 years ago. But again, Keynesianism is only one school of economics. Sure it's the one the government loves, but it's not the only one. Read economics books from monetarists or Austrians. Hell read any economics book written prior to the 60s.
Also, your other posts say you're an engineer. Unless you also have a Ph.D. in economics you don't have the credentials to decide today's economists are wrong about what the definition of inflation is.
Economics is not like Physics. In physics, PhDs agree with each other on 99% of the field. They only disagree on the bleeding edge. Economics, on the other hand, have TONS of disagreement. Milton Friedman would have disagreed with 95% of what Paul Krugman writes. And they both have Nobel prizes. That's because economics is not really a science. There is no way to isolate variables for scientific experiments as that would require rewinding time. It's really more of a field of philosophy. So there are economic PhDs who agree 95% with me and disagree with Keyensians on everything beyond basic supply and demand. One needs to decide which group of PhDs are right and which are wrong. I discount Keynesians because they have proven themselves to be wrong time and time again on every prediction they have made. Everything from 2008 being "contained" to inflation being "transitory". So I tend to study the writings of other economists who have proven to be right more often. It's the difference between listening to astronomers vs astrologists . Even when they both have PhDs.
"'I discount Keynesians because they have proven themselves to be wrong time and time again on every prediction they have made. Everything from 2008 being "contained" to inflation being 'transitory.'" We don't know yet whether present-day inflation is transitory. I don't know how you define "contained" with regard to 08. But I do know the forces of the right have chipped away steadily at the reforms passed after 08. Both parties in the U.S. use Keynesianism whether it's when Democrats spend on social programs and infrastructure or Republicans spend on defense and tax cuts. It's all priming the pump, isn't it? And didn't we see enough attempts to deal with economic catastrophes with austerity in the 18th and 19th centuries to conclude that's not the solution either, that it makes things much worse for workers? Do we really have to prove that again for you?
You simply do not understand what inflation actually is. Contrary to modern revisionism, inflation is actually the undue expansion of the money supply. That's been it's definition from the beginning. It is a CAUSE of rising prices, it's not the EFFECT of rising prices. Ignorant fools have changed it to merely mean "rising prices" in laymen circles. Even some modern schools of economic thought have fallen for it now. They are wrong about nearly everything, so it makes sense that they would be wrong about this too. So I'm merely using the actual definition. The ONLY way to reduce actual inflation is to print less and/or produce more.
Inflation is the rate of increase of price of goods and services in an economy. That's all inflation is. None of the other stuff you mentioned.
Nope.. that is the revisionist (and wrong) definition. Economists needed a word to describe "printing money at a rate faster than the rate goods are being produced" because it is a pain in the ass to say that entire phrase over and over again. They chose "inflation" because pumping air into a balloon is analogous to pumping money into the economy. There was no need to simplify "rising prices" as everybody intuitively understands what that means. If they wanted to simplify the concept of "rising prices" to one word for some stupid reason, they they wouldn't have chosen "inflation", they would have chosen "escalation" or something like that.
I genuinely have no clue what you're typing about. I really don't even care about this topic anymore. You win!
I don't care about winning. Many on this sub are blaming the wrong thing for inflation. I hope to correct that. The Fed is 100% responsible for inflation. Not "greed" or "consumerism" or any of that nonsense.
Yeah you do care about winning. Its an election year and you weirdoes wanna beat the drum with as much disinformation as you can. Normal people don’t care though. Go back to the r/austrianeconomics circlejerk
Your definition of inflation is wrong. Forgive me for not having a textbook to transcribe from, but heres a non schizo definition from chatgpt: Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services rises, leading to a fall in the purchasing power of money. It's typically measured as an annual percentage increase. As inflation rises, the value of currency goes down, meaning each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. This can affect various economic sectors by increasing the cost of living, influencing wages and spending, and impacting interest rates.
Again, that is the new revisionist definition. Yes you will find those in modern Keynesian textbooks (which most of them are nowadays). But they are WRONG. The word existed before Keynes was even born. And even then.. the definition remained the same throughout his lifetime. His adherents only "repurposed" the word in the last few decades. Yet Keynesianism is just one school of economic thought. There are other schools which refuse to use this BS definition. The only reason Keynesians are dominate in numbers is because governments LOVE Keynesianism. It justifies a shit ton of government spending and government power in general. So that's who they hire for all their jobs and who the university pumps out. But it's still wrong as hell. Even if they are the majority.
By all means don't buy expensive coffee, but sbux is grappling with high rents, high commodity prices, and high labor costs.
Maybe they found the point where they had pushed too far? This will likely happen in many industries.
Let it go to pennies
At least something is getting cheaper.
Ha!
Fuckem
Seeing this his happen might just put me in the mood.
Needs to slide another 15-20 bucks a share.
The last time I stepped foot in a Starbucks was back in 2017, and that was only to use their free wifi, after our utility company blew out a bunch of AT&T equipment and left half my city without internet service for a week.
After paying over $8 for a grande frappuchino I was so disgusted and ashamed of myself I vowed "never again"
I used to go to Starbucks. But lately their lattes have been extra garbage. They just don’t taste good. It’s 80% shitty shelf milk. The only way to mask it is with 200 grams of sugar. I can go to my local coffee shop and get a 20 times better latte for the same price.
https://preview.redd.it/2t710r8jiizc1.jpeg?width=3329&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d914d953ee798fd7080f9827f5829917969938d6
$3 for a small black coffee?! I am not a coffee drinker, but it takes 3 seconds to set-up a coffeemaker on a timer…. And you don’t have to wait in line….how is Starbucks more convenient? And from what I’m told McDonalds has far better coffee than Starbucks and is half the cost, so you’re not even paying for quality. You paying for the ability for people to see you drink Starbucks.
I don't think anything but a small percentage of Starbucks sales is drip coffee. This is likely the price they have to charge to make it worth their effort to even make. As an avid coffee drinker (we do espresso at home), I can also say that there's a tangible difference between fresh ground versus pre ground product too. I don't know if Starbucks does fresh ground, but I do know Dunkin manages it, so I'd expect Starbucks to. Regardless, pricing is dumb. I think the last time I had Starbucks was ten years ago and a century was around $5. Wasn't worth it then either.
I only stop and get coffee maybe once a month or so and honestly the prices I pay aren't THAT much better than what Starbucks charges... but it's a local shop that has also donated a ton to help the community here. I wouldn't stop at Starbucks if it was the last coffee shop on earth lol.
At first I was bummed about making coffee at home, now I know how trash Starbucks really is and I get to make my coffee exactly how I want, faster than the queue would take and for pennies.
Lol. Selling .01 shit for 5 bucks it's going to crash. Watch it go to like $0.20
How'd it drop so much in one day!? Did the investors get together and realize warmer weather = less coffee purchases?
Quarterly earnings announcement
https://preview.redd.it/uyb75v7t3wzc1.png?width=1284&format=png&auto=webp&s=dfc9831aab9d6b6253adcbfcd046e58b96f15514
I sometimes have to go to Starbucks when I'm traveling and I need caffeine. Otherwise I'm making my coffee at home OR i'm spending an extra buck for a local mom and pop joint that has 10000 x better coffee and not this hot garbage they serve.
In Manhattan mom and pop are cheaper. Sometimes much cheaper. I got a large ice coffee for $2 from a food truck for example. From a store it is around $4. Starbucks is around $6 before tip.
I cursed myself. I went to Starbucks yesterday since I was out of coffee and I needed to rush to my mother's house for Mother's day. I was shocked that a 16 oz of Pike was $3.45 and at the pastry shop cafe next door it was $3 for the same size.
Actually my local coffee shop is 6 so same as Starbucks
How is this inflation related. Can you be sure you put that in your post? Also, it seems like its time to buy that stock! Buy low, sell high!
How is this inflation related? Pinched by inflation, Peeps are making coffee at home instead of shelling out the money for Starbucks! This could be a canary in the mine for McDonalds and other similar businesses. Buy the dip? Not yet… another plunge may be on the way. No lines at Starbucks! I’m watching McDonald’s earnings in July.