Inflation/Gas Prices/Rising Prices in General

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by blankall

Japan is a totally different situation. Falling population and stagnant NGDP. Places with falling population also, generally, have shrinking economies, and its not an envious position to be in. Japan has actually been struggling to increase inflation rates for several decades now.

You're correct. The money ends up in the hands of businesses....after people spend it....and at higher rates than normal....because inflation.

Japan has been stuck in stagflation. Their economy is completely stagnant and shrinking for decades. They actually want out of this but they can't due to demographics and insularity. You can buy a Big Mac for the same price it was a decade ago but you don't have any young workforce replacing the old.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Household savings from being unable to spend during the pandemic, HELOC's pulled out from super high house values, crypto, very large stock market gains.... and we blame CERB for adding too much spending money?

It’s important we pick things that conform neatly to our political biases and just run with that.

Putting “HELOC’s pulled out from super high house values” on a billboard in Vancouver just doesn’t have enough pizzazz!

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Torture

Those damn people getting a whopping $2,000 (taxable) a month just added too much to the economy! I mean, that's $24,000 a year, think about what somebody could do with all that money!

Especially to get it.... probably meant you were down money in the first place.

CERB wasn't a stimulus package that everyone got. Those I knew who got it, were out more than they received. There wasn't extra spending money to have.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But if you talk a big game about combating climate change, and vote accordingly, and complain about oil companies as evildoers destroying the planet, and are now complaining that it costs more money to fill up your Corolla, you are simply a total ####ing idiot. This is what taking the necessary steps looks like. Only much, much more disruptive. There's no fence-sitting option that makes any logical sense.

Alternatively you might just be someone who is kinda bummed out you have to pay an extra $20 at the pump all of a sudden. This isn’t even really what taking the necessary steps looks like, this is doing something that falls accidentally headfirst into step 3, or whatever. It’s like complaining about obesity and then having a little bitch fest when inflation hits the food and all of it gets more expensive. “Oh but people can afford less food now so obesity will go down! How dare you complain, hypocrite!” Thrilling logic, I’m sure, but a little out of touch.

But yeah, for sure, total ####ing idiot or something. Corollas are lame anyway.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Household savings from being unable to spend during the pandemic, HELOC's pulled out from super high house values, crypto, very large stock market gains.... and we blame CERB for adding too much spending money?

Which of those things actually increase inflation? They seem like mostly zero sum type things.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't get where you are going with the lower interest rates money going directly to banks? Lower interest rates allow customers to either save money on their monthly mortgage payments and spend more money else where, or allows them to spend more on a house than they originally would and thus giving more money to a seller or builder. All those things can put upwards pressure on inflation.

Yes, of course it does. It also brings more home buyers into the market than there would otherwise be. But my point was that I believe giving payments to individuals is a better way to stimulate the economy than lowering interest rates. When more homes are bought, and buyers choose more expensive homes than they otherwise would, it means more money and profits pouring into banks than there otherwise would be. This, to me, is not the best way of stimulating the economy. We should be stimulating in a way that is less conducive to concentrating more and more wealth at the top.

The money given out to individuals in 3 or so one time checks was not the most efficient way to give money to the people who needed it most and was done by both presidents mostly because it was easy and free money for everyone is rather popular. It would have been better to put more effort into figuring out a way to get more significant money to the people financially affected by COVID than just sending a one time check to everyone up to a pretty high income limit.

This is disputed. It's possible to give everyone some money and then use the tax code to tax the money back where deemed necessary.

There's a limit to how much money you can put back in the economy without causing inflation problems.

I would argue that while direct checks puts more money into the economy, there are ways of taking money out of the economy to offset the inflationary effects (ie: taxation).

A lot of the money sent to businesses was probably better spent as it did things like allow restaurants and other affected businesses to keep everyone on the payroll even when they were closed. Also the enhanced UI money was a better method of distributing it.

Again, disputable. Many corporations took the bailout money and laid off tons of workers anyway. However, most smaller businesses probably used the money in an ethical way as you pointed out.

None of these would have caused inflation problems though if other world events didn't cumulate on top of them.

Very important point and one that some folks seem to forget.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Higher corporate taxes cause more inflation (the cost is passed on to the consumer)

Higher property taxes won't help inflation, it will just give everyone less to spend, making the effects of inflation feel worse.

Your (attempted) answer to all problems is wealth redistribution.

Well... not exactly. Prices are largely determined by supply and demand. Corporations can choose to retaliate against tax increases by raising their prices, but it's not the smartest move for them to charge higher than market-clearing price, as doing so would cut into sales and therefore profits. That is, unless they are doing so to arm-twist society into giving them the lower tax rates they want...

In the long run, higher taxes on corporations, and the rich and upper-middle class, are better for society, as they extract wealth from where it is concentrated, and redistributes that wealth for the betterment of society as a whole.

I'm not suggesting that wealth distribution is a solution to all problems. I'm just saying it's better than the alternative.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Well... not exactly. Prices are largely determined by supply and demand. Corporations can choose to retaliate against tax increases by raising their prices, but it's not the smartest move for them to charge higher than market-clearing price, as doing so would cut into sales and therefore profits. That is, unless they are doing so to arm-twist society into giving them the lower tax rates they want...

In the long run, higher taxes on corporations, and the rich and upper-middle class, are better for society, as they extract wealth from where it is concentrated, and redistributes that wealth for the betterment of society as a whole.

I'm not suggesting that wealth distribution is a solution to all problems. I'm just saying it's better than the alternative.

If you tax one product, or one location (property taxes), then the corporation may not be able to pass it on (but usually do/can). But you are talking about raising taxes on all corporations, which all gets passed on, and all prices go up, causing inflation and reducing purchasing power.

Raising taxes isn't some panacea for all the world's problems, like you think it is. Actions have consequences. And corporations don't 'pay' taxes for the most part, they 'collect' them (and the consumer pays).

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you tax one product, or one location (property taxes), then the corporation may not be able to pass it on (but usually do/can). But you are talking about raising taxes on all corporations, which all gets passed on, and all prices go up, causing inflation and reducing purchasing power.

Raising taxes isn't some panacea for all the world's problems, like you think it is. Actions have consequences. And corporations don't 'pay' taxes for the most part, they 'collect' them (and the consumer pays).

In reality, only a portion of the cost of the tax actually gets directly passed on to the consumer. The rest of it cuts into profit margins and dividend payouts to shareholders. This in turn puts a cooling effect on demand, which then brings down prices in the long run.

It's easy to scare people with the "passed on to consumers" line, but there really is more going on than just that.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

In reality, only a portion of the cost of the tax actually gets directly passed on to the consumer. The rest of it cuts into profit margins and dividend payouts to shareholders. This in turn puts a cooling effect on demand, which then brings down prices in the long run.

It's easy to scare people with the "passed on to consumers" line, but there really is more going on than just that.

I'm guessing you're not a business owner

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure who's really getting richer here, aside from the people who are going to get richer no matter what happens in the world.

But, look, if your opinion is, "we shouldn't do anything about climate change", whether that's because you don't think there's anything we feasibly can do or because you don't think it's worth doing what would be required in terms of the sacrifices we would all have to make... well, that's just fine, you can be upset about rising gas prices without being a hypocrite.

Similarly, if you're someone who thinks climate change is such an important priority that we must do whatever we can to mitigate its effects and hope beyond hope that those mitigating efforts give us a chance to solve the problem before irreversible damage is done, and you see higher gas prices and think, "good, there will be fewer emissions if emitting is more expensive", that's also just fine. No hypocrisy.

But if you talk a big game about combating climate change, and vote accordingly, and complain about oil companies as evildoers destroying the planet, and are now complaining that it costs more money to fill up your Corolla, you are simply a total ####ing idiot. This is what taking the necessary steps looks like. Only much, much more disruptive. There's no fence-sitting option that makes any logical sense.

As the owner of a Corolla (well Matrix, same vehicle but hatchback), I actually purchased this vehicle as it was one of the most environmentally friendly vehicles at the time. I drive under 5000 km/year, take transit most days, but need some kind of vehicle for me and my family and occasionally needed the car for work.

The environmental cost of a hybrid vehicle was actually worse than the pure gasoline vehicle, assuming you're driving a compact car and drive low kms. This was 12 years ago (I still drive the same car and didn't trade it in for a fancy new one either), and maybe that math has changed.

I know this is off topic, but not sure why Corolla drivers are the ones getting attacked here. Maybe the people who driver trucks for no reason would be a better target?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

While that's a risk of overtaxation, I don't think we're near the point where we're taxing high enough to cause that to happen. At some point, we have to realize that the only way to do something about wealth inequality is to take some of the wealth from the haves and give it to the have nots. Continuing to let the "rising tides lift all boats" mentality drive our decision making will only cause the wealth gap to widen, while bringing about worse and worse outcomes for the environment and planet.



President Xi of China seems to agree. Decades of doing things the old fashioned way has led to major problems in his country, and he's now calling for a nation-wide property tax. I think we should do the same in Canada.

There were a lot of businesses that went under during Covid. Just stating that we should tax business more and give more money to individuals is a bit of a blanket statement.

What we should be doing is going after all the profits that businesses are keeping exempt from taxes by keeping in corporate solution.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But if you talk a big game about combating climate change, and vote accordingly, and complain about oil companies as evildoers destroying the planet, and are now complaining that it costs more money to fill up your Corolla, you are simply a total ####ing idiot. This is what taking the necessary steps looks like. Only much, much more disruptive. There's no fence-sitting option that makes any logical sense.

A lot of people believe we could transition painlessly to a decarbonized economy tomorrow if it weren’t for villainous oil companies sabotaging the transition to alternative energy. I see those sentiments expressed online (with huge upvotes) every day. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.

Climate deniers peddle all sorts of dangerous lies. But climate activists rely on their own fictions to frame public perceptions. The stark reality - that decarbonization will necessitate increases in costs and a plunge in living standards far more severe than what we’re going through now - is too much of a downer for them to acknowledge.

[Derek Sutton]

I expected Mathgod to have a better understanding of economics.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by blankall

As the owner of a Corolla (well Matrix, same vehicle but hatchback), I actually purchased this vehicle as it was one of the most environmentally friendly vehicles at the time. I drive under 5000 km/year, take transit most days, but need some kind of vehicle for me and my family and occasionally needed the car for work.

The environmental cost of a hybrid vehicle was actually worse than the pure gasoline vehicle, assuming you're driving a compact car and drive low kms. This was 12 years ago (I still drive the same car and didn't trade it in for a fancy new one either), and maybe that math has changed.

I know this is off topic, but not sure why Corolla drivers are the ones getting attacked here. Maybe the people who driver trucks for no reason would be a better target?

I don't think the type of vehicle was the intended takeaway from the conversation

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of people believe we could transition painlessly to a decarbonized economy tomorrow if it weren’t for villainous oil companies sabotaging the transition to alternative energy. I see those sentiments expressed online (with huge upvotes) every day. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.

Climate deniers peddle all sorts of dangerous lies. But climate activists rely on their own fictions to frame public perceptions. The stark reality - that decarbonization will necessitate increases in costs and a plunge in living standards far more severe than what we’re going through now - is too much of a downer for them to acknowledge.

Oil companies have, for many decades, funded climate denial efforts via dark money. That's the reality of the situation and is largely the reason why we aren't further along than we are in the transition toward clean energy.

Originally Posted by blankall

There were a lot of businesses that went under during Covid. Just stating that we should tax business more and give more money to individuals is a bit of a blanket statement.

What we should be doing is going after all the profits that businesses are keeping exempt from taxes by keeping in corporate solution.

Well yes, distinguinshing between small businesses and major corporations is a rather important thing to do.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I don't think the type of vehicle was the intended takeaway from the conversation

I know. It just seemed odd to use a very fuel efficient compact vehicle to make that point.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Well yes, distinguinshing between small businesses and major corporations is a rather important thing to do.

Yes...and when a major company goes bankrupt thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of people are unemployed.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-bi...132709714.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/con...c-hit-n1207866

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/26/the-...s-of-2020.html

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Oil companies have, for many decades, funded climate denial efforts via dark money. That's the reality of the situation and is largely the reason why we aren't further along than we are in the transition toward clean energy.

No it's not. The reality is the technology is only now being developed, and not for a lack of trying. It requires specialized technologies that didn't exist, and many that couldn't without our advancements in material sciences, microchips, energy storage, and on and on. Even now we don't really have a path to large scale energy storage in a way that would allow abandoning fossil fuels, let alone generation. Even one sector, like personal transport, is at least a decade from that(probably more like double), and no one can really pinpoint where we get all the materials for it, because it's such a colossal task.

If you believe this to be true, please cite specific technologies that could have been developed earlier that would have allowed abandoning fossil fuels, if only the evil oil companies hadn't done so and so for decades...

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No it's not. The reality is the technology is only now being developed, and not for a lack of trying. It requires specialized technologies that didn't exist, and many that couldn't without our advancements in material sciences, microchips, energy storage, and on and on. Even now we don't really have a path to large scale energy storage in a way that would allow abandoning fossil fuels, let alone generation. Even one sector, like personal transport, is at least a decade from that(probably more like double), and no one can really pinpoint where we get all the materials for it, because it's such a colossal task.

If you believe this to be true, please cite specific technologies that could have been developed earlier that would have allowed abandoning fossil fuels, if only the evil oil companies hadn't done so and so for decades...

Are you of the belief that generally speaking people would have been less inclined to invest in greener technology and R&D had they known that fossil fuel usage was more damaging to our environment than we had previously been lead to believe?

While it’d be frankly near impossible to determine with any certainty exactly how much or how little green technology may have been set back as a result of misleading information regarding fossil fuel use, I think you’d probably agree that the misinformation played at least some role in slowing down earlier investments in greener technology.

That isn’t big bad oil boogie man rhetoric, it’s just common sense.