Interest rates 'may hit 8pc' in two years

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which obviously isn't my question.

It's also obvious why you won't give a straight answer. You want to talk about wage inflation in a way you will always be right.

We will pretty much always have wage inflation....not many will see their hourly pay actually cut.

As I said earlier on this thread, wage inflation keeping up with inflation is a completely different thing. You know it, I know it.

Yet you'll simply pass me off as Mr Muddle for picking you up on it and asking you to describe what you are talking about.

Wage inflation at 1% when general inflation is 5%, is what most regard as falling wages, less income etc.

why do you do these things to yourself...

i can't be any clearer - i've been kind enough to educate you but you still come back with more nonsense.

if you think i'm wrong please go and let the Financial Times know they're wrong too

wage inflation

Increase in people's pay.

http://lexicon.ft.com/term.asp?t=wage-inflation

go on - just for once Devon admit you're wrong and admit you are Mr Muddle

go on

Really2

Graham, the article is on about a boom and inflation in all aspects, wage, assets. (you are ignoring this)

Like it or not inflation usually if not always results in wage growth.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

Graham, the article is on about a boom and inflation in all aspects, wage, assets. (you are ignoring this)

Like it or not inflation usually if not always results in wage growth.

we were only here last week explaining the different types of inflation to the Professor of Devonian Economic theory.

we can now add wage inflation to the never ending list of things that Devon argues about but doesn't know what it means.

:wall:

Graham_Devon

How many posts? How many times can you ignore the same question?

When YOU talk of wage inflation, in response to inflation posts, i.e. you say "If we get high inflation we will also see wage inflation".

Are you:
A) Saying wage inflation will keep up with inflation
Saying we will simply get "some" wage inflation

Answer B is pretty much a given.

Why do you (both) consistently ignore the question? It's very very simple to answer.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How many posts? How many times can you ignore the same question?

When YOU talk of wage inflation, in response to inflation posts, i.e. you say "If we get high inflation we will also see wage inflation".

Are you:
A) Saying wage inflation will keep up with inflation
Saying we will simply get "some" wage inflation

Answer B is pretty much a given.

Why do you (both) consistently ignore the question? It's very very simple to answer.

It could be higher, lower the same you don't know until you get there. If I knew I would be down the bookies now, filling in a lottery ticket and buying shares of everything I knew the future of.

But at last you admit wages tend to inflate in an inflationary environment.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How many posts? How many times can you ignore the same question?

When YOU talk of wage inflation, in response to inflation posts, i.e. you say "If we get high inflation we will also see wage inflation".

Are you:
A) Saying wage inflation will keep up with inflation
Saying we will simply get "some" wage inflation

Answer B is pretty much a given.

Why do you (both) consistently ignore the question? It's very very simple to answer.

you don't even understand wage inflation so how are you going to understand the different types of inflation.

wage inflation is independent of the general inflation rate - this is determined by different factors not just by wages.

that answers your question - if you don't get understand, it proves that you don't understand how wage inflation or inflation works. it's just like one of those Flash animations, if it works you've got it, if you don't you need a re-install

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

It could be higher, lower the same you don't know until you get there. If I knew I would be down the bookies now, filling in a lottery ticket and buying shares of everything I knew the future of.

But at last you admit wages tend to inflate in an inflationary environment.

Screw this for a game.

More "yer but no but yer but no but".

You want to say inflation will be met with wage inflation. But when asked a question on that wage inflation and what you mean by it, it ends up with this nonsense where you simply will not answer the specific question, which I cannot make any easier to answer, even giving you an A or B answer.

You know, I know, that inflation at 8% and wage inflation at 0.2% will still mean wage inflation.

What we also both know, is that using that 0.2% wage inflation (which is a mere example) in response to inflation rising is absolutely and utterly pointless and everyone has less money in their pockets.

All I wanted to know is how you are defining wage inflation everytime you use it in reponse to inflation rising. Yet you will simply NOT tell me.

Therefore I can only assume you are merely pointing out the obvious. There will be "some" wage inflation. You merely want to use this in every argument to combat the effect of inflation.

chucky

Graham are you really this slow in the real world?

what is it that you don't understand?

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL.

If you say so Julie, if you say so. There really is no point me refuting your arguments as it will merely lead to more attempted put downs.

I will say one thing though. You obviously do not like this report. It doesn't suit your viewpoint, therefore will do anything possible to pass it off as anything but a possibility.

But by saying what you are saying above, you are also passing off all predictions or reports that you DO like. All are using figures based on their thoughts. It's the future. There is nothing more you can do.

No Graham.

I don't mind this "report" any more than I mind what Peston writes or what Macaque writes. It's not a report anyway. It's an conjectural opinion designed to stir up debate. A report is the summary of research, and there are generally accepted formats for reports which include detail on methodology and underlying assumptions so that conclusions can be checked.

You can in fact predict the future. You do it using mathematical models and a risk analysis, and generally this will give you an outcome accurate within a stated error range. For example I can predict precisely your date of death plus or minus about 50 years. Given more information I could predict it more accurately, this is indeed how the insurance industry sets premiums. In this piece there is no methodology and not even a range given to the possible range of interest rate values. He's saying 8% at the end of 2012 not because there's any reason for saying that, but because it will get him into the newspapers so his arguments on spending and monetary policy get a wider airing. And it's worked brilliantly.

What I do mind is the way the "report" has been reported. First of all because it's been given the same weight as a proper fact based analysis in the headline. In that sense there is no difference between this and the "millions to die in flu epidemic" reporting. It's taking a headline worst case conjecture and making it the whole story: lazy journalism that will cause people to draw wrong conclusions and by extension take poor decisions.

The ONLY condition rates would rise significantly under what pass for underlying assumptions in this article are massive printing of new money to end a significant double dip recession, combined with stringent public sector spending reduction. And that boom would lead to further HPI because another underlying assumption is that consumer finance is still too tight for increased spending, so the slack to cause an inflationary spiral needs to come from borrowing for investment. Of which a very significant element will be property speculation. And you'd be a fool not to borrow at 4% if you think rates will be north of 8% in 12 months.

Beware of what you wish for.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Screw this for a game.

More "yer but no but yer but no but".

You want to say inflation will be met with wage inflation. But when asked a question on that wage inflation and what you mean by it, it ends up with this nonsense where you simply will not answer the specific question, which I cannot make any easier to answer, even giving you an A or B answer.

You know, I know, that inflation at 8% and wage inflation at 0.2% will still mean wage inflation.

What we also both know, is that using that 0.2% wage inflation (which is a mere example) in response to inflation rising is absolutely and utterly pointless and everyone has less money in their pockets.

!!!!!!
you asked

"If we get high inflation we will also see wage inflation".

Are you:
A) Saying wage inflation will keep up with inflation
Saying we will simply get "some" wage inflation

There is no way of knowing what wage inflation will do based on what you asked.

You could ask anybody on here you respect and I am sure they would tell you it is impossible to know.
It could be higher, lower or the same as general inflation that is just how it goes unfortunatly.

Read this, it may help get a grasp of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price/wage_spiral

It is pointless it coming from me.