Don't bother polluting this thread with facts. HN is clearly dominated by Keynesians. Your dissent will not be tolerated.
I believe the standard response writ large upon Bernanke's beard would be something like "But but but the 2011 model has a navigation system and is expected to last an extra 5000 miles, so hedonics alone imputes an extra $30k in value above the 1980 model. No inflation! Run along."
> Don't bother polluting this thread with facts. HN is clearly dominated by Keynesians. Your dissent will not be tolerated.
This really isn't a constructive comment. It really possible to discuss different measures of inflation without sticking a general label on people who disagree with you and saying that they live in an alternate universe.
There's a difference between saying that you're concerned with the level of inflation we might face if the Federal Reserve decides to do more quantitative easing, and saying that we're going to end up like Zimbabwe because the Federal Reserve will inevitably have another three QE packages. One is a reasonable argument to make. The other is a political prediction that is very well may not be true, attached to some scary comments about what could happen if your prediction is true. The thing is, we haven't had zimbabwe-like inflation yet, more quantitative easing is not an inevitability, and even if we had more QE we wouldn't necessarily have hyperinflation.
You're trying to pick a fight with people who don't think baseless predictions tied to scenarios of doom have no place on HN by calling them names. That's why you're being downvoted.
I believe the standard response writ large upon Bernanke's beard would be something like "But but but the 2011 model has a navigation system and is expected to last an extra 5000 miles, so hedonics alone imputes an extra $30k in value above the 1980 model. No inflation! Run along."