Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fahrenheit451 who wrote (23825)	8/17/2006 11:16:29 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Fahrenheit said to queen: Since there seems to be a problem defining inflation, what do you Brinker supporters think of this definition? Inflation: The loss of purchasing power due to a general rise in the prices of goods and services. How do you feel this definition squares with Brinker's claim that high energy prices are not inflationary? I can't speak for anyone else, but that is precisely why I said I was "speaking in general terms and not about this issue [inflation] in particular", when I was cautioning against assuming that one variable "causes" another because they rise and fall together. My opinion? I personally believe there are as many definitions of inflation and personal opinions on what is "inflationary" out there as there are "experts" out there. I'll have to leave it to the experts. If you want my gut feeling, certainly it seems counter-intuitive to me that the cost of something on which we are so dependent as we are on oil and oil products going up, up, up, wouldn't hurt our buying power. Right or wrong, Brinker's entitled to his opinion. So are those who disagree with him. The only thing I feel quite certain about is that there are many more than one thing that "cause" inflation. Note that the definition in question reads "due to a general rise in the prices of goods and services".