> ... and him being thoroughly wrong about inflation after 2008
Yes, but I've listened to a lot of Peter Schiff, so I'll offer a defence of his position that he might agree with (although it isn't one he'd make) by breaking inflation into 2 parts:
Assumption (wildly radical) - inflation is exactly equal to the change in monetary supply.
Say there is 100% inflation of the monetary base (and, by assumption, cost of everything doubles) and people become twice as productive from technological improvement (cost of everything halves). The BLS would say inflation is 0%, because the net availability of goods and services to people hasn't changed. Schiff would say there has been 100% inflation because in a counterfactual everyone could have had twice as much stuff.
I'm not sure what word the economic mainstream would use to describe what Schiff is talking about. I would call it Gross inflation, I suppose.
Yes, but I've listened to a lot of Peter Schiff, so I'll offer a defence of his position that he might agree with (although it isn't one he'd make) by breaking inflation into 2 parts:
Assumption (wildly radical) - inflation is exactly equal to the change in monetary supply.
Say there is 100% inflation of the monetary base (and, by assumption, cost of everything doubles) and people become twice as productive from technological improvement (cost of everything halves). The BLS would say inflation is 0%, because the net availability of goods and services to people hasn't changed. Schiff would say there has been 100% inflation because in a counterfactual everyone could have had twice as much stuff.
I'm not sure what word the economic mainstream would use to describe what Schiff is talking about. I would call it Gross inflation, I suppose.