> New Zealands actual inflation is way, way higher than 1.5%. You are very naive and gullible if you believe that number.
It's defined with a mathematical formula based on a basket of goods. You haven't provided any sources other than your gut and a baseless assertion about gullibility. I have references [1, 2].
> You also have no idea how the cost of housing is determined.
It's literally on the investopedia write-up. [3] And also, it's basic, fundamental market economics. More supply, price goes down. Less supply, price goes up assuming constant demand. Sure lending makes unaffordable places more affordable. That doesn't really matter if you flood the market with supply though does it? [4]
FTA [4]: "Tokyo rent is cheaper because it builds lots of housing. Every year, the city adds about 100,000 new homes. This increase has more than kept up with the increase in population, leading to a housing surplus." Average rent is $2.50/sqft in Tokyo vs $6/sqft in SF. And they have negative interest rates. Supply. Matters.
> Central banks have artificially manipulated interest rates to an extremely low level.
Set them at a low level. That's their job. To maintain a consistent, low, predictable rate of inflation.
> The reserve bank governor even admitted they were at fault.
Look I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm saying inflation has little to do with the very real issues you call out.
You are fundamentally off the mark at every single point. The basket of goods specifically excludes things such as housing which is the by far the number one cost of living here, which leaves that "inflation" figure as an utterly meaningless metric.
>> Set them at a low level. That's their job. To maintain a consistent, low, predictable rate of inflation.
Your reading comprehension failed here. I am referring to control of interest rates, which has far reaching consequences beyond inflation. This is the "fatal conceit" of socialist minded people such as yourself. No one on this planet is qualified to control interest rates.
It's defined with a mathematical formula based on a basket of goods. You haven't provided any sources other than your gut and a baseless assertion about gullibility. I have references [1, 2].
> You also have no idea how the cost of housing is determined.
It's literally on the investopedia write-up. [3] And also, it's basic, fundamental market economics. More supply, price goes down. Less supply, price goes up assuming constant demand. Sure lending makes unaffordable places more affordable. That doesn't really matter if you flood the market with supply though does it? [4]
FTA [4]: "Tokyo rent is cheaper because it builds lots of housing. Every year, the city adds about 100,000 new homes. This increase has more than kept up with the increase in population, leading to a housing surplus." Average rent is $2.50/sqft in Tokyo vs $6/sqft in SF. And they have negative interest rates. Supply. Matters.
> Central banks have artificially manipulated interest rates to an extremely low level.
Set them at a low level. That's their job. To maintain a consistent, low, predictable rate of inflation.
> The reserve bank governor even admitted they were at fault.
Look I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm saying inflation has little to do with the very real issues you call out.
[1] https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/inflation
[2] https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/consumers-pri...
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040215/how-does-law...
[4] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-ed-california-ho...