Chances of losing (and winning!) are close to zero.

[Gumby]

I see prices on almost everything higher than they were since before the financial crisis.

When I first explained what BLS is to Marc, I explained that the BLS really does publish a lot of different inflation reports. For instance, here are the official inflation numbers for "CPI Less Shelter". In other words, this is what inflation looks like if you include Food, Energy and remove the cost of housing...

[align=center][/align]

So, this is what many consumers probably feel when they try to sense their own personal inflation rate. Yep, it's often a bit higher than Core CPI. But, it's just not indicative of the real Macro environment where people need a place to live and raise their families. CPI-Less Shelter is also too volatile for economic planning.

So, as you can see, the official inflation numbers aren't a government conspiracy. The data is there if you know where to look.

[MediumTex]

I'm getting the impression that you do not respond to my counterarguments but instead ignore them and go on with giving new and other arguments in favor of your position. I'm feeling less attracted to continue giving more counterarguments to your future positions if you ignore my previous counterarguments.

Can you restate your counterargument?

My understanding of your argument so far is that all official reports of inflation are incorrect, even though the MIT Billion Prices Project and my own personal inflation experience matches those official figures pretty closely.

I will link to my counterarguments if that is ok.

My counterargument to the argument that 'MIT Billion Prices' confirms official inflation numbers is here.

Okay, the argument you make there is this:

If you only take products from online retailers as they do then I also believe that inflation is only 2.5% like the official inflation, especially since 2008, as they do. We are in a consumer tightening cycle. Retailers are lowering profit margins to get rid of their products. In products you have a a serious globalization, deflationary effect of third world low labor costs as well as tight competition.

I'm not following exactly what you are saying.  Are you saying that the fact that a price is from an online retailer doesn't mean that it's a real price?  I don't think that a methodology is fatally flawed because it uses only online prices, especially considering that almost all brick and mortar stores have their prices posted online.

My counterargument to your personal experience matching official inflation numbers when it comes to housing is here.

The argument you make there is:

I don't think your house represents the average situation in the US. From the indexes I see average housing prices in the US have still gone up by 5% per year since 2000, even after the correction since 2006. Would you agree or disagree?

You're right.  Some houses have declined in value while mine has stayed the same, and other houses have appreciated in value.  Across the board, though, housing prices have been falling, not rising, for several years, so whatever inflation was present prior to 2007 has not yet reappeared.

My counterargument to the argument that 'the whole treasury market is wrong' or 'why are interest rates so low if inflation is so high' is here.

There you say:

Markets can be wrong for a decade and can reflect the truth about the previous decade only in the next decade.

And when it comes to the bond market, interest rates are highly manipulated. Most of the printed money goes directly to keeping up financial institutions, keeping financial bond interest rates artificially low, keeping mortgage and saving accounts interest rates artificially low, and the other half of the printed money goes to buying government bonds directly keeping those also at artificially high valuations & artificially low interest rates.

How high do you think interest rates for government bonds, mortgages and saving accounts would be if no money was printed, most of the banks would have defaulted and the FED doesn't buy half of the new issued government bonds?

Well, if you look at the bond market in the U.S., U.K., Germany and Japan, they are all basically following the same general deflationary trend and the respective central banks have engaged in bond market intervention at different times, in different amounts and with different stated strategies, and the result has been about the same.

Deflation pushes yields down.  No central bank involvement is needed.  This is just part of the process we are living through.  The same thing happened in the 1930s.

I would say that central bank action has probably pushed yields on the short end of the yield curve closer to zero than they would have otherwise been (central banks have probably pushed yields 30-40 basis points lower than they would otherwise be), and I'm not sure that central bank action has influenced the long end of the curve by more than maybe 20-30 basis points.

My counterargument to your argument that wages are only rising at 2.5% and confirm the official low inflation is here and here.

The point you are making there is that wage increases have not kept up with inflation in recent decades, and I agree with this.  What I am saying is that in recent years many workers in the U.S. have seen no wage gains whatsoever, and many of them have seen wage declines (see American Airlines employees).  That's not inflationary. 

I also asked several questions in my counterarguments. I am not saying that you have to respond to my counterarguments, or you have to answer my questions to you. You are free to do not ofcourse. I am just saying that I don't enjoy this way of debating when someone does not recognize my counterarguments and comes up with other new arguments, or worse, just repeats the arguments that I have debunked already.

I think I responded to everything.

Note that my estimate is not that since 2000 until 2011 there has been 7-8% inflation in the US, my estimate is that it has been around 5% (sorry to make it bold, not meant to scream but to imprint in the eyeball , 5.5% if you want me to be exact. However, since 1972, mostly because of exceptionally high inflation in the 70's my estimated inflation is indeed on average 7.5% in the US. The distinction between 'since 2000' and 'since 1972' is important.

Well, I think we can agree on the 2000-2011 period.  While I don't think inflation has been 5.5% since 2000, if it had been the PP still would have returned about 4.5% after inflation, which is what we are looking for. 

As for the 1972-2011 period, if inflation had been 7.5% across the board during that period I don't see how any of us could afford to buy anything (not to mention the fact that wages haven't increased anything like 7.5% per year since 1972). 

For example, in 1972 a new Corvette cost $5,472.00.  At 7.5% inflation, that car would cost $98,738.00 today.  How much does one actually cost today?  $49,600.

In 1972, a gallon of milk cost $1.20.  At 7.5% inflation, a gallon of milk would cost $21.65 today.  How much does a gallon of milk cost today?  Maybe $3.00.

In 1972, a gallon of gas cost $.36.  At 7.5% inflation, a gallon of gas would cost $6.50 today.  I filled up this morning for $2.99 a gallon.

Can you show me any product or service that has increased at 7.5% a year since 1972?  Even tuition at Harvard University (which is an expensive school in a sector that has seen dramatic inflation) has only increased at an annual rate of 6.5% over that period.

[MediumTex]

For the USA my estimated inflation numbers are:
2008: -1%
2009: +5%
2010: +11%
2011: +9%
Average: 6.0%

Again I could estimate it too high as many think here but until now I have missed the argument that convinces me of lowering my estimations.

Marc,

Do you seriously believe that ANY business in the U.S. aside from perhaps a health insurance provider was able to raise its prices 25% over the 2009-2011 period when the economy was exceptionally weak?

Can you point to ANY product or service apart from health insurance that went up by 25% in that three year period?

I can't think of even one product or service, much less entertain the idea that this 25% increase over three years was what happened across the entire economy.  Since we know that the price of housing and electronics was falling during this period, that would mean that the prices of many other items had increased by 40-50%.

If you can point to any products or services that actually enjoyed this pricing power I would love to hear about them.

[MediumTex]

Part of the problem with listening to people who complain about inflation is that they often do it more out of habit than actual recent experience.

Take taxes for example.  I listened to people complain through Obama's entire first term about how much it sucked to be living with his tax increases, when the reality is that 99% of people in the U.S. enjoyed a tax cut in the form of the two one year payroll tax reductions that put at least a couple thousand dollars in most people's pockets.

Business also benefited a lot from the accelerated deductions for certain business equipment purchases in the last couple of years.

I listen to people in my own community moan about the rising cost of everything when I know for a fact that they have probably refinanced their homes at least a couple of times, so their house payment is lower.  The appraised value of their houses has in many cases declined a bit, which means their property taxes are lower.  The collapse in the price of natural gas had made both their electric and natural gas bills lower.  The payroll tax cut has made their overall tax burden lower.  Rather than seeing this $500-$1,000 a month savings that they are enjoying, however, they want to complain about a gallon of milk going up 20 cents or the price of gas going up 30 cents.

Sometimes people just want to complain, and the cost of living is a stand-by thing to gripe about, whether it's actually true or not.

[Gary]

ZIRP is killing many of us and gold and stocks, the traditional inflation hedges, aren't keeping pace.

The price of gold has gone up 500% in the last decade. 

I would say that gold has more than kept pace with inflation.

I was speaking in the context of post- financial crisis.  Many of us are experiencing personal inflation that is not reflected in the official figures.  Gold is not keeping pace with the increase in our living expenses--a disparity in income vs outlays which is exacerbated by ZIRP.

[frugal]

maybe without considering money printing.

Don't know whether it affects our little lifes here in our small but good country



ALL PORTFOLIOS IN THE SAME ZONE WILL HAVE SAME INFLATION :-)

Waiting your comments I remain.

Cheers

[MediumTex]

On the business side, while my costs are going up every year from labs and suppliers [and the 'fuel surcharge' goes up when gas spikes, but never goes down when prices moderate], I can not pass those costs on to my patients due to managed care contracts, which have not even come close to increasing with core inflation over the last 10 years, resulting in a year-over-year decrease in net. Add in the fact that patient flow has been lower since 2009 due to the economy while fixed costs and staff salaries are the same or higher, and there goes more net income.

So to summarize, my income has gone down annually for several years while my housing costs have stayed level, and I just finished putting 2 kids through college and grad school. I'm not saying this to complain. My point is that even if there is little to no inflation, the squeeze sure feels like there is...

But if there were actually the across the board inflation Marc is suggesting is present, wouldn't you just raise your prices by 5-10% per year?

The fact that you have a very limited ability to increase your prices is actually a great illustration of the point I am trying to make.

There is clearly some inflation in certain segments of the economy, but the fact that there seem to be many more areas where businesses have no ability at all to raise prices makes me less concerned about a real wage-price inflation spiral getting traction.

What you are describing is an unfortunate situation where you are having to absorb inflation without being able to pass it on to your customers, but the fact that you can't pass it on to your customers means that the effect of these price increases is simply that you have lower profits, which means you have less money to spend, and if this happens to enough people the economy will go back into recession and prices will come back down.

Inflation in a weak economy can really only do two things: it can create more inflation or it can push the economy into recession.  In the world we are living in today with stagnant wages and contracting credit, I think that the latter is more likely.

[MediumTex]

ZIRP is killing many of us and gold and stocks, the traditional inflation hedges, aren't keeping pace.

The price of gold has gone up 500% in the last decade. 

I would say that gold has more than kept pace with inflation.

I was speaking in the context of post- financial crisis.  Many of us are experiencing personal inflation that is not reflected in the official figures.  Gold is not keeping pace with the increase in our living expenses--a disparity in income vs outlays which is exacerbated by ZIRP.

Well, let's take a look and see if this is actually true.

In 2008, gold provided a 5% return.

In 2009, gold provided a 24% return.

In 2010, gold provided a 29.3% return.

In 2011, gold provided a 9.6% return.

In 2012, YTD, gold has provided a 9.76% return.

That an average annual return post-financial crisis of 15.53%.  Has the inflation you have experienced really been greater than this?

Can you provide a few examples of items that you purchase whose prices are going up more than 15% per year?  To listen to business owners complain, you wouldn't know that such pricing power existed anywhere in the economy.

[Marc De Mesel]

Marc,

Do you seriously believe that ANY business in the U.S. aside from perhaps a health insurance provider was able to raise its prices 25% over the 2009-2011 period when the economy was exceptionally weak?

Can you point to ANY product or service apart from health insurance that went up by 25% in that three year period?

I can't think of even one product or service, much less entertain the idea that this 25% increase over three years was what happened across the entire economy.  Since we know that the price of housing and electronics was falling during this period, that would mean that the prices of many other items had increased by 40-50%.

If you can point to any products or services that actually enjoyed this pricing power I would love to hear about them.

MediumTex,

Thanks for going into my counterarguments and thanks for showing care about the subject but asking for proof and support of my high inflation estimates.

I want to take some time to look for that proof. I promise to come back on it here.

[MediumTex]

Marc,

Do you seriously believe that ANY business in the U.S. aside from perhaps a health insurance provider was able to raise its prices 25% over the 2009-2011 period when the economy was exceptionally weak?

Can you point to ANY product or service apart from health insurance that went up by 25% in that three year period?

I can't think of even one product or service, much less entertain the idea that this 25% increase over three years was what happened across the entire economy.  Since we know that the price of housing and electronics was falling during this period, that would mean that the prices of many other items had increased by 40-50%.

If you can point to any products or services that actually enjoyed this pricing power I would love to hear about them.

MediumTex,

Thanks for going into my counterarguments and thanks for showing care about the subject but asking for proof and support of my high inflation estimates.

I want to take some time to look for that proof. I promise to come back on it here.

Cool.

I look forward to continuing the discussion.

[Gumby]

But if there were actually the across the board inflation Marc is suggesting is present, wouldn't you just raise your prices by 5-10% per year?

The fact that you have a very limited ability to increase your prices is actually a great illustration of the point I am trying to make.

[...]

Inflation in a weak economy can really only do two things: it can create more inflation or it can push the economy into recession.  In the world we are living in today with stagnant wages and contracting credit, I think that the latter is more likely.

Exactly. Unfortunately, Marc seems to be entirely unaware of this.

Here is a snippet of his interview on the The Voluntary Life:

VL: So, in other words, what you're doing is you're calculating from your investment what your real return is. Your after inflation returned. In order to do that you're deducting that 5% or 7% as the estimate. And you're saying, "I have to make that to stand still. And then once I've done that, anything I get beyond that is real return, that isn't being eaten away by inflation."

MARC: Yes. Indeed. And I want to add that for me, since 2006, I had an average of 6.5% return and that's included everything. So, also real estate is included in that. So 6%, so that means for me that, yeah, I made 1% a year. And that has not been enough at all to cover my living expenses because I live from that. I don't do a day job or run a company. So..

VL: Yeah. You live off your investments.

MARC: Yeah. I live from my investments, so 1% is really not enough...

VL: Which means that you are effectively eating in to your capital, even though, from the sort of gross numbers, you wouldn't necessarily think you were because inflation is hiding that right?

MARC: Indeed. So I am losing purchasing power every year. Because I estimate my living expenses to be around 3%, maybe 4%. And so, I only make 1%, so I lose every year around 3% of my capital and so I'm not making enough money to continue this. You know? I'm running out! If I keep it at this level, I have a lot less capital in purchasing power in ten or twenty years.

VL: Really, this is you seeing the hidden tax that's going on through inflation then.

MARC: Yes. That's... Yeah...

VL: That's what it means. If you carried on like this for twenty years, then you would see a kind of hidden tax eat away at your savings.

MARC: Yeah, indeed. And I just got a new idea that I wasn't aware of before! But I never understood, like how do people do this? Like how is it possible? I'm making only 6% and I'm a good investor, you know? I've been very successful compared to most! And I'm only making 6% and real inflation is 5%, so I don't really make money! So, but, I know that other people don't neither! You know? So, maybe it's 1 in 100 that's making more than 6% each year. You know? So how is it possible!? Now I suddenly realize it. It's because you have a big teeth, you know? Teething from everybody, every year 5% you know, it's very hard to make money if you lose 5% a year to a teeth, you know? And that's true for everybody, that has money.

VL: Yes, that's true for everybody. Even if they are not living off their wages. That's why it's really hard to build up savings because you are effectively losing money without even knowing it.

Source: http://thevoluntarylife.com/TVL_E069_in ... en_tax.mp3

The answer, of course, is that inflation isn't actually that high, nor could it possibly be sustained in the tight money environment he's describing.

The interview shows that Marc doesn't really understand inflation very well. Earlier in the interview he explains that he has estimated inflation mainly by looking at the amount of money that has been printed — which could not be a more flawed analysis.

He also seems unaware that employment and wages play a major role in inflation and he can't quite figure out how people can afford to pay for all this inflation when they aren't earning enough each year. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's a little surprising that he gives interviews an expert on inflation.

He's just not grasping the fact that inflation cannot be sustained when unemployment is high and consumers run out of spending money — despite all the "money printing" that's going on.

Again, I'm sorry to be harsh, but Marc is convinced that he can estimate inflation mostly by looking at how much money has been printed along with some informal surveys. It's an analysis that's not grounded in reality.

[Pointedstick]

Condensed down to its essence, I think the key point to understand here is that inflation as experienced by consumers is the result of businesses raising their prices. It's not just something that happens when money is dropped from helicopters! Businesses face difficulty raising prices, especially when their customers are poor. It usually happens as a systemic thing when their customers are become wealthier and they're trying to grab a bigger slice of that new wealth! How can businesses raise their prices when their customers are cutting back and purchasing less? It would only hurt those businesses more and yield them even fewer sales! This is a situation in which businesses typically lower their prices (and wages), leading to deflation, not inflation.

[Peak2Trough]

To me, this thread serves as a good reminder why it's important to compare nominal risk-adjusted returns for portfolios.  I am aware that true purchasing power are only reflected in real returns, but inflation numbers are, generally speaking, guesses.  There is some good statistical data behind the guesses, but in the end, it's still a rough estimate at best.

Thus, inflation is not a discreet number we can plug into return formulas and expect great precision in the output.  If instead you simply compare historical, nominal, risk-adjusted returns, of two or more portfolios, there are no unknowns, and you get an accurate comparison of the two. 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you believe that inflation is understated and your portfolio is returning 0% real, you really only have one option available to you to improve that:  Take more risk.  In other words, an estimate of 0% real is not a fault of a particular portfolio, it's a consequence of adhering to one's own risk tolerance.

[melveyr]

Looking at the amount of money being printed to determine the value of it is like looking at the amount of iPhones produced over a given amount of time to determine the price of an iPhone.

It doesn't work because it ignores demand. If we used the quantity logic an iPhone would be worth pennies.

[Gosso]

I've had this rattling around in my head for a bit:

There are 10 families living on an island.  The entire community has $1,000 evenly distributed between all ten families (each has $100).  This money is used as a medium of exchange to make trade easier.  After a few decades the population has increased, resulting in a total of 20 families.  The stand-of-living has remained constant.  There are two possible scenarios for the money supply.  The first is that it remains constant, which results in each family having only $50, assuming an even distribution.  This means that all goods/assets/wages have fallen by 50%...they have seen a deflation of 50%, yet the standard of living has remained constant.

The second scenario is to gradually increase the money supply to match the increasing population, assets, etc.  Interest payments need to be made on the outstanding money so that the real return is zero.  If the central bank does its job the money supply will have doubled by the time the island reaches 20 families.  The result is a doubling of the money supply and zero inflation (stable prices).

An expanding money supply is healthy and normal for a growing economy.

[MediumTex]

I've had this rattling around in my head for a bit:

There are 10 families living on an island.  The entire community has $1,000 evenly distributed between all ten families (each has $100).  This money is used as a medium of exchange to make trade easier.  After a few decades the population has increased, resulting in a total of 20 families.  The stand-of-living has remained constant.  There are two possible scenarios for the money supply.  The first is that it remains constant, which results in each family having only $50, assuming an even distribution.  This means that all goods/assets/wages have fallen by 50%...they have seen a deflation of 50%, yet the standard of living has remained constant.

The second scenario is to gradually increase the money supply to match the increasing population, assets, etc.  Interest payments need to be made on the outstanding money so that the real return is zero.  If the central bank does its job the money supply will have doubled by the time the island reaches 20 families.  The result is a doubling of the money supply and zero inflation (stable prices).

An expanding money supply is healthy and normal for a growing economy.

Yes, very much so.

When you squeeze all the politics and ideology out of the discussion, it's hard to say that money supply growth necessary to achieve price stability is a bad thing.

This gradual money supply growth is possible with a gold standard, but it can be hard when the economy is really rocking (especially with declining ore quality).

[Gumby]

Right. And think of how an unemployed segment of the population interacts with that island. In a sense, when a person is hired, they might as well be an immigrant to the island. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying and oversimplified example).

If you have a large group of unemployed people sitting around on the island, and you increase the money supply, demand for goods will increase. But, rather than raising prices, businesses will typically hire those unemployed people (i.e. increasing the productive capacity of the island) to meet the increased demand for goods so they can stay competitive — which would not normally result inflation.

The exception, of course, is when we look at natural resources where supply can't be increased.* However, it can make sense to exclude those constrained items from the CPI, as their measurements tend to be too volatile for decision making. If inflated natural resources become a drag on the economy, they eventually find their way into every product in the CPI surveys. Obviously consumers feel the bite of volatile natural resources that are in limited supply, but again, these tend to be highly volatile bites.

* It's worth mentioning that some people believe there is evidence that the supply of oil could easily be increased, but the supply is often artificially constrained to keep prices high. Some people believe that refineries always going offline too easily after big storms are one of those examples.

[Pointedstick]

Right. And think of how an unemployed segment of the population interacts with that island. In a sense, when a person is hired, they might as well be an immigrant to the island. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying and oversimplified example).

If you have a large group of unemployed people sitting around on the island, and you increase the money supply, demand for goods will increase. But, rather than raising prices, businesses will typically hire those unemployed people (i.e. increasing the productive capacity of the island) to meet the increased demand for goods so they can stay competitive — which would not normally result inflation.

Another exception is if the employed people are so indebted that they use their new money to pay down debt rather than buy more goods. Then the unemployed are still screwed no matter how much new money falls into everyone else's hands. I guess things could temporarily work out okay if it's the unemployed people who get the new money, but there's only so much they can do to increase aggregate demand on their own.

[Gumby]

Another exception is if the employed people are so indebted that they use their new money to pay down debt rather than buy more goods. Then the unemployed are still screwed no matter how much new money falls into everyone else's hands. I guess things could temporarily work out okay if it's the unemployed people who get the new money, but there's only so much they can do to increase aggregate demand on their own.

Exactly. That's what happened when the Bush administration sent out tax rebate checks to everybody. Most people used to it pay down private debt.

[Pointedstick]

Exactly. That's what happened when the Bush administration sent out tax rebate checks to everybody. Most people used to it pay down private debt.

Guilty as charged! I happily did my part to reduce the money supply. 

[notsheigetz]

My Permanent Portfolio is for the capital that I protect in a diversified portfolio. Chances of losing (and winning!) are close to zero.

http://europeanpermanentportfolio.blogs ... folio.html

What do you think of this sentence?

Do you feel that PP will just pay inflation?


Thank you and best regards.

I think it lacks at least one important piece of information - over what time frame?

Over the course of the rest of my life I think it will beat inflation. If I didn't I would be looking for something else but I'm not.

[Marc De Mesel]

Note that my estimate is not that since 2000 until 2011 there has been 7-8% inflation in the US, my estimate is that it has been around 5% (sorry to make it bold, not meant to scream but to imprint in the eyeball , 5.5% if you want me to be exact. However, since 1972, mostly because of exceptionally high inflation in the 70's my estimated inflation is indeed on average 7.5% in the US. The distinction between 'since 2000' and 'since 1972' is important.

Well, I think we can agree on the 2000-2011 period.  While I don't think inflation has been 5.5% since 2000, if it had been the PP still would have returned about 4.5% after inflation, which is what we are looking for. 

As for the 1972-2011 period, if inflation had been 7.5% across the board during that period I don't see how any of us could afford to buy anything (not to mention the fact that wages haven't increased anything like 7.5% per year since 1972). 

For example, in 1972 a new Corvette cost $5,472.00.  At 7.5% inflation, that car would cost $98,738.00 today.  How much does one actually cost today?  $49,600.

In 1972, a gallon of milk cost $1.20.  At 7.5% inflation, a gallon of milk would cost $21.65 today.  How much does a gallon of milk cost today?  Maybe $3.00.

In 1972, a gallon of gas cost $.36.  At 7.5% inflation, a gallon of gas would cost $6.50 today.  I filled up this morning for $2.99 a gallon.

Can you show me any product or service that has increased at 7.5% a year since 1972?  Even tuition at Harvard University (which is an expensive school in a sector that has seen dramatic inflation) has only increased at an annual rate of 6.5% over that period.

Hi MediumTex,

I did not find products or services with historical prices dating back to 1972.

I did find the following commodities, necessities and assets that went up in price around 7,5% per year:

Oil
End 1971 = $3.56 per barrel
End 2011 = $98.7 per barrel
Inflation: 8.66% per year

Gold
End 1971 = $38 / ounce
End 2011 = $1531 / ounce
Inflation: 9.68%

Silver
End 1971 = $0.27 / ounce
End 2011 = $28.18 / ounce
Inflation: 12.32%

Real Estate (Median Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States, http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf)
Dec 1971 = $25.300
Oct 2011 = $212.300
Inflation: 5.46%

Stocks (SP500)
End 1971 = 102.09
End 2011 = 1257.6
Inflation: 6.48%


Agreed, most other commodities (sugar, soybeans, cacoa, ...) went up only 3-4% per year since 1972 and indeed the milk you quoted even less.

The New Corvette however is also quite high:
End 1971 = $5,472
End 2011 = $49,600
Inflation: 5.67%


I agree with you my estimate of 7.5% inflation since 1972 is too high. I think 5.5% is more correct since 1972.

Thanks for helping me see that I was wrong.

What do you think of an estimate of 5.5% since 1972?

[frugal]

Marc De Mesel Marc De Mesel Marc De Mesel

depends of the country, take a look of this:






and for EURO ZONE:





Germany as fear of high inflation and control it in EU.

[MachineGhost]

What happened in Portugal between 1974 and 1985 to cause such high inflation?

[Pointedstick]

What happened in Portugal between 1974 and 1985 to cause such high inflation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Portuguese_Republic