And TV prices are down -98% over the same time. Efficiency gains in some sectors distort those without gains. Effectively, the lower prices of some goods mean a larger pool money chasing goods without the same effinciency gains. More money chasing constrained supply means prices in those sectors rise faster.
It's easy to fix, but no one is willing to tax electronics at 10,000%. It would mean fewer dollars chasing supply constrained services like healthcare, education, and childcare. The cure is probably worse than the disease.
The cheapest TV at Best Buy is $60; if this is after a 98% price drop the cheapest TV in 2000 would’ve been $3000. (If you were a child or not yet born back then: TVs were not that expensive.) Rather, the size/quality floor has increased in a way that allows a facile analysis to claim a 98% reduction in price by comparing (eg) the cost of a top of the line plasma TV from 2000 to a cheap LED TV of the same size today.
Why are you trying to maximize dollar extraction from the consumer via taxing something cheaper, rather than, I don't know, doing something about the sector hoovering up those dollars under the guise of "leave no dollar on the table?
And don't tell me it can't work. If that can't work, it makes no sense to harm the electronics with a 10000% tax. At that point you're just drawing a line and saying "Poor people shouldn't have nice things. Let them die."
Economics 101 also notes that your view is still quite lacking, as the Baumol effect is far from being settled as 100% the bloody cause, as there is significant non-supply side effects that may account for shifts from the progressive sectors to the stagnant sectors, not the least of which being off-shoring.
The dismal science continues to deliver hand waving and prognostications more than satisfactory answers.
reply