with Summers', slightly less with Krugman's, and still evident in Baker's analyses is a basic mischaracterization of inflation. They all seem to miss the fact that commodity inflation has been rampant at the end of every bubble. Yes, it's primarily based in cost/price increases in fossil fuels; and, yes, that is also a function of the EROI of production.

To say, however, that inflation is low is a class-unconscious attitude. (And Greenspan, the minister of bubbles, was class-conscious enough to 'reform' the U.S. inflation-statistics' terms in 1983 in order to hide the class nature of inflation in the real economy.) Electronics, lumber, and real real-estate prices were deflated; fuel, food, clothing, postage, tire prices inflated - especially during the recent Depression. Who buys the largest portions from which categories? We plebeians buy - have to buy - the more inflated products, along with the odd computer now and then.

Ultimately, this differential is another factor in the transfer of wealth from the masses to the new aristocracy. The hub is, of course, the petroleum oligopoly. The rise in all commodities' prices serve the rise in the petroleum companies' profits. This also influences - in my opinion - the bounds of the discussions by Summers and the rest. They cannot discuss carbon or commodity prices or peak-fossil-fuel-energy in terms of effects on their models, because their worldview is bounded by consumption.

One observation - I read the comments at both the Krugman and Baker sites. For what it's worth, the overwhelming majority of them contained insights such as those described above.

paul spencer