I really don't think you did.

You said prices are "up around 50%" for food, gas, clothing etc. I asked you for evidence of this specific claim, and you told me to do my own googling to find it, providing only a single link from a news story that cited exactly two annual number for price increases, those being a 10.2 rise in dairy prices and a 33.3% rise in gas prices.

In what universe does that count as support for an increase of "around 50%" over three years? Suppose I offered you an investment opportunity and promised you a rate of return of 50% over three years. You give me some money, and I come back in a few years and say "well, I got you 33% from oil company stocks and 10.2% from dairy industry stocks, but the overall rate of return was in the single digits." You'd say I over-promised and under-delivered on the investment.

My core argument is simpler than just volatility and cherry-picking the time window -- you have also provided no support for your 50% number, and have only shown double-digit rises in prices within a very small number of commodities (gas and dairy products.)

I totally concede the point that prices are rising higher within certain sectors and commodoties, but you significantly overstated your claim of a much greater rise within those volatile sectors. Further, I do think the volatility argument has merit, especially with the gas prices.and you've provided no evidence to the contrary.

I'm happy to engage in a higher-level discussion of the relative evils of inflation and deflation with you, but before we do that, we need to at least agree on the problem we're trying to solve. It's widely understood that the Fed is pursuing an inflation target in the low single digits, and all evidence now points to them meeting that target, even if it spikes higher within specific months in specific sectors.

Our economy has a LOT of problems. Inflation barely makes the list.