zero hedge makes good points now and then, but he gets way to obsessed over certain things. One thing is inflation, like in this piece. He, and many like him, take the stance that inflation is in and of itself evil and a tool for the confiscation of wealth by those in power.
While, I can't disagree 100% of that, these guys always miss out on the most important point of the Fed's (and other central banks) inflation policy, which is essentially that a small amount of consistent inflation is a good thing.
And for once, the Fed is right. The reason is not the inflation part of that statement, it's the consistent part. It's virtually impossible to keep the value of currency stagnant over any long term period. At best you get fluctuations above and below a constant (similar to the US in the 19th century).
And when you have inconsistency, the cost of borrowing goes up. Further, if you have inflation for a while, then deflation for a while, anyone with debt gets absolutely destroyed during the deflationary period. Small businesses (the number one wealth creator in the US) get particularly hit hard as they tend to run at very thin margins. Pundits like mr. zero hedge say 'then default!', completely ignoring the fact that when they default, any residual equity they have is likely gone and with their credit shot, they'll likely be unable to get funding again.
So while high inflation is extremely bad too, as it destroys the value of cash and fixed savings, the risk posed by the inconsistency people like him would like to see is every bit as dangerous.
Also, in this particularly post discussing dual parent incomes, he completely ignores the rampant materialism in the US that accounts for a lot of that 'necessity.' In 1964, we didn't have cable, cell phones (and not just one, but now one for every family member), fast food on every corner, most families had one TV IF THAT, internet, etc.
If he wanted to be intellectually honest (a rarity on zero hedge), he'd compare the amount of wages spent on actual necessities in 1964 against what it is today. While there may have been a decline in the real wages of workers, it would not be anywhere near what his graph looks like.