| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The intellectual cesspool of the inflation truther Posted by: Perm Dude - [431013412] Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 20:32 And damn proud of it, too! | |||||||
| 31 | Boldwin ID: 86222917 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 18:40 |
Coffin meet nail Do a google search "disappointing christmas sales 20xx" and one by one input each year of Obama's presidency. - former store owner who understand the business cycle and the economy, Boldwin. Votes for Tea Party candidates may be sent to consumer confidence in lieu of flowers. | ||||||
| 32 | Pancho Villa ID: 2131916 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 19:18 | After reading #31, I see I should have posted #30 in the 'Making A Mockery Of Conservatism' thread, since that defines the reaction to current good economic news. | ||||||
| 33 | CanadianHack ID: 59652919 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 20:06 |
I tried Baldwin's game: Do a google search "disappointing christmas sales 20xx" and one by one input each year of Obama's presidency. Here are some results: 2010 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40822973/ns/business-holiday_retail/t/holiday-spending-nears-record-overtime/#.U9g1QmNIV94 2011 http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/28/pf/holiday_sales/ 2012 http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2013/1/2012-U.S.-Online-Holiday-Spending-Grows-14-Percent-vs-Year-Ago-to-42.3-Billion 2013 http://www.jckonline.com/2013/12/26/christmas-comes-in-strong-jewelers Granted I didn't look very hard but we have an article talking about how good the Christmas sales were each year. Quite a fitting contribution to an intellectual cesspool thread Baldwin. Thank you. | ||||||
| 34 | Boldwin ID: 86222917 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 20:11 | People are welcome to look over which are the predominant post-mortems. You can always find someone putting lipstick on their pig. | ||||||
| 35 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 21:38 | yep. Most of those "someones", being RWNJs. | ||||||
| 36 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 21:59 |
Forbes The common viewpoint is that Republicans are good for business, which is good for the economy. Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, lassaiz faire the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy. Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers. Right? Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done it in a great, easy to read book; “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (available at Amazon.com) Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America’s dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression. | ||||||
| 37 | Perm Dude ID: 586411123 Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 23:16 | There is no doubt that the Obama years have been good ones for business. Businesses rebounded very quickly from the recession and have enjoyed record profits virtually across the board. | ||||||
| 39 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 05:58 | It's not a matter of debate. If you don't believe simple facts, that's on you. Fox's truthiness has sold you a bill of goods. | ||||||
| 40 | Gator ID: 13521231 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 08:16 | Large businesses may love Obama, he ran off their competition. | ||||||
| 43 | Mith ID: 3692387 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 09:00 |
it is stated that one of the criteria for determining the economic success of a president was how much he equitably distributed the country's wealth among its people Isn't equitable distribution the same ultimate goal of both leftist and rightist economics? Alex Smith's Invisible Hand and all that? Or is a robust middle class now a new enemy of the American political right? It's so hard to keep up with all the stuff you guys are telling me I am supposed to hate. | ||||||
| 44 | Pancho Villa ID: 2131916 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 09:34 |
Economy Grows 4% in Spring The U.S. economy sprang back to life in second quarter and expanded at the fastest pace since last fall, fueled by a upturn in consumer spending on big-ticket items such as cars and trucks as well as a sharp rebound in business investment. Gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. — grew at a 4% annual clip in the second quarter, the government said Wednesday. Newly revised figures also show that the economy contracted by a somewhat smaller 2.1% in the first quarter instead of 2.9% as previously reported. Economists polled by MarketWatch predicted GDP would grow by a seasonally adjusted 3.2% in the April-to-June period. U.S. stock futures SPY +0.26% extended gains on the data. The rebound in growth offers further proof that a plunge in first-quarter GDP was an outlier. The economy contracted sharply in the first three months of the year mainly because of an unusually harsh winter and a decline in health-care spending tied to the introduction of Obamacare. Consumer spending, the main source of economic activity, accelerated to show a solid 2.5% gain after a meager 1.2% advance in the first quarter. Health-care spending, which fell early in the year to contribute to the big drop in U.S. growth, rose modestly in the spring. I recall when the term 'self-loathing' was acommonly used by conservatives to describe liberals. Currently, it's self-loathing conservatives who either ignore or complain about positive economic conditions, while cheering for market crashes, municipal bankruptcies, and defaulting pension systems, as if the only way to gain political power is to point to non-existent, or fixable economic conditions. Conservatives would be better served if their spokespersons concentrated on cheering for the positive aspects of the economy, offer positive approaches to make it even better, as well as signaling that they are willing to work within an increasingly diverse population to make a stronger and healthier nation. IOW, have faith in solid conservative principles instead of constantly whining about doomsday scenarios. | ||||||
| 45 | Gator ID: 13521231 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 10:47 |
Here is more of the review.."The chapters themselves are also heavily skewed toward the Democrats. Republican presidents are vilified in the text for everything from their upbringing and education to their campaign tactics, whereas Democrats are only lauded for their economic successes. I (full disclosure) am a staunch Democrat, and even I noticed the disparity; it is not subtle, and right-wing-leaning readers are going to pick it up and run with it. It has the effect of making the book seem like subjective propaganda." I quoted the reviewer. I assume she is talking about how the author grades on a scale instead of just giving the economic facts. The economy has done almost everything many predicted. A slow gain that is taking 6 years instead of 2. Capitalism still exists and the economy grows but nothing Obama has done has aided the economy. Now we have a potential stock market bubble burst and the largest debt of all previous years combined. You are wetting your pants with every economic upturn when we should of been booming 4 years ago.The stock market bubble will burst, history tells us that. That is not whining that is stating facts. Here is a chart with many of the economic indicators indicators It is a roller coaster ride with most barely trending up. Consumer confidence is going up but only after a an old time low point. There was no where else for it to go. Unemployment looks good until you see how many are part time as shown in this chart.. part time Mexico has 0 unemployment and this the model the socialist here are following. Obama has made part time the route for most businesses to take. It is embarrassing how slow the economy is recovering. | ||||||
| 46 | Perm Dude ID: 586411123 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 10:52 |
I don't believe that What fact, specifically, do you disbelieve? The rest of your posts are a mishmash of found statistics, whereby "consumer confidence" (which stems, in part, from disposable income not being paid to them from companies making record profits) should outweigh other factors like interest rates, trade volume, energy costs, and so forth. The fact that you throw around the word "socialist" to refer to people here reveals you don't understand either. | ||||||
| 47 | Gator ID: 13521231 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 11:29 |
so·cial·ism noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. synonyms: leftism, welfarism; policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. synonyms: leftism, welfarism; (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Every post by the liberals on economics fit the above description. Show me one post were you or the others have taken a pro-business stance. | ||||||
| 48 | Mith ID: 3692387 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 12:24 |
If you insist on a loose enough definition of "regulated by" then 99% of Americans are socialists. I don't know anyone who believes the means of production and distribution should be communally owned. There are almost no pure socialists or pure capitalists. The differences are where we individually set the bar. To turn it into a black and white (you're a socialist or you're not) paradigm is to dumb down the concepts and discussion into useless talking points. | ||||||
| 49 | Gator ID: 13521231 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 12:52 | Sarge and Bean believe it. | ||||||
| 50 | Mith ID: 21130811 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 13:19 |
I'm not aware of any posts from either of them endorsing full state ownership of production and distribution but they can respond to that themselves. I recall now that I have met at least two people who feel that way, at an Occupy event a couple of years ago. One was handing out socialist newspapers and his friend spoke at the event. Both were met with indifference by the group. In my experience even the far left are not socialism fundamentalists in the way that much of the far right (particularly the libertarian right) are capitalism fundamentalists. | ||||||
| 51 | Mith ID: 21130811 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 13:45 |
I realize I appear to have contradicted myself. I don't believe there are many capitalism fundamentalists. But there is undoubtedly a very large portion of the political right that espouses that sort of fundamentalist rhetoric. Generally I think these people like public parks and traffic signs and fire departments and don't understand (or at least aren't thinking about) what they are saying when they insist that socialism is evil. I suspect Gator resides firmly in this group. | ||||||
| 52 | Pancho Villa ID: 2131916 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 14:19 |
It is embarrassing how slow the economy is recovering. Now we have a potential stock market bubble burst Rarely have we been blessed with someone so clueless. | ||||||
| 53 | Pancho Villa ID: 2131916 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 14:43 |
For those who don't comprehend #52, allow me to expand. Capitalists are, generally speaking, investors. Not only have they recovered from the market low point in 1st quarter 2009, they are reaping annual gains in the 12-20% range. While some prognostigators insist on calling the current market level a bubble, the fundamentals tell a different story. Earnings are strong, P/E ratios are sane, and consumer confidence is up. History tells us the market will experience a correction, which is completely different than a bubble burst. The economic recovery has been much slower for the class referred to by our resident whiners as 'socialists.' | ||||||
| 54 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 14:52 | #49...yet another effort to ASSIGN a position, vs understand a position. | ||||||
| 55 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 14:59 | FTR...I have never once, advocated communal ownership of production or distribution. Communal REGULATION? Abso-fkn-lutely. Communal OWNERSHIP? Not so much. | ||||||
| 56 | biliruben ID: 105572020 Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 16:03 |
So you agin' pinko commie "socialists", eh wot gatorbait? Explain to us what you are FOR. Free and unregulated markets? The market solution is the only solution? Or do you think that there may be situations, theoretically of course, where regulation might be appropriate? Where a competitive market place might not be achieveable? | ||||||
| 58 | Gator ID: 13521231 Thu, Jul 31, 2014, 05:05 |
Obama is making history.Since the Great Depression, never has consumer confidence been sub 100 for 8 years. Never have we had this high a percentage of part time workers. Never have we had this high of unemployment for this long. Never has the national debt been even close to this high. Never has the GDP taken this long to recover, in fact Obama had the worse record of GDP growth in 60 years.Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years ...."In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak." And they were mostly full time jobs. "Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. "In the 10 post depression recessions before President Obama, the economy recovered the lost GDP during the recession within an average of 4.5 quarters after the recession started. But it took Obama’s recovery 16 quarters, or 4 years, to reach that point. Today, 21 quarters, or 5 plus years, after the recession started, the economy (real GDP) has grown just 3.2% above where it was when the recession started. By sharp contrast, at this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy had boomed by 18.6%, almost one fifth. "Even Jimmy Carter produced 4 times as much economic growth during his one term as Obama did during his entire first term. In fact, as Anderson notes, real GDP growth under Obama has been the worst of any President in the last 60 years!" I thought Jimmy Carter was the worse president in history, Obama tops him. " Despite his rhetoric, Obama has failed to deliver for the poor as well. But we know Obama loves the poor, because he has created so many of them. Indeed, the only thing booming under Obamanomics has been poverty. Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking poverty. Over the last 5 years, the number in poverty has increased by nearly 31%, to 49.7 million, with the poverty rate climbing by over 30% to 16.1%. This is another natural result of negligible economic growth, paltry job creation, declining real wages, and the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. The Wall Street Adviser has the true unemployment rate at 37 percent, which sounds high to even me, but it is closer the the Fed's numbers. source I know liberals like to be right, but are you willing to let the American economy collapse just so you can keep your failed liberal agenda. | ||||||
| 59 | Pancho Villa ID: 2131916 Thu, Jul 31, 2014, 10:11 |
Since the Great Depression The key phrase, since there hasn't been nearly as severe an economic crisis for any president between 1930 and 2008. Additionally, the opinion piece in #58 is over a year old(6/02/13), so whatever data used to form that opinion is obsolete for a conversation in July 2014. And when the author claims, with an addendum from Gator, "Even Jimmy Carter produced 4 times as much economic growth during his one term as Obama did during his entire first term. In fact, as Anderson notes, real GDP growth under Obama has been the worst of any President in the last 60 years!" I thought Jimmy Carter was the worse president in history, Obama tops him it's not an economic opinion piece, it's a political opinion piece, and a totally biased opinion piece at that. are you willing to let the American economy collapse Since your use of 'liberals' seems to include anyone who has a positive outlook on the economy, and your use of words like 'collapse' and 'destroy' are designed to elicit emotional responses as opposed to rational ones, I dismiss the entire post as functionally irrelevant. | ||||||
| 60 | Perm Dude ID: 586411123 Thu, Jul 31, 2014, 20:49 |
I doubt that that particular opinion piece author would have changed his mind, PV, even with newer information. Here's a column of his from just last month: Linking the Dollar to Gold: Completing The Recipe For Restoring An Economic Boom For America Like many on the Right, he's more interested in only the fact that supports his conclusions. | ||||||
| 61 | Gator ID: 13521231 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 01:21 |
It does not matter the link is from last year as the economy has been stagnant for a year. Normally the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. So your claim that the severity of the recession is grounds for this slow recovery fails flat. It is convenient that the emotional words justifies you calling the post irrelevant. You cannot argue rationally about the facts of the post, so you disregard it. Liberals feel they have the moral high ground on moderates, that they care more about people. When the truth is the opposite .They would rather see poverty increase then admit their failings. I have no fondness for the rich, but I understand the important role they play in a capitalist society. Woodrow Wilson taxed the wealthy 77% of their income, FDR 75%. This contributed to the most severe depression in history. You say non-liberals should quit whining about Obama and be excited about every small increase in the economy. I disagree, it was silence and apathy that allowed economically the worse president in 60 years to be reelected. Since you claim to be so rational, address the points , if you can, in post 58. | ||||||
| 62 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 01:31 |
Eisenhower taxed the rich 94%, and we saw the fastest growing middle class in the history of mankind. You are cherry picking again, still? | ||||||
| 63 | Perm Dude ID: 586411123 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 02:18 |
"Normally" is not happening here, because the people who most help us through to a recovery aren't getting their normal raises that come with increased productivity. The GOP wants us to consumer-spend our way to recovery, and yet refuse to put more money into the hands of those working harder than ever and not getting paid as a result. Nevertheless, consumer confidence is at a six-year high As noted elsewhere, historically, from 1967 until 2013, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index averaged 93.71. So we're just a shade under the historical average. Sadly for the Far Right, consumer confidence and the economy are going in the right direction despite their efforts at sabotage and doomsaying for political purposes. | ||||||
| 64 | Gator ID: 13521231 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 06:05 |
Sarge, I have heard that before and what the rich actually paid was closer to 49% in 1953 and went down to 31% by 1960. Those making over 100k shouldered about 5% of the tax burden compared to 72% today. Actual Taxes Paid "It's getting better, it's getting better." It's the slowest gain in 60 years after a recession. The only sabotage is what Obama has done to the recovery. This slow recovery is all on liberal policy. If you want to call it doomsaying then so be it. We need more of it to educate the people that you can not elect a socialist/liberal and there not be economic consequences. | ||||||
| 65 | Mith ID: 3692387 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 06:15 |
“It's really straightforward why we have low employment now,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, which looks out for the interests of workers. “Business executives and owners are smart. They will hire exactly the amount of labor needed to fulfill demand for their goods and services.” | ||||||
| 66 | Gator ID: 13521231 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 08:17 |
Mith, tell your president. Obama has spent more than every president put together. I agreed with a stimulus package the first year and would of loved to seen it spent primarily on infrastructure. Many say the unemployment is closer to 37%. Obama has changed us into a nation of part time workers. | ||||||
| 67 | Mith ID: 3692387 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 08:41 |
Obama has changed us into a nation of part time workers. You obviously didn't read the column. | ||||||
| 68 | Mith ID: 3692387 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 08:48 | A two-second look at the graph in the piece will show that it is clearly not President Obama who is responsible for the surge in part time workers as a percentage of the employed. | ||||||
| 69 | Mith ID: 3692387 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 09:13 |
Also, this statement: Obama has spent more than every president put together. Displays either embarrassing ignorance of how the current budget came to be or a blatant disregard for earnest discussion. | ||||||
| 70 | biliruben ID: 21841115 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 10:03 |
No, PD. First god said "Let there be light, and there was light." The that devil Kenyan was elected, and he looked askance at the heroic job creators. They grew angry and nervous and stopped investing in their companies, and our country was destroyed. Makes much more sense than silly "aggregate demand" nonsense. | ||||||
| 71 | Pancho Villa ID: 2131916 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 10:07 |
Displaying embarrassing ignorance is Gator's primary skill when it comes to discussing the economy. To wit: "It's getting better, it's getting better." This is one of the few true statements offered, although it's meant to be a negative. It's the slowest gain in 60 years after a recession. It's the worst recession in 60 years. Comparing the recovery to prior, less severe recessions is comparing apples to oranges. The only sabotage is what Obama has done to the recovery. This slow recovery is all on liberal policy. You keep regurgitating these political talking points, but have never backed them up with economic realities. That would require detailing what liberal policy has slowed the recovery, as opposed to simply providing an opinion. If you want to call it doomsaying then so be it. I prefer to call it political hackery, long on emotional rhetoric; short on details and specifics. We need more of it to educate the people that you can not elect a socialist/liberal and there not be economic consequences. That's a political statement that serves to educate no one as far as economics are concerned. Dismissing positive economic conditions for purely political purposes is not educational, not capitalistic and not conservative. I'm a business owner, a homeowner, an investor in stocks and bonds and a political independent and an avowed capitalist. It would be refreshing if some others who consider themselves avowed capitalists to start acting like it. | ||||||
| 72 | sarge33rd ID: 47714111 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 12:15 |
Gator...that is true. Few if any actually paid the top tax rate of 94%. Why? Because they didnt hoard the cash and take it for themselves. Instead, they reinvested in their companies and grew them. Grew employment, paid a realistic wage and stimulated demand. (You know, capitalism) Today company leadership (international corporate types), dont do that. They DO hoard the cash for themselves, they refuse to pay a realistic wage which would stimulate demand, and then they count on folks like yourself to feel sorry for them and blame someone else. One of the biggest lies the GOP has successfully told, is that liberals are bad for and against business/profit. Those two claims/allegations, are simply put...patently false lies. | ||||||
| 73 | Mith ID: 21130811 Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 14:21 |
The economy was structured differently at the top. As I understand, few people paid it because few people had salaried incomes in the highest brackets. The investor class paid capital gains taxes on the bulk of their income. Though for the record the flat rate capital gains tax through most of the 20th century was 33% higher than today. Either way, today's wealthy get a sweet deal from the IRS compared to the the period when America's economy achieved and maintained the status of best in the world in almost every regard. | ||||||
| 74 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 10:53 | good article, whose charts clearly debunk almost every GOP economic talking point..... | ||||||
| 75 | sarge33rd ID: 288481517 Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 18:48 |
Case Study in a min wage hike n January, the town of Seatac, Washington, put in to effect a new $15 per hour Minimum Wage. No ramp ups, no tiered implementation. One day it was the state standard, the next, the highest minimum wage in the nation. The Koch Brothers sank a fortune to fight this measure, which fell on deaf ears as the town rejected their trickle-down theories and instead voted for the measure. The result is that for one town, they became a test bed, to put the theories behind trickle-down economics to the test. Now, nine months on, we are witnessing one of the most dramatic recoveries in the Pacific Northwest. Proof, of what transpires when you put cash, in the hands of the working class. EXACTLY, what we progressives claimed....EXACTLY. | ||||||
| 76 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 22:28 | Seattle followed suit, though it's gonna take a few years to get to the full $15. | ||||||
| 77 | Bean ID: 5292191 Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 16:23 |
Washington State's affluence may allow $15/hr minimum wage, but it may not translate as well elsewhere. Detractors cite Seatac's unique location near an airport with a captive audience as one reason why it may be a special case. Without a growing economy, or increasing sales at a particular company, raising the minimum wage will result in one or more of the following actions by the company owners who employ minimum wage earners: 1) Raise prices at the risk of lost sales 2) Reduce profits or the salaries of non-minimum wage earners to cover cost increases 3) Require more productivity from employees with a corresponding reduction of the work force 4) Close up shop because the business model is no longer viable Most likely scenario is some combination of the four, should doubling the minimum wage occur in a stagnate or shrinking local economy. It's simple mathematics. Ceterus Peribus, of course. Though I am always an advocate of the working man, I hope the success in Seatac does not embolden others to demand the same in their own local situation. It may be suicidal. Related case in point, UAW. | ||||||
| 78 | Perm Dude ID: 431013412 Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 22:25 |
UAW was far, far more than minimum wage. Overall worker production is very high but wages remain flat, corporate profits are at an all-time high, stock markets are *way* up, and the wealth gap continues to grow. Meanwhile, money velocity is low while the economy is barely chugging along as a result. This is an economy custom made for the economic jolt of a minimum wage increase. | ||||||
| 79 | Bean ID: 5292191 Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 11:51 | No problem with a min wage increase PD, in fact I think it is the right thing. Doubling it is a bit drastic though | ||||||
| 80 | biliruben ID: 81382416 Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 12:05 |
| ||||||
| 81 | Perm Dude ID: 431013412 Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 14:57 |
I think a phased-in increase would sidestep many of the objections about the amount of the increase. And would allow businesses to plan better. As a trade off, I would ban businesses from doing this: | ||||||
| 82 | biliruben ID: 81382416 Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 20:28 |
Prick didn't tip. That's another thing the businesses were trying to do in Seattle - include tips as part of the wage. Another dick move. | ||||||
| 83 | nerveclinic ID: 8832812 Wed, Sep 24, 2014, 04:12 |
I haven't read the thread. Just the original article. I think there are two points worth noting, both on opposite sides of the argument. This article focuses on current inflation, that isn't really the concern, it's future inflation once the economy is back to normal. That is what many economist are really worried about, how to contain it. Will the Fed put the brakes on fast enough to stop inflation once the economy is healthy. The second point in favor of the easing is that things were so bad, the Fed was trying to prevent Deflation, which is considered by many economists to be worse then inflation. Witness the completely stagnant economy of Japan over the last 20+ years. Also Europe is currently flirting with deflation. These are both important points not addressed in a quick read of the article and only time will tell which is the bigger concern in the end. | ||||||
| 84 | biliruben ID: 561162511 Wed, Sep 24, 2014, 12:50 |
I could use some tasty inflation right now. Maybe 4-5% would be about right to start making this mortgage look less onerous. Unfortunately, in a liquidity trap, ain't gonna happen. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: The intellectual cesspool of the inflation truther | ||||||||