Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 799284 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
To beat inflation we need growth not economic shrinkage
« Reply #2150 on: July 02, 2022, 08:29:25 AM »
Prof. Art Laffer, Stephen Moore, ctup, wsj

https://www.wsj.com/articles/growth-austerity-inflation-larry-summers-unemployment-prices-jobs-rates-11656596482?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
--------------------
(Doug). Subscription required so I can't read it.

As has been posted on these threads, the huge growth rate of M2 has now been curtailed but the growth of producing more goods and services needs to be accelerated on steroids. That happens with incentives, known as reducing the government imposed disincentives to produce, energy sector first, and the food sector as a result.

Just because Biden and the Democrats refuse to do what needs to be done doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting it out there in detail. Offer the country an alternative even if it's not a presidential election year, or it won't get done then either during the mudslinging and food fights we call campaigns.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2022, 08:39:04 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, to beat inflation we need growth not shrinkage
« Reply #2151 on: July 02, 2022, 08:32:03 AM »
Way too late in the game.

We will have to rebuild after the collapse.

If we aren't nuked off the planet.


Art laffer, Stephen Moore, ctup, wsj

https://www.wsj.com/articles/growth-austerity-inflation-larry-summers-unemployment-prices-jobs-rates-11656596482?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
--------------------
(Doug). Subscription required so I can't read it.

As has been posted on these threads, the huge growth rate of M2 has now been curtailed but the growth of producing more goods and services needs to be accelerated on steroids. That happens with incentives, known as reducing the government imposed disincentives to produce, energy sector first, and the food sector as a result.

Just because Biden and the Democrats refuse to do what needs to be done doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing it in detail. Offer the country and alternative even if it's not a presidential election year, or it won't get done then either.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, to beat inflation we need growth not shrinkage
« Reply #2152 on: July 02, 2022, 08:44:37 AM »
Wrong.  The collapse following surrender to the Left and deep state, if/when it happens, is into statism, not economic liberty.  It won't get better in our lifetimes if you/we don't try to save it now.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, to beat inflation we need growth not shrinkage
« Reply #2153 on: July 02, 2022, 08:49:34 AM »
People are building a parallel economy. There is no surrender, it's called working around planning accordingly.




Wrong.  The collapse following surrender to the Left and deep state, if/when it happens, is into statism, not economic liberty.  It won't get better in our lifetimes if you/we don't try to save it now.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Parallel economy
« Reply #2154 on: July 02, 2022, 09:09:06 AM »
https://www.paralleleconomy.com/

https://help.gab.com/article/gab-pay-overview


https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/28/the-shadow-superpower/

The Shadow Superpower
Forget China: the $10 trillion global black market is the world's fastest growing economy -- and its future.
By Robert Neuwirth
TED ALJIBE/AFP/Getty Images
TED ALJIBE/AFP/Getty Images
TED ALJIBE/AFP/Getty Images
OCTOBER 28, 2011, 9:16 PM
With only a mobile phone and a promise of money from his uncle, David Obi did something the Nigerian government has been trying to do for decades: He figured out how to bring electricity to the masses in Africa’s most populous country.

It wasn’t a matter of technology. David is not an inventor or an engineer, and his insights into his country’s electrical problems had nothing to do with fancy photovoltaics or turbines to harness the harmattan or any other alternative sources of energy. Instead, 7,000 miles from home, using a language he could hardly speak, he did what traders have always done: made a deal. He contracted with a Chinese firm near Guangzhou to produce small diesel-powered generators under his uncle’s brand name, Aakoo, and shipped them home to Nigeria, where power is often scarce. David’s deal, struck four years ago, was not massive — but it made a solid profit and put him on a strong footing for success as a transnational merchant. Like almost all the transactions between Nigerian traders and Chinese manufacturers, it was also sub rosa: under the radar, outside of the view or control of government, part of the unheralded alternative economic universe of System D.

 

You probably have never heard of System D. Neither had I until I started visiting street markets and unlicensed bazaars around the globe.

Expand your perspective with unlimited access to FP.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

System D is a slang phrase pirated from French-speaking Africa and the Caribbean. The French have a word that they often use to describe particularly effective and motivated people. They call them débrouillards. To say a man is a débrouillard is to tell people how resourceful and ingenious he is. The former French colonies have sculpted this word to their own social and economic reality. They say that inventive, self-starting, entrepreneurial merchants who are doing business on their own, without registering or being regulated by the bureaucracy and, for the most part, without paying taxes, are part of “l’economie de la débrouillardise.” Or, sweetened for street use, “Systeme D.” This essentially translates as the ingenuity economy, the economy of improvisation and self-reliance, the do-it-yourself, or DIY, economy. A number of well-known chefs have also appropriated the term to describe the skill and sheer joy necessary to improvise a gourmet meal using only the mismatched ingredients that happen to be at hand in a kitchen.

I like the phrase. It has a carefree lilt and some friendly resonances. At the same time, it asserts an important truth: What happens in all the unregistered markets and roadside kiosks of the world is not simply haphazard. It is a product of intelligence, resilience, self-organization, and group solidarity, and it follows a number of well-worn though unwritten rules. It is, in that sense, a system.

It used to be that System D was small — a handful of market women selling a handful of shriveled carrots to earn a handful of pennies. It was the economy of desperation. But as trade has expanded and globalized, System D has scaled up too. Today, System D is the economy of aspiration. It is where the jobs are. In 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a think tank sponsored by the governments of 30 of the most powerful capitalist countries and dedicated to promoting free-market institutions, concluded that half the workers of the world — close to 1.8 billion people — were working in System D: off the books, in jobs that were neither registered nor regulated, getting paid in cash, and, most often, avoiding income taxes.

Kids selling lemonade from the sidewalk in front of their houses are part of System D. So are many of the vendors at stoop sales, flea markets, and swap meets. So are the workers who look for employment in the parking lots of Home Depot and Lowe’s throughout the United States. And it’s not only cash-in-hand labor. As with David Obi’s deal to bring generators from China to Nigeria, System D is multinational, moving all sorts of products — machinery, mobile phones, computers, and more — around the globe and creating international industries that help billions of people find jobs and services.

In many countries — particularly in the developing world — System D is growing faster than any other part of the economy, and it is an increasing force in world trade. But even in developed countries, after the financial crisis of 2008-09, System D was revealed to be an important financial coping mechanism. A 2009 study by Deutsche Bank, the huge German commercial lender, suggested that people in the European countries with the largest portions of their economies that were unlicensed and unregulated — in other words, citizens of the countries with the most robust System D — fared better in the economic meltdown of 2008 than folks living in centrally planned and tightly regulated nations. Studies of countries throughout Latin America have shown that desperate people turned to System D to survive during the most recent financial crisis.

This spontaneous system, ruled by the spirit of organized improvisation, will be crucial for the development of cities in the 21st century. The 20th-century norm — the factory worker who nests at the same firm for his or her entire productive life — has become an endangered species. In China, the world’s current industrial behemoth, workers in the massive factories have low salaries and little job security. Even in Japan, where major corporations have long guaranteed lifetime employment to full-time workers, a consensus is emerging that this system is no longer sustainable in an increasingly mobile and entrepreneurial world.

READ MORE

Women work at a sweatshop sewing clothes under contract with local clothing manufacturers in Manila, the Philippines, on July 12, 2013.
Women work at a sweatshop sewing clothes under contract with local clothing manufacturers in Manila, the Philippines, on July 12, 2013.
‘We Need a New Vision in Development’
World Bank chief economist Pinelopi Goldberg says equality can’t be an afterthought in plans for economic growth.

Q&A | MICHAEL HIRSH
GettyImages-505325038
GettyImages-505325038
Even China-Backed Development Bank Won’t Touch Coal Projects
The World Bank rival says it will only fund environmentally-friendly projects.

THE CABLE | DAVID FRANCIS
GERMANY:German Chancellor Adolf Hitler (L) standing in a convertible Mercedes reviews SA and SS troops and wellwishers in 1937 somewhere in Germany. (Photo credit should read AFP/Getty Images)
GERMANY:German Chancellor Adolf Hitler (L) standing in a convertible Mercedes reviews SA and SS troops and wellwishers in 1937 somewhere in Germany. (Photo credit should read AFP/Getty Images)
The Developing World Thinks Hitler Is Underrated
In the West, the Nazi Führer is thought of as a genocidal maniac — everywhere else, he’s considered a political inspiration.

ARGUMENT | DAVID CLAY LARGE
 

So what kind of jobs will predominate? Part-time work, a variety of self-employment schemes, consulting, moonlighting, income patching. By 2020, the OECD projects, two-thirds of the workers of the world will be employed in System D. There’s no multinational, no Daddy Warbucks or Bill Gates, no government that can rival that level of job creation. Given its size, it makes no sense to talk of development, growth, sustainability, or globalization without reckoning with System D.

The growth of System D presents a series of challenges to the norms of economics, business, and governance — for it has traditionally existed outside the framework of trade agreements, labor laws, copyright protections, product safety regulations, antipollution legislation, and a host of other political, social, and environmental policies. Yet there’s plenty that’s positive, too. In Africa, many cities — Lagos, Nigeria, is a good example — have been propelled into the modern era through System D, because legal businesses don’t find enough profit in bringing cutting- edge products to the third world. China has, in part, become the world’s manufacturing and trading center because it has been willing to engage System D trade. Paraguay, small, landlocked, and long dominated by larger and more prosperous neighbors, has engineered a decent balance of trade through judicious smuggling. The digital divide may be a concern, but System D is spreading technology around the world at prices even poor people can afford. Squatter communities may be growing, but the informal economy is bringing commerce and opportunity to these neighborhoods that are off the governmental grid. It distributes products more equitably and cheaply than any big company can. And, even as governments around the world are looking to privatize agencies and get out of the business of providing for people, System D is running public services — trash pickup, recycling, transportation, and even utilities.

Just how big is System D? Friedrich Schneider, chair of the economics department at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, has spent decades calculating the dollar value of what he calls the shadow economies of the world. He admits his projections are imprecise, in part because, like privately held businesses everywhere, businesspeople who engage in trade off the books don’t want to open their books (most successful System D merchants are obsessive about profit and loss and keep detailed accounts of their revenues and expenses in old-fashioned ledger books) to anyone who will write anything in a book. And there’s a definitional problem as well, because the border between the shadow and the legal economies is blurry. Does buying some of your supplies from an unlicensed dealer put you in the shadows, even if you report your profit and pay your taxes? How about hiding just $1 in income from the government, though the rest of your business is on the up-and-up? And how about selling through System D even if your business is in every other way in compliance with the law? Finding a firm dividing line is not easy, as Keith Hart, who was among the first academics to acknowledge the importance of street markets to the economies of the developing world, warned me in a recent conversation: “It’s very difficult to separate the nice African ladies selling oranges on the street and jiggling their babies on their backs from the Indian gangsters who control the fruit trade and who they have to pay rent to.”

Schneider suggests, however, that, in making his estimates, he has this covered. He screens out all money made through “illegal actions that fit the characteristics of classical crimes like burglary, robbery, drug dealing, etc.” This means that the big-time criminals are likely out of his statistics, though those gangsters who control the fruit market are likely in, as long as they’re not involved in anything more nefarious than running a price-fixing cartel. Also, he says, his statistics do not count “the informal household economy.” This means that if you’re putting buckles on belts in your home for a bit of extra cash from a company owned by your cousin, you’re in, but if you’re babysitting your cousin’s kids while she’s off putting buckles on belts at her factory, you’re out.

Schneider presents his numbers as a percentage of the total market value of goods and services made in each country that same year — each nation’s gross domestic product. His data show that System D is on the rise. In the developing world, it’s been increasing every year since the 1990s, and in many countries it’s growing faster than the officially recognized gross domestic product (GDP). If you apply his percentages (Schneider’s most recent report, published in 2006, uses economic data from 2003) to the World Bank’s GDP estimates, it’s possible to make a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the approximate value of the billions of underground transactions around the world. And it comes to this: The total value of System D as a global phenomenon is close to $10 trillion. Which makes for another astonishing revelation. If System D were an independent nation, united in a single political structure — call it the United Street Sellers Republic (USSR) or, perhaps, Bazaaristan — it would be an economic superpower, the second-largest economy in the world (the United States, with a GDP of $14 trillion, is numero uno). The gap is narrowing, though, and if the United States doesn’t snap out of its current funk, the USSR/Bazaaristan could conceivably catch it sometime this century.

In other words, System D looks a lot like the future of the global economy. All over the world — from San Francisco to São Paulo, from New York City to Lagos — people engaged in street selling and other forms of unlicensed trade told me that they could never have established their businesses in the legal economy. “I’m totally off the grid,” one unlicensed jewelry designer told me. “It was never an option to do it any other way. It never even crossed my mind. It was financially absolutely impossible.” The growth of System D opens the market to those who have traditionally been shut out.

This alternative economic system also offers the opportunity for large numbers of people to find work. No job-cutting or outsourcing is going on here. Rather, a street market boasts dozens of entrepreneurs selling similar products and scores of laborers doing essentially the same work. An economist would likely deride all this duplicated work as inefficient. But the level of competition on the street keeps huge numbers of people employed. It liberates their entrepreneurial energy. And it offers them the opportunity to move up in the world.

In São Paulo, Édison Ramos Dattora, a migrant from the rural midlands, has succeeded in the nation’s commercial capital by working as a camelô — an unlicensed street vendor. He started out selling candies and chocolates on the trains, and is now in a more lucrative branch of the street trade — retailing pirate DVDs of first-run movies to commuters around downtown. His underground trade — he has to watch out for the cops wherever he goes — has given his family a standard of living he never dreamed possible: a bank account, a credit card, an apartment in the center of town, and enough money to take a trip to Europe.

Even in the most difficult and degraded situations, System D merchants are seeking to better their lives. For instance, the garbage dump would be the last place you would expect to be a locus of hope and entrepreneurship. But Lagos scavenger Andrew Saboru has pulled himself out of the trash heap and established himself as a dealer in recycled materials. On his own, with no help from the government or any NGOs or any bank (Andrew has a bank account, but his bank will never loan him money — because his enterprise is unlicensed and unregistered and depends on the unpredictable labor of culling recyclable material from the megacity’s massive garbage pile), he has climbed the career ladder. “Lagos is a city for hustling,” he told me. “If you have an idea and you are serious and willing to work, you can make money here. I believe the future is bright.” It took Andrew 16 years to make his move, but he succeeded, and he’s proud of the business he has created.

We should be too. As Joanne Saltzberg, who heads Women Entrepreneurs of Baltimore — a business development group — told me, we need to change our attitude and to salute the achievements of those who are engaged in this alternate economy. “We only revere success,” she said. “I don’t think we honor the struggle. People who have no access to business development resources. People who have to work two and three jobs just to survive. When you are struggling in this economy and still you commit yourself to having a better life, that’s really something to honor.”

Robert Neuwirth is a writer and investigative reporter. This article is excerpted and adapted from his new book: Stealth of Nations: The Global Rise of the Informal Economy.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Weirdness in job data numbers
« Reply #2155 on: July 09, 2022, 11:05:11 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
More or fewer Americans working?
« Reply #2156 on: July 11, 2022, 12:26:15 AM »

Unleash Prosperity Hotline – Weekend Edition
Issue #572
07/08/2022, 07/09/2022, 07/10/2022
New to the Hotline? Click here to subscribe–it's free.
 
1) Over Last Three Months, FEWER Americans Working

We bet you haven’t read THAT headline anywhere else.

To the contrary, the Biden administration and the media are trumpeting Friday's June labor report which counted a healthy 372,000 new jobs added.

Not so fast.  Another Labor Department survey - the survey of households and the one used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate - recorded a reduction of 315,000 Americans working last month.

The chart below shows that over the past three months, while the survey of firms found more than one million job gains, the household survey has found 300,000 fewer Americans are working today than in March.


What accounts for the difference in these two reports?  The payroll survey is more likely to count the jobs created at larger businesses and corporations, whereas small startup firms and self-employment are often undercounted in that survey. What this suggests is that big businesses are still doing pretty well, but hiring by small entrepreneurial companies appears to be shrinking. Fewer Americans are starting companies or are self-employed — thanks to the Biden war on business.

Our view is that the actual jobs trend is somewhere between these two survey estimates, which means almost no job growth at all. That is unfortunately consistent with our contention that the U.S. is already in recession.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: More or fewer Americans working?
« Reply #2157 on: July 11, 2022, 06:06:18 AM »
Could we please leave Biden and his pretend woke in the ash heap of history:

Fewer Americans working when we should be in a v-shaped recovery.  (Yes, how come corrupt media don't report that news?)

All the job growth is in red states.

We are in month seven of the Biden caused recession:  https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

Inflation is arguably double digit.

Energy prices doubling and quadrupling because of the intentional policies of the ruling party.

Talk of food shortages has gone from fringe web to mainstream to dinner table.

I couldn't figure out why Democrats wouldn't change course during the slow growth years of the Obama administration.

Now we know they won't even try to change while falling off the cliff.

Don't convert them.  Defeat them.

Quoting former President Ronald Reagan, “... the march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history, as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”. - Amen.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: More or fewer Americans working?
« Reply #2158 on: July 11, 2022, 07:39:02 AM »
It's like they aren't worried about losing power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA8a2g6tTp0



Could we please leave Biden and his pretend woke in the ash heap of history:

Fewer Americans working when we should be in a v-shaped recovery.  (Yes, how come corrupt media don't report that news?)

All the job growth is in red states.

We are in month seven of the Biden caused recession:  https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

Inflation is arguably double digit.

Energy prices doubling and quadrupling because of the intentional policies of the ruling party.

Talk of food shortages has gone from fringe web to mainstream to dinner table.

I couldn't figure out why Democrats wouldn't change course during the slow growth years of the Obama administration.

Now we know they won't even try to change while falling off the cliff.

Don't convert them.  Defeat them.

Quoting former President Ronald Reagan, “... the march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history, as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”. - Amen.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2161 on: July 13, 2022, 10:18:47 PM »
Make sure I have this right.
Biden spending (and war on energy and production) caused Biden inflation.
Biden inflation caused Biden interest rates to spike.
Biden interest rates are causing Biden recession.
Massive job losses will help ease Biden inflation, Keynesians falsely tell us.  (The massive job losses aren't necessary and don't help.)
Meanwhile son Hunter blackmailed father Pedo Pete, as he calls him, into releasing oil from our US strategic petroleum reserve to China via his own paid ties with China, where he either gets a cut or was already paid.
Democrats in power refuse to change course to stop this train wreck.  Want to spend more before losing power.
Biden left $7 billion of equipment in Afghanistan, now needs $54 billion in Ukraine, for same arms. .
Pretty soon soon we're talking about real play money.
33% see all this and think Trump, out of power for going on two years, is the main threat we face.
(From the copper clapper caper):
Do I have that about right?

PS. I hate giving Biden blame and credit for all this.  He's just doing what he's told.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2022, 05:51:52 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Double Digit Inflation
« Reply #2162 on: July 15, 2022, 11:08:03 AM »
Wholesale prices shoot up near-record 11.3% in June on surge in energy costs

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/producer-price-index-june-2022-gain-11point3percent-on-surge-in-energy-costs.html

There ought to be a law against that.  Or just charge all Democrats in power under the Treason statutes?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics - INFLATION
« Reply #2163 on: July 21, 2022, 09:39:32 AM »
Re-hashing what we already know to see where it leads...

ya's link:  https://thebitcoinlayer.substack.com/p/is-bitcoin-an-inflation-hedge-yes

One point made:  "price inflation is a lagging indicator behind one of its root causes: money supply inflation."

In other words, what we call inflation, "that's an outrageous price for ______," is a symptom of inflation, not the inflation itself.

Rough definition of inflation:  More money chasing fewer goods.

A little more accurately, inflation is when money supply growth exceeds real growth of goods and services.  None of which is measured very accurately.

Milton Friedman:  MV = PQ.  But velocity of money is calculated by knowing the other 3.  Not very helpful.

The market is made up of all its interrelated markets, from each producing and purchasing decision outward. 

Debt and deficit, we have known for a long time that we are paying for a major part of our 'public services' with 'borrowing' and trickery, "leaving it to the next generation", as it accumulates exponentially.  But markets can't be tricked for long and who says the coming back to bite us won't be during our generation?  Today's problems aren't all about debt and monetary policy, but that's part of it.

Same for QE, ZIRP and NIRP, quantitative expansion, zero interest rate policy and negative interest rate policy.  We knew it was going to come back to bite us.  Did it?  Most certainly yes.

Energy policies:  Biden made promises in the campaign, oil is a futures market, and the US was the number one producer.  Energy prices started up the day the election was called and again when Biden took office and started canceling pipelines and leases etc.  Pushing up the price of fossil fuels was intentional, but they forgot or neglected to tell us the rest of the story, food was certain to follow, directly tied to fossil fuels.  Put it in the campaign and see how it polls:  On day one, we are going to drive up the price of energy to slow its consumption and with that we are going to drive up the price of food and slow its production.  That's exactly what happened and the policy decision yesterday (climate emergency) is more of the same.

One thing they forgot about is inelastic demand.  That's the problem messing with gas and food.  In the short run, higher gas at the pump means you pay more, a larger number on your credit card transaction, and maybe you bitch about it.  Work, if you are a tradesman, doesn't move closer to home as gas prices go up.  Driving the kids to their activities is the same distance, going to the store, visiting Grandma, same.  The needs for heat and A/C haven't changed in your climate.  The price only brings down total consumption when you hit the nerve and people start canceling what they were doing.  Eating food, for example.  We make substitutions but the demand is a bit inelastic.  Junior is going to scream until you fed him, something he likes.

The prices also went up because of disincentives to produce.  It stops going up when reductions in consumption match that, which is either never or in financial disaster.  More on that coming.

Then what?  You would think the poor would hit the breaking point first.  But a carpet layer or roofer has to go to the job even more than a software engineer or hedge fund manager does.  So both keep doing the same and paying more until someone or everyone hits the breaking point, when there is no carpet to lay, home building stops, for example.

In Democrat-think, that breaking point is recession, welcome to month seven of the latest one.  A necessary evil, they believe, (which is false).

My point goes back to the beginning, all of this was a choice and completely unnecessary.

"More money chasing fewer goods".  Per the posted charts, growth of "M2" is now "under control", but what's up with producing fewer goods?  There is a reason for that slowdown.  Government policies hinder production, and they're getting worse, not better.

Our 'price level' inflation is a result of monetary and spending insanity, yes of course,  but it is also a result of the anti-production, anti-investment, anti-growth policies.

Study the period where we most recently went through this, look at the 1970s, 1979 in particular, through 1982.  Best documentary of this period is in a book by Robert Bartley (then editor of the WSJ), The Seven Fat Years and how to do it again. 

Before this time we had the Phillips curve telling us that recession tames inflation and growth economic feeds inflation.  A tradeoff.  Stagflation and the "misery Index" proved that false as malaise and hypr-inflation occurred simultaneously.  It was proved false again with the cure, as they were solved (not exactly) simultaneously.

It was called a two-pronged solution.  Paul Volcker, Chair of the Federal Reserve began tightening the money supply and Ronald Reagan campaigned on across the board tax rat cuts to stimulate production (the economy), alleviating BOTH sides of more money chasing fewer goods.

The money supply tightening started in late 1979 and the tax rate cuts were passed in 1981, but didn't fully go into effect until 1983.  The policy time lag resulted in a very dep, painful and unnecessary recession.

Lesson (not) learned, DO THOSE TWO THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY and avoid the deep recession and all the human tragedy associated with it.

But then we had Jimmy Carter.  A moderate but not a free thinker or a thinker at all.  And now w have Joe Biden and the small Politburo that pulls his strings.  Of all the people you can say the powers that be are beholden to, doing what's best right now for the American people isn't one of them.  Like with Carter to Reagan, we have to have the root canal first, then wait for an election, and another election, and argue the issues before any kind of policy relief can come, and then those policies take time to implement.  All because Democrats in power refuse to admit and do what needs to b done.

The right policies almost write themselves, or read these threads here to find them.  It starts with energy production, public spending restraint and removing the disincentives to work and invest.  Not rocket science but not quick or easy to do an about face with a ship this size, also with the whole rest of the world headed in the wrong direction.

Build the pipelines and refineries we need.  On top of that, get nuclear going, if it's the planet you're saving, and fossil fuel use won't be forever.  Replace it before you remove it.  Energy will bring food back (after the starving and famine).  Denial won't.  Balance the budget, and not by stepping on the people who produce.  Stop paying people to do nothing - when there is so much to be done.  Index capital gains taxation to inflation.  Let the productive assets to their most productive use.

Let freedom ring.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2164 on: July 21, 2022, 03:05:32 PM »
Concur.

Looking to condense that into something pithier-- as I have stated previously

There are two reasons prices go.

1) Increase in Money relative to the same number of goods.  This needs to account for changes in Velocity.  Back in 2008-2010 we predicted inflation due to increase in Money.  We were wrong and Scott Grannis was right because he saw the decline in Velocity where we did not.

2) Decrease in supply.  This is NOT inflation.  This is a Price Increase.

Failure to distinguish the two leads to conceptual murk.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, The Big R
« Reply #2165 on: July 25, 2022, 10:07:29 AM »
CNN is pre-announcing the Big Biden Recession:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/25/politics/biden-big-week-for-economy-inflation/index.html

Atlanta Fed also knows:
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

As Bob Dole might say, You know it, I know it and the American people know it:
Direction of Country, Politico/Morning Consult (latest), Right Direction 22, Wrong Track 78

There are ways to spin that the economy is fine, low unemployment rate, etc.  The American people aren't buying it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2166 on: July 25, 2022, 11:09:30 AM »
Concur.

Looking to condense that into something pithier-- as I have stated previously

There are two reasons prices go.

1) Increase in Money relative to the same number of goods.  This needs to account for changes in Velocity.  Back in 2008-2010 we predicted inflation due to increase in Money.  We were wrong and Scott Grannis was right because he saw the decline in Velocity where we did not.

2) Decrease in supply.  This is NOT inflation.  This is a Price Increase.

Failure to distinguish the two leads to conceptual murk.

Yes, I was laying out the long version in hope of leading to something shorter and catchier.  Strange thing is, for all the work we do, people don't need to be told about real economic conditions.  Sometimes they don't even need to be told about cause and effect; they watched it happen.
 Hispanics understood the Trump economy (pre-covid) was great when the media wouldn't say it.  Everyone who buys gas or food today knows something is wrong, and it's not (just) Putin.

Points 1) and 2) above are both true and important points of understanding.  I would just add that (unfortunately) the concept of velocity and the distinction between inflation of the money supply and price increases are what you might call the inside baseball of economics. 

The usage of the term 'inflation' has come to mean prices going up for the things we buy.

Yes, 'velocity' decline of the last recession meant that the monetary expansion did not show up (right away) as price increases.  But tricks like that then and the tricks they would eventually have to do to reel it back in (we warned) will most certainly do great damage to the economy and to the people.

Hard to make pithy your second point, the government constraints on supply, stopping the drilling and pipelines for examples, are driving up costs big time. 'Growth economics', the easing of the disincentives to produce, solves that.  Or as some would say, growth, blah, blah.   )

Then we have half-wits like Larry Summers saying we desperately need a tax increase on top of the Fed tightening.  Root canal economics.  Tax rate increases never lead to a balanced budget and curtail supply even further, meaning more price increases.

The pithy way to fit it on a bumper sticker is:  "Biden Sucks", or FJB, but I wish to indict the entire Left way of thinking, not just the politicians of the moment.

I agree we need better expression of the fact that these wrongheaded policies lead to these dismal results, and real people, working people, minorities, women, children are hurt most.  But because these people really are hurt badly, they don't need to be told.

The point of explaining further is to answer the questions that follows, what caused this and what actions will you (the candidate) take to address these problems.  We could all use a better understanding of the right answers to that.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2022, 11:19:20 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Paul Krugman : " I was wrong"
« Reply #2167 on: July 25, 2022, 11:18:17 AM »
because he underestimated the impact of corona :

 :wink:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/paul-krugman-inflation.html

It takes a really gracious humble man with 100 % integrity to admit when he was wrong !!

( just joshin'  :wink:)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Paul Krugman : " I was wrong"
« Reply #2168 on: July 25, 2022, 01:29:12 PM »
Prof. Krugman's face could become the emoji for wrong.

He lies and deflects even when admitting he was wrong.  He blames the pandemic, and Putin.

With Dan Rather it was false but true.  With Krugman it is wrong but right?

Headline says, "I was wrong about inflation".  I thought it might be more encompassing like, I was wrong about everything!

He should have told the truth, I knew inflation was coming big time but my job was to be a shill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, recession? Wesbury
« Reply #2169 on: July 26, 2022, 06:01:06 AM »
Economist Brian Westbury thinks this is not a recession. (see transcript Hugh Hewitt show this am)

He was time limited from fully explaining his view. Paraphrasing:  2020 was the lockdown. 2021 was the reopening, drugged with stimulus and pent up demand. The Q1 this year retraction was a fluke, to do with trade.  US opened, others didn't, we imported but didn't export. Q2 measured down is skewed by artificial stimuli of last year.

We borrowed 5 trillion and printed 4 trillion, time frame not specified. These are not normal times.

Unlike Biden and Yellen in recession denial, Westbury expects a recession in the next 24 months.  That is worse news than saying we are in one now.  He didn't say it, but the interest rate doubling without any supply side relief on taxes and regulations will cause a (further) slowdown.

For what it's worth, I disagree with Westbury. This should be a V-shaped recovery.  Biden was handed a rapidly growing economy.  The stupid free money of last year, demand side stimulus, was a) Biden's fault, b) not of ANY lasting benefit, and c) did more harm than good.  That and worse, his war on energy driving up the cost of everything and causing supply disruptions, the result is what in current definition and word usage we call a recession. It's not a business cycle recession, it's a big intrusive government-caused recession.  A Biden Pelosi Schumer caused slowdown.

You can tell me this is up and that is up, but GDP is all inclusive and it is down year over year when it should be up 3 or 4% or more.

Also missing in any Biden and US numbers is the red state / blue state divide.  All the growth is coming from the former. We are not one economic nation.

One other thing, didn't this President let in a million illegals a year while canceling wall construction and border enforcement.  Where is the increased production from THESE people?  Uncounted in the underground economy? Is that what we want?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 06:17:39 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2170 on: July 28, 2022, 06:49:32 AM »
Salon today:
Why the Midterms Look Bleak for Democrats: Biden

Um, no.  'Biden' is a Politburo governing right out of the current Democrat playbook.  He doesn't tie his own shoes much less set policy.

The policies would be the same if it was Bernie, Warren, Butti, Klobi or Newsom, unless someone would have stood up to the party's script and done the right thing somewhere along the way.

The conundrum is, the economic answer requires policies now known as Republican.

It didn't have to be this way.  A short time ago Democrats were the pro-growth party.  "A rising tide lifts all boats." Who said this?  He cheated to get elected and then didn't try to destroy the country.

The difference is leaders and followers.  Leftism is a religion, not a science. A Dem today, even if elected to the highest office in the land must follow the ideology or be toppled.  Kennedy and Reagan, from different parties, were leaders.  Right or wrong, they tried to figure what was best and worked as leaders to persuade and bring the the country along.  Clinton changed course grudgingly, after losing big time in midterms.  He adopted pro-growth policies and grew the economy.  Maybe for personal political survival reasons, but did it nonetheless.

This band of ideological followers is not capable of learning or pivoting.

I hope they prove me wrong.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2171 on: July 28, 2022, 06:56:51 AM »
With every failure of the left, the leftists respond "The wrong people were in charge" or "That wasn't REAL leftism".




Salon today:
Why the Midterms Look Bleak for Democrats: Biden

Um, no.  'Biden' is a Politburo governing right out of the current Democrat playbook.  He doesn't tie his own shoes much less set policy.

The policies would be the same if it was Bernie, Warren, Butti, Klobi or Newsom, unless someone would have stood up to the party's script and done the right thing somewhere along the way.

The conundrum is, the economic answer requires policies now known as Republican.

It didn't have to be this way.  A short time ago Democrats were the pro-growth party.  "A rising tide lifts all boats." Who said this?  He cheated to get elected and then didn't try to destroy the country.

The difference is leaders and followers.  Leftism is a religion, not a science. A Dem today, even if elected to the highest office in the land must follow the ideology or be toppled.  Kennedy and Reagan, from different parties, were leaders.  Right or wrong, they tried to figure what was best and worked as leaders to persuade and bring the the country along.  Clinton changed course grudgingly, after losing big time in midterms.  He adopted pro-growth policies and grew the economy.  Maybe for personal political survival reasons, but did it nonetheless.

This band of ideological followers is not capable of learning or pivoting.

I hope they prove me wrong.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Is it a Recession? No. It's a Banana.
« Reply #2172 on: July 28, 2022, 07:52:54 AM »
Two consecutive quarters of decline.  It's not a recession.  Okay, then we need a new word for it.  Because redefining words is an essential part of their playbook.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/yes-we-have-a-banana.php

Another example speaking of redefining words, weird that pro-choice people oppose school choice. Maybe they aren't pro-choice after all.

Recess, Webster, action of receding.
(Doug) Like an economy?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, Is it a Recession? No. It's a Banana.
« Reply #2173 on: July 28, 2022, 07:54:57 AM »
Perhaps it identifies as a woman. Are you a Biologist, Doug?


Two consecutive quarters of decline.  It's not a recession.  Okay, then we need a new word for it.  Because redefining words is an essential part of their playbook.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/yes-we-have-a-banana.php

Another example speaking of redefining words, weird that pro-choice people oppose school choice. Maybe they aren't pro-choice after all.

Recess, Webster, action of receding.
(Doug) Like an economy?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
"BIG" "MASSIVE"
« Reply #2175 on: July 28, 2022, 08:47:44 AM »
WIN FOR CRATS:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manchin-says-health-energy-tax-211108925.html

somehow tax and spend hundreds of billions is always viewed as victory by Dems and MSM
and portrayed as Great.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: "BIG" "MASSIVE"
« Reply #2176 on: July 28, 2022, 11:33:13 AM »
WIN FOR CRATS:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manchin-says-health-energy-tax-211108925.html

somehow tax and spend hundreds of billions is always viewed as victory by Dems and MSM
and portrayed as Great.

Isn't tax and spend, spending in particular, what got them their 28% economic approval rate in the first place?

Live and not learn. The simple life of being a Leftist.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2178 on: August 01, 2022, 05:25:34 AM »
Professor Glenn Reynolds (caught reading the forum.

This was written in May before the latest damage. Note that he has the producer price index (real inflation?) over 16%.

Note that he covers the two components, more money, fewer goods.  I'm tired of seeing it covered as more money only. More money set this up.  Fewer goods triggered the crisis.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/team-biden-might-be-purposefully-crushing-the-middle-class/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Schumer Manchin tax increase
« Reply #2179 on: August 01, 2022, 05:32:38 AM »
WSJ lead editorial today on the Schumer Manchin tax increase on EVERYONE. Poor time to hit manufacturers, tax on labor, tax on the economy. Tax on everyone making UNDER 400k, breaking everyone promise, Dem House and Senate complicit.

R's need Kirsten Sinema and/or 4 vulnerable House Dems to sink it, or the President to keep a promise.

I wonder if my BINO bipartisan in name only Representative could find his way to split just once with Pelosi coming nto the midterm.

No deficit relief for years means no deficit relief ever.
-----
Contrary indicator, CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/01/politics/kyrsten-sinema-democrats-big-week-for-biden-presidency/index.html
« Last Edit: August 01, 2022, 05:45:10 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics, CNN Business on recession
« Reply #2180 on: August 01, 2022, 05:59:51 AM »
Recession coming (already here).  Businesses and consumers should cut back on purchases.  What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/success/recession-effect-jobs-housing/index.html

(Doug) The recession is going to be deeper, much deeper, than we thought, if we don't start correcting policy mistakes SOON.

Everyone sees it coming.  No one (in power) is doing anything about it.
------
More here: https://tippinsights.com/economic-gloom-fuels-broader-personal-finance-concerns/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dollar-store-dinners-and-vats-of-shampoo-help-families-cope-with-high-prices-11659302735
« Last Edit: August 01, 2022, 06:05:07 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2182 on: August 07, 2022, 05:34:17 AM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/inflation-bill-sinema-manchin-senate-horribly-misnamed-rcna41712
By Wilbur John Coleman, professor of economics at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business

excerpts:
"The “inflation reduction” label is being used to justify a hodgepodge of special interest spending that has absolutely nothing to do with inflation."
...
"Powell has increased the money supply by some $6.2 trillion since the start of the pandemic (a 40 percent rise in cash and other assets easily convertible to cash in the economy). A 40 percent rise in money will lead to a roughly 30 percent rise in prices over three years, according to my calculations, which is about 10 percent inflation for three years. Unfortunately, we seem to be on target for the first year."
(Doug:  Deficit reduction of 0.3T that doesn't come until the out years if ever doesn't touch this and tax increase don't increase production.)

Prof. Coleman :
" It’s difficult to understand why Congress thinks this would reduce inflation. What’s needed is more supply or less demand, not higher demand. The act seems to get this point exactly wrong."
--------------
Read it all.  This is a Duke econ professor and mainstream NBC News pointing out this rather obvious truth.  And yet all 50+1 Dem Senators will vote for this farce.  Need 4 House Dems to defect.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2022, 05:52:48 AM by DougMacG »




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
something rotten at BLS ?
« Reply #2186 on: August 07, 2022, 10:47:49 AM »
"In 2020, the numbers got a bit screwed up due to difficulties collecting data due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Each survey also classified some workers differently. Taking that period of time out of the equation, the last time there was such a large divergence in the numbers was 1968."

 :roll:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Time to bleed out the middle class
« Reply #2187 on: August 08, 2022, 12:10:57 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Collapse in Productivity: Biggest Ever
« Reply #2188 on: August 10, 2022, 05:21:44 AM »
Did anyone see this coming?

U.S. productivity posts biggest ever annual drop in second quarter

https://news.yahoo.com/u-productivity-drops-second-quarter-124335395.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

What part of widespread decline don't they see?  Everyone's wages went down with (intentional) inflation.

More money, fewer goods, it was in the campaign, it was in the first executive order, it was in the first legislation, it is in the latest bill with the bad humor name, inflation reduction act.

How do you grow productivity without capital, without energy?  Easy answer:  not possible.

Either these people are idiots or something very sinister is going on.  More likely both.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2022, 05:25:41 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Jobless claims highest of 2022, Food and rent continue to rise
« Reply #2189 on: August 11, 2022, 09:05:14 AM »
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/jobless-claims-rise-highest-level-2022

https://money.yahoo.com/next-fed-rate-hike-size-040006591.html

If inflation ended, why is Fed planning more interest rate increases?

Answer:  They have better info than you do.  And inflation did not end last month.

(Dem) Larry Summers, Inflation still a serious problem
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/08/10/larry_summers_very_serious_inflation_problem_in_us_not_likely_to_go_away_of_its_own_volition.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, Casey Mulligan, Significant Shrinkage
« Reply #2190 on: August 11, 2022, 12:47:20 PM »
University of Chicago Economist Casey Mulligan:

The Inflation Reduction Act contains multiple negative incentives on work and investment that
will have substantial negative effects on the U.S. economy. These negative effects include 1) the
reduced incentives for businesses to invest because of the corporate tax increase and the increased
tax rate on certain investments (carried interest); 2) the negative effects on work due to the
expansions in health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act - subsidies not tied to working;
3) the negative impact on new drug development due to new federal price controls on the
pharmaceutical industry.
The impact of these policies over the next ten years are as follows:
• Employment will be reduced by 900,000
• Annual GDP will be reduced by 1.2%
• Average Household income will fall by roughly $1,200
• The rate of inflation and the federal budget deficit are both likely to rise, not fall.

https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/CTUP_NegativeIRAReport_082022.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Doug]  Grow the IRS and shrink the economy.   By my math, shrinking the economy with one act by 1.2% per year when it was already shrinking at 1.25% makes for combined shrinkage of 2.45% per year net.  With compounding, in what year will we hit zero GDP?

Further discussion of this on Seinfeld:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG2dF5PS0bI
« Last Edit: August 19, 2022, 03:02:20 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Inflation is a tax on everyone, disproportionately hurts the poor
« Reply #2192 on: August 28, 2022, 08:02:09 AM »
Inflation is a tax on everyone, disproportionately hurts the poor

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2022/08/28/inflation-disproportionately-hurts-poor-money-becomes-scarce/7893313001/
-------
Where have we heard that before.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2193 on: August 28, 2022, 09:47:15 AM »
can't see article and I refuse to subscribe to USA Today.

 :wink:

"Where have we heard that before."

the woke feminists who control USA today read the forum?

 :-D

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2194 on: August 28, 2022, 11:01:04 AM »
can't see article and I refuse to subscribe to USA Today.

 :wink:

"Where have we heard that before."

the woke feminists who control USA today read the forum?

 :-D

I wouldn't open it either.  It was a link from Real Clear Politics showing that mainstream media started to cover real people feeling real hardship.

Like the elites, I start to see it as numbers and political arguments.   The reality is, real people are getting hit hard and there is no escaping it. 

A whole lot of people at a range of incomes were living mostly paycheck to paycheck, even before Biden.  They paid for their rent and all the basics, could go out a few times and have little or nothing left at the end of the month.  Then rent goes up 30%.  Electric and gas more than double.  Food goes crazy.  All the things people HAVE to pay for skyrocket.  With a real good job they get 3% raises. Something has to give. 

The utilities are on automatic pay so the green mandates driving up rates happen like the frog in heating water.  Maybe it even felt good for a while, paying a few extra tens of dollars for "green energy", but somehow there it less money left in the bank accounts and more owing on the credit cards.

Welcome to Biden-Dem world. 

Is their reaction to dump the bums and get things going right again, or do they succumb to the lure of debt cancellation, subsidized health care, free stuff and tax the ultra wealthy, while Republicans keep tripping over themselves instead of telling what went wrong and offering a better way.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2022, 11:04:40 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics - Lesson learned? EV prices go up with tax credit
« Reply #2195 on: August 28, 2022, 11:43:51 AM »
Ford Electric Mustang Price Going Up After Biden, Dems Handed Out EV Tax Credit.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ford-electric-mustang-price-going-up-after-biden-dems-handed-out-ev-tax-credit

Who.Bleeping.Knew.

Any politician who can't explain how this phenomenon works, at this point, should be impeached.

Might as well write the headline now, 'Tuition going up after Biden cancelled student debt'.

As InstaPundit likes to say, "UNEXPECTEDLY!"

DO WE EVER LEARN?
----------------------

America’s Newspaper of Record (Babylon Bee) “reports:”

Harvard To Pay Elizabeth Warren $400,000 To Teach Class On Why College Is So Expensive.

A not really made up spoof.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2022, 11:46:50 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Political Economics: It's going to get worse!
« Reply #2197 on: August 31, 2022, 10:38:26 AM »
One view:
https://www.ft.com/content/b2ca227e-9fd2-4f47-8a35-18b176a864f0?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9
-----------

[Doug]

1. Spending and debt that preceded Biden set up this situation.
2. Covid shutdowns and spending pre-Biden made it worse.
3. Biden made it worse. 
4. Biden increased spending.
5. Biden increased debt.
6. Biden ordered both blatant and more subtle energy shortages driving up the cost.
7.  Energy costs up, enriched Russia, triggered the Ukraine war.
8. Biden's war on the supply side, shutdowns, increasing taxes and regulations hit the other side of the inflation equation, more money chasing relatively fewer goods.
9. Inflation taxes everyone.
10. Increased costs and constrained production triggered (phase one of) the recession.
11. Biden's inflation triggered the Fed squeeze including interest rates hikes.
12. Fed rate hikes drive up the cost of housing, cars, appliances and so on, causing slowdown and deepening the recession.
13. Fed rate hikes drive up the cost of the national debt, putting the budget even further in deficit.
14. The solution to ease this, "supply side incentives", meaning reducing the government imposed disincentives to produce is politically off-limits to the ruling party.
15. The midterm correction is confounded by abortion politics, individual candidate weaknesses and election cheating.
16. If the party out of power, Republicans, wins the House or the House and Senate, they will still be unable to reverse almost anything the Democrats in power have done.
17. If this goes on in a downward spiral until 2024, unfathomable damage will be done.
18. Currently the frontrunners for 2024 are, drum roll please, Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
That should bring the country together, lol.

What could possibly go wrong?  I mean that literally.  Famine, homelessness, crime, foreign wars, civil war.  I will stop short of noting Venezuelans were reduced to eating zoo animals.

If this is a deepening spiral recession, the lack of action to get the economic damage stopped or slowed approached criminal neglect.

It's weird being the optimist here.
-----
One additional point to consider:  The Fed has a "dual mission", price stability and jobs. For twenty years the Fed did nothing but expansionary policies.  Since they are clearly making the recession worse now, the numbers they are see on on the money and inflation front must be MUCH WORSE than we think.
-----
Food guns and training, yes, but what else on the investment front?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2022, 10:42:55 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics: It's going to get worse!
« Reply #2198 on: August 31, 2022, 10:42:04 AM »
One view:
https://www.ft.com/content/b2ca227e-9fd2-4f47-8a35-18b176a864f0?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9
-----------

[Doug]

1. Spending and debt that preceded Biden set up this situation.
2. Covid shutdowns and spending pre-Biden made it worse.
3. Biden made it worse. 
4. Increased spending.
5. increased debt.
6. Ordered both blatant and more subtle energy shortages driving up the cost.
7.  Energy costs up, enriched Russia, triggered the Ukraine war.
8. The war on the supply side, shutdowns, increasing taxes and regulations hit the other side of the inflation equation, more money chasing relatively fewer goods.
9. Inflation taxes everyone.
10. Increased costs triggered (phase one of) the recession.
11. Biden's inflation triggered the Fed squeeze including interest rates hikes.
12. Fed rate hikes drive up the cost of housing, cars, appliances and so on, causing slowdown and deepening the recession.
13. Fed rate hikes drive up the cost of the national debt, putting the budget even further in deficit.
14. The solution to ease this, "supply side incentives", meaning reducing the government imposed disincentives to produce is politically off-limits to the ruling party.
15. The midterm correction is confounded by abortion politics, individual candidate weaknesses and election cheating.
16. If the party out of power, Republicans, wins the House or the House and Senate, they will still be unable to reverse almost anything the Democrats in power have done.
17. If this goes on in a downward spiral until 2024, unfathomable damage will be done.
18. Currently the frontrunners for 2024 are, drum roll please, Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
That should bring the country together, lol.

What could possibly go wrong?  I mean that literally.  Famine, homelessness, crime, foreign wars, civil war.  I will stop short of noting Venezuelans were reduced to eating zoo animals.

If this is a deepening spiral recession, the lack of action to get the economic damage stopped or slowed approached criminal neglect.

It's weird being the optimist here.
-----
One additional point to consider:  The Fed has a "dual mission", price stability and jobs.  Since they  are clearly making the recession worse, the numbers they are see on on the money and inflation front must be MUCH WORSE than we think.

Food guns and training, yes, but what else on the investment front?

Beans, bullets and bandages are primary. Bitcoin in cold wallets, junk silver and silver and gold coins in very small denominations. IMHO, common ammo calibers will be the most immediately useful currency.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
CNN: "THIS is why stagflation won't come to America"
« Reply #2199 on: September 04, 2022, 08:32:10 AM »
CNN: "THIS is why stagflation won't come to America"

"The US economy added another 315,000 jobs in August after tacking on more than half a million jobs in July."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/perspectives/stagflation-economy-jobs-labor-market/index.html
   - CNN Sept 2.

Oops, Jobs report revised downward:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html
"Only 235,000 jobs were added back to the economy last month, the lowest number since January, vastly missing economists' expectations."
   - CNN Sept 3.

Jobs report was overstated by 80,000 jobs, 34%.  How does THAT happen?

From the article above, Point 2: "The unemployment rate is 3.7%, not far from a 50-year low."

The unemployment rate is reported artificially low due to the record numbers leaving or have left the workforce.   "The unemployment rate is rising"https://finance.yahoo.com/video/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rises-124916008.html
Inconvenient truth.

What does 3.7 unemployment mean?
Out of a population of 335 million, oops that just went up at the southern border while writing this,
84 Million people work full time in the private sector supporting 148 million receiving benefits and the millions who work for the government, federal, state and local.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/86m-full-time-private-sector-workers-sustain-148m-benefit-takers
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
« Last Edit: September 04, 2022, 08:39:28 AM by DougMacG »