Magox

Oil, gas .... same thing. The reason why I brought up gas was because that was the news of the day. To your point that we aren't experiencing high inflation, most every day Americans would disagree with you. Who gives a **** what their metrics say? Real every day people spend money on housing, clothing, food, gasoline, health care, education and other goods. For people who are in the lower to middle class, every dollar matters, so when you have costs of essentials such as food and gasoline rising, then it makes a difference. You and I will never see eye to eye on this, you live in a bubble world, whereas most people live in the real world where these things matter. So yes, we are experiencing high inflation, specially considering job creation is barely keeping up with population growth and wages are stagnant. It's simple, if you were able to get out of your bubble and apply common sense you would agree. If wages remain stagnant and the price of essentials such as food and gasoline have risen considerably, then that means disposable income continues to drop. That is what real people in the lower to middle class have to go through. Right here on Page 23, a recent poll showed when asked: 31. Which of the following is the biggest economic problem facing people like you? You know what the number one answer they gave? You guessed it, Rising prices. Rising prices over housing, taxes, unemployment etc. People worry about inflation because they see it.. They see it in their day to day costs, meanwhile you sit in your office or wherever you do, and crunch numbers using metrics that every day people don't give two ***** about. Let that poll sink in for a while. Seriously, let it sink in, read the question a few times, and think about what the result tells us. The reality is that once QE began, the price of virtually everything went up afterwards, just as many people including myself predicted. In regards to this point you made: I guess you missed or didn't understand what I was saying when I responded to your shallow year over year gasoline argument, when I said this: In other words, that of course I don't believe that the price of gasoline rise is completely attributed to QE. There are many other factors, but it certainly is one of the main drivers, without a doubt. I'm gonna try this one more time with you, since you are having a difficult time understanding why your year over year argument is a dishonest argument, and for your sake, I just hope it is dishonest, if not, then you should completely get out of the work you are doing because you are doing no one any good. You are using the year over year argument as your justification that inflation is tame. But you don't account for growth and supply. Without these two variables, your case is non existent. If growth is slower, which means demand for oil is relatively the same, yet supply is increasing, then even if you have a price that is static implies inflationary pressures. If you were to have similar 4.1% GDP growth from where we were one year ago here in the U.S and a world economy that was performing similar to then, then the price of oil would be considerably higher than it is today. Do you understand this? Seriously. I'm curious. It's not that difficult to understand, or is it? When did I imply this? So your argument is that employment figures that are barely showing employment growth relative to population increase is "good economic news" ? Wow! That's how bad the economy is, where we have anemic job growth and flat lining GDP growth and somehow that is misconstrued as "good economic news" In regards to Refinery closings. I traded these markets on the NYMEX for the firm I use to work for and my clients for years, and I can tell you that this is nothing new. So when you dug up an article that stated this as a reason, that means absolutely nothing. Every one in the business understands that what happens is when prices rise for any commodity or stock, they will interview one of the traders or analysts, and that analyst and trader naturally gives their best opinion on why the market went up or down for that day or week. So the refinery closings is nothing new, it is a common occurrence.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/organic-food-healthier-stanford-researchers-nutrition-organic-meats-produce-dairy-better-article-1.1151470#ixzz2K99sSMHJ

Libyan oil production is higher today than it was in the first quarter of 2012. http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/8749925 Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/07/31/Libyas-oil-production-below-pre-war-level/UPI-70431343736840/#ixzz2K4J4HvdE http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/iea-idUSL5E8MD38820121113

Yes, you are the dingbat. Specially considering that you STILL aren't able to grasp the growth relativity argument that I made, which has EVERYTHING to do with the point I made. You at times can be pretty damn dense. Take a deep breath, re read what I wrote, let it digest a bit, and then get back to me. You would have a point if that article was Feb. 2013, but since you posted one from Feb. 2012, which shows strong growth UP TO that point. However, Demand for oil globally the past year, has flat lined. You must have missed this part from my post

We all know DC TOM, and we all know he can be insufferable at times, but we also all know that he's the smartest guy that posts on TBD... When it comes to physics, I'll take the published physicists word over someone who did some reading on Physics.

Oh, you want to play this shallow game? Sure, if the shoe fits So the price of RBOB gasoline on the NYMEX back on March 18th of 2009 the beginning of QE was at 1.36 a gallon. Today it trades north of 3 a gallon. it's an increase of 127% in less than 4 years professor dingbat. Yup, better tell the Fed to put the metal on the pedal. http://futures.tradi...com/chart/RB_/M Now of course, if you wanted to take a more intellectually honest approach, which you don't, you would factor in other variables such as relative growth. How can it be that last year, 2012, GDP for the first quarter of the year posted it's highest number since Obama took office, posting a 4.1% GDP. Yet this year, we are flat lining, and the price of gasoline is higher today than last year? http://www.tradingec...ates/gdp-growth Not to mention Global growth is markedly slower today than it was in the first quarter of last year. http://www.economist...focus-world-gdp How can it be possible that the price of gasoline is higher today, with a considerably weaker domestic and global economy? If growth is much slower, how can gasoline prices be higher without any supply disruptions? So how can that be Professor Dingbat? Think long and hard before you respond, would hate to see you get embarrassed again.

I guess you missed the part of the highest on record for this time of the year? With an economy that is flat lining. Yep, no inflation at all

I never quite understood the "need" argument. What business is of anyone to say what they do and don't need. I can say this, anyone who has this mentality certainly doesn't have the make up of a libertarian minded person.

!@#$

Yep, There is no inflation.

He IS a meathead

Okey dokey

Oh lord, another truther?

Schumer then back tracks on his back track. Schumer stands firm on border security New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) wants to immediately end growing chatter in conservative circles that he's backtracking from the bipartisan immigration proposal's border security requirements. Underscoring the fragile nature of the bipartisan talks, Schumer aides said Friday that the senator is completely on board with the idea -- backed by GOP senators -- that the border must first be effectively secured before the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants can obtain permanent legal status, including citizenship. “The bipartisan framework clearly states that the border enforcement metrics must be met before any path to citizenship is triggered, and Sen. Schumer has not wavered from that principle," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said Friday. "At the same time, the border enforcement metrics cannot be an unachievable standard that postpones an earned path to citizenship indefinitely.” The comments underscore the challenge of turning a five-page document into a detailed legislative proposal -- with many details, including over the pathway to citizenship and border security measures -- still to be worked out. As part of that broad bipartisan agreement, illegal immigrants can live and work legally in the United States after they register with the government, pay fines and back taxes -- allowing them to obtain a probationary legal status. But they could not obtain green cards or get on a pathway to citizenship until after a series of border security and enforcement measures take effect. That has been a chief demand of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who endorsed the deal. Schumer aides are responding to a Thursday press conference in which the senator was asked about linking border security to the pathway to citizenship and concerns that illegal immigrants could be waiting in limbo endlessly under the terms of the proposal. Schumer said the senators were trying to make sure border security isn't an "excuse" to block obtaining citizenship. "We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship," Schumer told reporters Thursday. "We just want to make sure -- and this is very important both substantively and politically — that there is a secure border, and we’re going to work for that. The [bipartisan group] wants to make sure the border is secure, but not to use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship." Immediately afterward, several conservative news outlets reported on the remarks, suggesting that the New York Democrat was backing off the border security requirements. The National Review ran an item on its website, saying, "Will Rubio Pull Out of the Gang of Eight Now?" But Schumer insists that nothing has changed since last Monday, when he, Rubio and six other senators signed off on the deal. Sorry no link still having troubles copy and pasting links on the iPad Article was from politico. The fact that schumer felt the need to reiterate his support for border enforcement is a positive development. Knowing Obama, he and his political team will still try to drive a wedge between Latinos and the GOP. Most Americans support stricter border security it is up to the R's to make their case, if more libe like schumer support this it will make it tougher for the White House to become more lax on the issue

In most cases I would agree with you, but what makes Ansah's situation even more impressive is that Ansah was on the BYU track team, and never even played football until his college track coach suggested he play football, his sophomore year in COLLEGE. He jeans just began playing football just a few years ago. Oh and he use to run the 200 meters for BYU and ran it in 22 seconds

Here is something from someone slightly more credible than Neil Erwin I remember reading this article back some time ago, which goes into depth regarding this topic. In addition he answers the "Why" that Neil was asking of the deficit hawks. Probably should read the rest, great stuff. And when you have some time, look at this They have done more work on Sovereign debt than anyone, going back over the past 200 years throughout the world, looking into what makes a country more susceptible and so on. I really would suggest you look into it. They back up their hypothesis with empirical data. This one here goes back into the history of Sovereign Debt issues and correlations of more recent examples. Again, I think it would be helpful to you for the read the work they have been gathering for the past few years. I believe it would give you a whole new perspective on the risks of rising debt, even for a country such as ours.

Certainly population factors into unemployment. The Dakota's would have had a relatively low unemployment rate no matter if oil was there or not, but the difference between no oil and oil producing jobs in N.D account from anywhere to a .5%-1% drop. Doesn't sound like much, but it's pretty substantial if you stop to think about it. You probably could see a similar drop in other states as well if the restrictions were pulled and the commitment was there. It's not the end all be all solution, but it would certainly be a part of the equation, at least from my perspective. Job creation wasn't really a big issue for a sustained period here in the U.S since Bush Senior's term at office. So we haven't really had to think about all that much until now. I would say that is why there is the added focus on this subject now.

I wouldn't be opposed to something like this. However this plan wouldn't directly tie the continuation of safety net benefits with job retraining.

I don't know. I'm positively sure that there are a lot of kinks to some of the generalized solutions that I mentioned. Some of the solutions I brought up are nothing new such as the drilling and tax reform. Drilling has one major road block and that is the environmental lobby and donors. Tax and regulatory reform that would produce pro growth outcomes only roadblock would be the liberals. In regards to the natural gas powered vehicles, I just see it as a no brainer. We do it in South America, so I don't see why we can't do it here. I understand that there are many logistical hurdles, but they can be overcome in time. The jobs retraining program is something that they say are doing, but obviously we don't see it. It should be tied to safety nets. That's my opinion, I don't see why you wouldn't want to attach benefits to retraining. It provides a safety net while helping produce a productive citizen who would have the job skills to enter the workforce. And if they don't decide to participate you reduce their safety net benefits. That sounds not only logical but fair to me. And you know what? It would be tremendously popular with the majority of the U.S. The only politicians who would be opposed to something like that would be those who represent the constituents that wouldn't be inclined to participate in the training for benefits program. Trade deals are being negotiated, I'm sure of it, but if I was in charge I'd make it a top priority. Aggressively seek to make deals with these fast growing trade partners. In regards to how comfortable I feel criticizing this administration. I'm extremely comfortable because I know in my heart of hearts they are a bunch economic nincompoops who care more about "fairness" than they do economic growth. Before you even got here, when they were rolling out their Stimulus bill, Dodd Frank, ACA, Cash for Clunkers, EPA hammer style regulations I spoke at great length and detail to why and where they would fail, and pretty much the negative consequences that I spoke about happened. It's one thing if I would of made a blanket statement such as "The ACA sucks and will destroy the economY" and it's another to go into great detail in where the flaws of the legislation are and the consequences we will most likely see. You don't have to be a partisan or a genius to figure out that 4 years later, 6 trillion dollars more in debt, we have a near record low participation rate with slow growth. Proof is in the pudding, we should be doing better than what we are, and we're not.

Puh leeeeseeeese Just say my bad and call it a day.

This is probably the most promising year in recent year for pass rushers... But I will go out on a limb, Ezekiel Ansah is going to end up being a Beast. Out of the list you have in order I would say 1) Moore 2) Woerner 3) Ansah 4) Mingo 5) Dion Jordan I think all these guys can play in the 3-4 as well as the hybrid LB

Don't forget the borrowing.

That is too good to not be seen. I'm gonna post most of the content...

Did I say or imply that he was?

Yikes!