Orlando Buffalo Posted April 29 Posted April 29 On 4/25/2024 at 2:24 PM, The Frankish Reich said: On the macro economic scale, an overheated economy means inflation. We just had that. The Fed raised rates to try to get things back in balance. So far it seems to be happening. Why is this bad? Inflation was bad, the cure for inflation is bad, everything is bad ... Are you actually this blind to how bad the government has screwed things up that you believe the inflation is even 25% from a hot economy? The inflation is from printing a huge amount of cash and paying it to people for not working. If you want to blame Trump for not squashing it is one thing but to pretend that this inflation is from a good thing is absurd. Anyone with a minimal amount of understanding of economics knew the inflation from the pay puts would be massive, the only ones saying different were being paid by the government. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 29 Posted April 29 1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said: Are you actually this blind to how bad the government has screwed things up that you believe the inflation is even 25% from a hot economy? The inflation is from printing a huge amount of cash and paying it to people for not working. If you want to blame Trump for not squashing it is one thing but to pretend that this inflation is from a good thing is absurd. Anyone with a minimal amount of understanding of economics knew the inflation from the pay puts would be massive, the only ones saying different were being paid by the government. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/01/17/what-economists-have-learnt-from-the-post-pandemic-business-cycle 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 29 Posted April 29 25 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/01/17/what-economists-have-learnt-from-the-post-pandemic-business-cycle So you farm out your thinking to "experts"? Any expert that denies that putting 5 trillion dollars into an economy without any sort of increase in production in a short period of time would cause quick and massive inflation is stupid. We have simply stretched out the inflation for a while longer than it would have hit without the government hiring more people. 2
The Frankish Reich Posted April 29 Posted April 29 29 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: So you farm out your thinking to "experts"? You don't seem to know it, but you are giving us a generalized monetarist explanation for inflation, typically associated with an expert, Milton Friedman. I am pointing out that a pure monetarist explanation doesn't work so well with what we've seen going on in national and the world economy, and that therefore economists are turning back to what business cycle theories have taught us over the years. Your expert, my expert. Unless of course there's a hidden Orlando Theory of Inflation that hasn't been publicized. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 30 Posted April 30 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: You don't seem to know it, but you are giving us a generalized monetarist explanation for inflation, typically associated with an expert, Milton Friedman. I am pointing out that a pure monetarist explanation doesn't work so well with what we've seen going on in national and the world economy, and that therefore economists are turning back to what business cycle theories have taught us over the years. Your expert, my expert. Unless of course there's a hidden Orlando Theory of Inflation that hasn't been publicized. You are trying to make complicated what is tried and true and actually simple. A large scale introduction of money without the product to back it up has ALWAYS caused inflation, generally quicker then what we have seen but ALWAYS. To nitpick why since 2019 the overall inflation impact is now 40% vs possibly 35% can be discussed since it is not as if we can carve out every detail easily. 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted April 30 Posted April 30 On 7/12/2023 at 1:19 PM, Joe Ferguson forever said: Love that he coopted the derogatory "Bidenomics" title and turned it into a slogan. ⬆️ Redhawk hardest hit. 1 2
Tommy Callahan Posted May 2 Posted May 2 This economy and bidens base turning into brown shirts is not helping bidens chances. 1
Doc Posted May 3 Posted May 3 8 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: This economy and bidens base turning into brown shirts is not helping bidens chances. Yup. And that's why Joe finally had to address it.
BillsFanNC Posted May 3 Posted May 3 WTF. I guess you wouldn't expect Marxists to understand these concepts would you?
B-Man Posted May 3 Posted May 3 Keep lying about the "recovery" U.S. job growth totaled 175,000 in April, much less than expected, while unemployment rose to 3.9% https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/03/jobs-report-april-2024-us-job-growth-totaled-175000-in-april.html https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Tiberius Posted May 3 Posted May 3 Just now, B-Man said: Keep lying about the "recovery" U.S. job growth totaled 175,000 in April, much less than expected, while unemployment rose to 3.9% https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/03/jobs-report-april-2024-us-job-growth-totaled-175000-in-april.html https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Wall street is happy about this. Might get a rate cut later in the year
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 3 Posted May 3 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: My guess is these "low" numbers are just as fake as the high one's. And here's why. Those high numbers weren't translating to what actual working people were experiencing and did nothing for Biden's polling numbers. What Biden needs more than anything is either greater expectations for rate cuts or actual rate cuts so the interest rate sensitive areas of the economy can get a boost before the election. Another round of higher than expected jobs numbers would have dashed hopes for Fed action to lower rates. Higher or low, its all still make up a number that supports the politics of the month. 1
sherpa Posted May 3 Posted May 3 29 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: My guess is these "low" numbers are just as fake as the high one's. And here's why. Those high numbers weren't translating to what actual working people were experiencing and did nothing for Biden's polling numbers. What Biden needs more than anything is either greater expectations for rate cuts or actual rate cuts so the interest rate sensitive areas of the economy can get a boost before the election. Another round of higher than expected jobs numbers would have dashed hopes for Fed action to lower rates. Higher or low, its all still make up a number that supports the politics of the month. These are apolitical stats derived from apolitical sources. The Biden Admin doesn't influence them. It was weaker than expected, but the reading too much into one economic report is foolish. Better to use a three-six month moving average. That gives a much better picture. Still, we are approaching the end of the time line that these economic reports are grossly effected by the pandemic, and become more meaningful. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 3 Posted May 3 (edited) 18 minutes ago, sherpa said: These are apolitical stats derived from apolitical sources. The Biden Admin doesn't influence them. It was weaker than expected, but the reading too much into one economic report is foolish. Better to use a three-six month moving average. That gives a much better picture. Still, we are approaching the end of the time line that these economic reports are grossly effected by the pandemic, and become more meaningful. My contention is when you work with statistical models you can generate any result you'd like based on your assumptions and inputs. As these job numbers are not a count but rather a number derived from a model, I contend they suffer from political bias. I base my theory on some work experience applying statistical modeling and looking at historical trends where the BLS monthly job numbers correlated with statistical significance with other job market metrics then inexplicably diverged from almost all of them without explanation. Something changed. If in my past efforts had we encountered a sudden divergence in one key metric out of several key metrics that had for years followed a similar trend we would have performed a full assessment of the model, our assumptions, our input data and sources, assessed the possibly of exceptional or new circumstances, and identified the source of the divergence and taken action to address it. Edited May 3 by All_Pro_Bills
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted May 3 Posted May 3 53 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Wall street is happy about this. Might get a rate cut later in the year Want to put a bet on this?
Recommended Posts