Double digit inflation as measured by the CPI would be fantastic. It sure took care of unemployment in the 70s. What a prosperous time that was.

Cleveland Buck;1163487 wrote:Double digit inflation as measured by the CPI would be fantastic. It sure took care of unemployment in the 70s. What a prosperous time that was.

The markets have actually performed pretty well in periods of high inflation. I'm not sure about employment, but usually employment follows REAL economic growth more so than inflation. Stability and confidence (both of which Obama seems set on destroying whatever he hasn't already) understandably create a better environment for growth.

I don't disagree that double digit inflation is not good, or at least not optimal, for the economy and employment. I just don't know that we can avoid it on present course.

I'm shocked nobody made note of this little tidbit: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/05/obama-empty-arena

believer;1163661 wrote:I'm shocked nobody made note of this little tidbit: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/05/obama-empty-arena

Needs moar Greek Columns.

fish82;1163667 wrote:Needs moar Greek Columns.

Yeah and a better main attraction.

Manhattan Buckeye;1163402 wrote:This is the "X"th time you'e made this argument and the "X"th time it makes no sense. Public sector employment is down because (i) public sector employment was overlybloated to begin with, (ii) the inherent inefficiencies and diminishing demand for public services will dictate a right-sizing in the sector when budget issues become a concern, and (iii) as an extension of (ii), budget issues haven't just been a concern, they've been the utmost concern. The "Stimulus" was nothing more than a short-term band-aid to fill local governments' budget shortfalls. It didn't stimulate anything.

It makes no sense to keep a postal worker on payroll if the work isn't there for him or her. It makes even less sense when the revenue stream from falling property values and lower tax bases can't support the overhead for an inefficient if not useless worker. If any jurisdiction could spend its way out of a recession by just printing money and making up jobs no country would be in trouble. That isn't the case. People are paid with real money, and the real money has to come from somewhere.

It is clear that you don't want to understand. Your views are being tried and are failing. Where were all of you people in 2005 demanding that government employees be fired? Firing Public Employees during an economic slump and putting them on unemployment insurance when we're no where close to full employment is lunacy.

Even if a Teacher is not that great and could probably be fired; it makes no sense to do that en masse when interest rates are at zero because the Fed cannot offset the depressing effect of fiscal consolidation with lower rates. It is a recipe for higher unemployment and worse long term debt problems.

You can't start firing inefficient public employees until we're at full employment and interest rates can be cut when they're fired.

But just so we're clear; Manhattan Buckeye believes that you get to full employment by firing people and put them on unemployment insurance.

Getting to full employment is the chief concern and concerns about inefficiencies in the public sector are secondary at this point.

gut;1163474 wrote:People saw and predicted the internet bubble bursting long before it actually did. That didn't make them wrong, they were just early on the timing. What a horrible failure of logic for you to claim just because it hasn't happened already it can't happen.


What the fed chairman says ultimately rings hollow. The fed has credibility now because Volker worked like a dog to establish it, but actions ultimately speak louder than words. Like I said, there comes a point where the Fed can't dictate. The entire point is when we actually do hit the tipping point, it will be too late.


Private sector employment is nowhere near back to where it was. Where the hell do you get your information? There are 4.8M less jobs than the peak in Feb 2008. Yeah, the govt got bloated under Bush, too and we aren't back to anywhere near where we were under Clinton.


There is a debt overhang holding the economy back. You read the WSJ apparently, but must read it selectively because there have been plenty of articles with business people talking about concern over the Obamaconomy and large tax increases to fund the runaway debt.


And you're actually arguing that what is destroying this economy is cutting federal employment and not enough stimulus - two things that create 0 economic value? Please explain to me how that logic works.

I wasn't arguing from logic...I'm simply saying you're predictions have been wrong...the policy ideas you propose have been tried in Europe and have failed miserably and that they're going to continue to be. Furthermore, the evidence doesn't support your assertions. But you're not arguing from evidence...you're arguing from a bitter dislike of the president much like the majority of people who write for the Wall St. Journal Op-Ed page and incredulity.


And additionally, I said that cuts in State public employment is what is holding us back...teachers, cops, etc. But oh I know, teachers create no economic value.


And, a stimulus could be designed in a way that supports republican goals. For instance, we could build 3,000 more F-22's or something.


I'm not arguing from logic I'm just saying that you're going to be wrong just like people saying the same thing about Japan were wrong. Real interest rates are in the Negative guy.

BoatShoes;1163292 wrote: And again, You argue that there's all this fat that we need to cut in government now but it is precisely the huge amount of losses in public sector jobs (orchestrated by Republicans) that is holding us back.

I must be missing something. obama has increased spending by over 50% (i.e. grown the size of the federal government in terms of spending by more than half in just 4 years), and yet there is no "fat" to cut?? There was already hundreds of billions of fat to cut before he arrived on the scene and went on his epic spending spree, and now we spend over $1.4 TRILLION more per year than we were spending just 5 shorts years ago --- and yet there is no room to cut spending? Somebody please, beam me up.

Every citizen is now in debt by over $50,100, and every taxpayer is in debt by over $138,000 with those numbers rising at the fastest pace in U.S., I mean world, history, and there is no 'fat' to cut? We did TARP and bailouts in year 1, why did spending then not revert back to '07 levels, why did it continue on with trillions in deficits every year since??

We should be able to simply go back to '07 spending, and even add in 5 years of 2% inflation and still be spending over a trillion less than we are. Where the he!! are these new trillions going?

The spending by this regime is simply criminal and treasonous. There is no way the debt can be repaid, and yet we continue to churn out trillion dollar deficits, and there are actually people who think the problem is taxes; that is the biggest lie ever sold by any politician in history ---- yet it is being peddled everyday by folks like you and the radical progressives (code word for marxists). What a crock.

STOP SPENDING MY MONEY AND STOP FORCING MY KIDS INTO A FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT ENSLAVEMENT!

BoatShoes;1163962 wrote:I wasn't arguing from logic...I'm simply saying you're predictions have been wrong...the policy ideas you propose have been tried in Europe and have failed miserably and that they're going to continue to be.

You're completely missing the point. First off, stop pretending Europe is an identical comparable. It's not - they have no recourse left in financing. You can't separate the affects between default/insolvency and austerity. You also continue to ignore the forward looking nature of business/markets which goes back to the credibility issue I mentioned - one need only look at the very recent elections to see that businesses and investors should have little confidence Europe is correcting course.

The other issue, as Quaker mentions, is the massive increase in spending the past few years. Where is this money going? I strongly question it's additive value, if any, to GDP. There's a massive Obama/deficit overhang right now, and you don't understand this. Shaving off $250-$300B a year likely won't have any impact and is not nearly the severe "austerity" you want to claim. Restoring confidence and credibility - neither of which bumbling Europe has been able to come close to managing - is the key to restoring sustainable growth.

What's holding us back is lack of private sector growth, which you need to PAY for all those leeching govt jobs you're lamenting the loss over. We're going backwards on education so, yeah, I'm not crying over a few teachers losing their jobs.

BoatShoes;1163962 wrote: I'm not arguing from logic I'm just saying that you're going to be wrong just like people saying the same thing about Japan were wrong. Real interest rates are in the Negative guy.

You do realize that interest rates demanded by investors and CPI are different things, correct? You do realize that when default premiums spike, interest rates spike suddenly and dramatically? You do realize the external demand for treasuries is actually declining, and the massive deficit is being propped-up by printing money to lend to the gubmit? You do realize that inflation can rise suddenly and dramatically, that lack of inflation TODAY does not mean there isn't loads of it in the pipeline?

The latest trick to tailor down CPI is adjusting for the increased "quality" of goods. The REAL real interest rate isn't negative, don't kid yourself. People aren't putting money under mattresses. There's a lot of manipulation going on right now that isn't sustainable, and I'm glad you mentioned Japan because the methods you're advocating didn't do jack shit for that economy for well over a decade (if they've ever really recovered from their 90s meltdown)

http://freebeacon.com/admin-drafted-memo-to-shield-obama-if-obl-raid-failed/

BoatShoes;1163948 wrote:It is clear that you don't want to understand. Your views are being tried and are failing. Where were all of you people in 2005 demanding that government employees be fired? Firing Public Employees during an economic slump and putting them on unemployment insurance when we're no where close to full employment is lunacy.

Even if a Teacher is not that great and could probably be fired; it makes no sense to do that en masse when interest rates are at zero because the Fed cannot offset the depressing effect of fiscal consolidation with lower rates. It is a recipe for higher unemployment and worse long term debt problems.

You can't start firing inefficient public employees until we're at full employment and interest rates can be cut when they're fired.

But just so we're clear; Manhattan Buckeye believes that you get to full employment by firing people and put them on unemployment insurance.

Getting to full employment is the chief concern and concerns about inefficiencies in the public sector are secondary at this point.

This is so delicious I have to fisk this point by point:

"It is clear that you don't want to understand. Your views are being tried and are failing."

As opposed by the geniuses running things now. The idea that I should balance my checkbook likely is misunderstood now.

" Where were all of you people in 2005 demanding that government employees be fired? Firing Public Employees during an economic slump and putting them on unemployment insurance when we're no where close to full employment is lunacy. "

Make that 2006 and I can tell you where I was, I wasn't demanding government employees be fired but I was certainly questioning moves by our "stewards," including the opening of two new public high schools in two of the adjacent counties (short explanation - there are 3 counties around the city and each try to maintain a 400 student per high school ratio - in '06 two of the counties begins plans for a new school each along with the requisite headcount to support each school) as property values were rising and dollars were burning a hole in the boards' budget - so what did they do. (i) lower taxes? (ii) save money for a rainy day? or (iii) build the most lavish schools that are sitting half empty right now because between '08 and '11 the metropolitan area shed 45,000 jobs?

"Even if a Teacher is not that great and could probably be fired; it makes no sense to do that en masse when interest rates are at zero because the Fed cannot offset the depressing effect of fiscal consolidation with lower rates. It is a recipe for higher unemployment and worse long term debt problems. "

So public jobs are guaranteed. Got you there chief, I mean comrade. WTF does the interest rate have anything to do with it. In my world (reality) to keep a job there needs to be a job.

"You can't start firing inefficient public employees until we're at full employment and interest rates can be cut when they're fired."

Does your utopia extend to the private sector? Jobs for all! Who cares where the money comes from, we'll just invent it like the USSR early 80's.

"But just so we're clear; Manhattan Buckeye believes that you get to full employment by firing people and put them on unemployment insurance. "

Liar. Liar. Liar. I said no such thing. Although as lousy as your points are I should feel flattered. I said nothing about full employment. We likely will never enjoy such, some people are unemployable. But public sector workers shouldn't be shielded from economic realities because of some internet nut's strange economic theories - not even Keynes believed that.

"Getting to full employment is the chief concern and concerns about inefficiencies in the public sector are secondary at this point."

Problem solved, we all become government workers, half digging ditches and the other half filling them - where the money comes from we'll just play ignorant until the house of cards falls.

The simple and obvious question which Boatshoes can't answer is....if running huge deficits is bankrupting Europe, then how is spending MORE money they don't have going to fix things? What happened to all the economic growth from all their govt spending and socialism? That dog hasn't hunted in years.

"What happened to all the economic growth from all their govt spending and socialism?"

This answer is simple. It goes to government stakeholders. Time after time has educated us that our governments simply can't balance a budget and be trusted to be stewards of our money. In good times they'll spend profligately and in bad times will run up huge deficits.

It is human nature to be irresponsible with other people's money, particularly when you spend it on yourself.

gut;1164650 wrote:The simple and obvious question which Boatshoes can't answer is....if running huge deficits is bankrupting Europe, then how is spending MORE money they don't have going to fix things? What happened to all the economic growth from all their govt spending and socialism? That dog hasn't hunted in years.

Actually it has because American defense spending continues to underwrite their Grand Keynesian Experiment.

believer;1164879 wrote:Actually it has because American defense spending continues to underwrite their Grand Keynesian Experiment.

Healthcare, too. In fairness, everyone keeps buying our treasuries. There's a more symibiotic relationship then people acknowledge (i.e. we get cheap oil, but we subsidize global healthcare). But globally, by and large nobody is paying for their grand social experiments.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

If you are the incumbent and the numbers are what they are, you best be updating your resume.

Nov '12 cannot arrive soon enough.

QuakerOats;1165372 wrote:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

If you are the incumbent and the numbers are what they are, you best be updating your resume.

Nov '12 cannot arrive soon enough.

I'm voting out incumbents. Seems the only choice from my options. I mean, I could whine like a little kid not getting his way and voluntarily disenfranchise myself, or I can be an adult and choose between the options given me.

gut;1165375 wrote:I'm voting out incumbents. Seems the only choice from my options. I mean, I could whine like a little kid not getting his way and voluntarily disenfranchise myself, or I can be an adult and choose between the options given me.

There are more than 2 options.

sleeper;1165381 wrote:There are more than 2 options.

If you want to disenfranchise yourself. The time for debate and argument over who the candidates should be is over. It's like any other iterative process where you continue to whittle down the list to choose the best candidate. As an adult, you can participate in that choice or you can behave like a child insisting on making a choice that has already been eliminated. Maybe next time your preferred choice can be in the mix, and maybe you will need more to help achieve that.

Nobody wants Ron Paul, so the Paulbots will take their ball and go home. Like a little kid.

gut;1165385 wrote:Nobody wants Ron Paul, so the Paulbots will take their ball and go home. Like a little kid.

:thumbup:

gut;1165385 wrote:If you want to disenfranchise yourself. The time for debate and argument over who the candidates should be is over. It's like any other iterative process where you continue to whittle down the list to choose the best candidate. As an adult, you can participate in that choice or you can behave like a child insisting on making a choice that has already been eliminated. Maybe next time your preferred choice can be in the mix, and maybe you will need more to help achieve that.

Nobody wants Ron Paul, so the Paulbots will take their ball and go home. Like a little kid.

I appreciate the comments. That will not deter me from picking the candidate who aligns closely with my beliefs. That man is Ron Paul.

I saw the student loan bill died in the Senate today because they can't figure out how to pay for the rate cut.

Will we be having the same battle about paying for the tax cut extension at the end of the year?

If we are cool with putting $300-400 billion a year in tax cut extensions on the national credit card with no pay for, we the fuss over $6 billion for student loans when in that case the people receiving the benefit usually really need it.

I am OK with paying for things in theory, but it seems we have different sets of rules for what should and shouldn't be paid for and I find the inconsistency a little odd.

IggyPride00;1165550 wrote:...we the fuss over $6 billion for student loans when in that case the people receiving the benefit usually really need it.

Agree it's a pittance (the real debate is whether the gubmit should be in the student loan game at all, I believe not)...But if rates double from 3.4% to 6.8%, the max subsidized loans an undergrad can have are $23k...So we're talking an extra 3.4% a year, or @ $570 more a year. Now for a college degree is that REALLY a hardship?!?

That extra interest ain't going to break them. Now, huge loans for shitty grades for shitty degrees might put them between a rock and a hard place, but then they have bigger problems than finding another $50/mo.

gut;1165565 wrote:Agree it's a pittance (the real debate is whether the gubmit should be in the student loan game at all, I believe not)...But if rates double from 3.4% to 6.8%, the max subsidized loans an undergrad can have are $23k...So we're talking an extra 3.4% a year, or @ $570 more a year. Now for a college degree is that REALLY a hardship?!?

That extra interest ain't going to break them. Now, huge loans for ****ty grades for ****ty degrees might put them between a rock and a hard place, but then they have bigger problems than finding another $50/mo.

Actually, to me the real crime is that we loan banks money at zero percent interest, and at the same time are charging 3.4-6.8% interest to student loans.

Education is the most important thing to the future of this country, and yet we give free money to banks and charge students the rates we do. All the loans are guaranteed by the government anyway, so that interest is just free money to the banks. That to me is the real racket.