RE: Palin to resign as governor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 7:54:21 AM)

poor willbe. must be rather upsetting knowing you are subject to a Dem reign once again.




cadenas -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 8:30:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Sorry, but 90% of your post agrees with mine except wrt to nits. The other 10% (Deficits dont drive inflation) is misleading. Deficits don't drive inflation, expansion of the money supply subtantially faster than the economy grows does. That is an undeniable fact supported by every such event in history.

Now if you can find another way to finance a deficit other than expansion of the money supply, go for it.


It does seem that we agree on many points.

Re any link between deficits and inflation: the connection is backwards. It's not the government who decides how much can be borrowed, but the Fed. If the Fed decides that there is too much money in circulation, they effectively reduce the amount of loans available for anybody - including the government - to borrow, and/or they make these loans more expensive. So the total amount of loans, and thus the money supply, is fixed by the Fed's decisions (that is not literally true since the Fed can only indirectly affect loans between private parties, but is good enough for the point here).

An increased deficit cannot affect the money supply for the simple reason that it doesn't affect the total amount of loans. Of course, in an overheated economy, demand for loans (private+public) may exceed what the Fed wants to make available. In the 1990s-2000s, the Fed responded by making more loans available. The result were the astronomical housing prices.

But we don't have that problem today. Because the economy is in a recession, demand for loans is low. Thus, no inflation. And once the economy recovers, the money supply should increase in line with the growth of the economy. So still no problem.


All that aside: compared with the overall economy, the federal deficit is actually relatively small. The US GDP 2008 is around $14 trillion. In order to see a 100% inflation rate, the Fed thus would have to create about another $14T. But the US deficit is forecast to be around 1 trillion. So even if you were right on both points, the deficit quadrupled, AND it really did increase the money supply, we'd still not see a superinflation. In reality, we'll probably see no inflation at all, or single-digits at worst.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 8:38:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

poor willbe. must be rather upsetting knowing you are subject to a Dem reign once again.


No, what is upsetting is what its going to do to the economy. I don't care who fucks it up.




cadenas -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 8:48:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
First off I am amused by people who reffer to what we have had lately as "superinflation".  They clearly don't remember the last two Carter years when the inflation rate was in excess of 10 percent.


I wouldn't call 10% "superinflation". I used the term to refer to the much higher inflation we have seen from the mid 1990s to about 2008, which actually was far more dramatic than a mere 10% or so. It just hasn't registered because the inflation had remained confined to the dotcom market, and later to the housing market, and people viewed it as "appreciation" when in reality it was a classic example for an inflation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Also do describe the economy Bush inherited as running along just fine is a gross exageration.  He was instatntly hit with a recession as a result of the dot.com bubble bursting.  Those with short memories forget that on 9/10 he wasn't supposed to be concerned about anything but fixing the ressecion.  While this is not directly relevant to todays situation you should know what you are talking about.  


Actually, peak business activity was March 2001. So the economy was humming along for more than a year into Bush's presidency. For comparison, Obama has been in office less than six months so far. Even after March 2001, it wasn't even a recession, just a slowdown. Economic growth continued, just at a slower rate. For the most part, the talk about recession was politically motivated to justify the tax cuts that Bush wanted.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 8:49:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas



But we don't have that problem today. Because the economy is in a recession, demand for loans is low. Thus, no inflation. And once the economy recovers, the money supply should increase in line with the growth of the economy. So still no problem.


All that aside: compared with the overall economy, the federal deficit is actually relatively small. The US GDP 2008 is around $14 trillion. In order to see a 100% inflation rate, the Fed thus would have to create about another $14T. But the US deficit is forecast to be around 1 trillion. So even if you were right on both points, the deficit quadrupled, AND it really did increase the money supply, we'd still not see a superinflation. In reality, we'll probably see no inflation at all, or single-digits at worst.




Demand for personal loans is low. Demand for business loans is extremely high. Unfortunately credit is still boudn up.

The second paragraph merely depends on your definition of "superinflation". A term I never heard before you used it. More commonly its "hyperinflation", which has no precise threshhold. The 1970s were considered to be "nearing hyperinflation", and that is the sense I was repeating your use of superinflation. I assume you dont think that 20% inflation is out of the question under Obamas policies, and that you dont think that 20% inflation wouldnt be disasterous to the US and world economies.




tazzygirl -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 9:01:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

poor willbe. must be rather upsetting knowing you are subject to a Dem reign once again.


No, what is upsetting is what its going to do to the economy. I don't care who fucks it up.


yet over and over you keep trying to lay blame solely on one party. man up, admit both sides fucked up, and quit trying to convince others that the one person now responsible is any more evil than the idiots from the past.




DemonKia -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 9:43:40 AM)

Um, Bush took office at the end of January, 2001 . . . . So an economic peak in March 2001 would be a month or two into his term, not a year .. . . . Jus' for the record . . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Actually, peak business activity was March 2001. So the economy was humming along for more than a year into Bush's presidency.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 9:45:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

poor willbe. must be rather upsetting knowing you are subject to a Dem reign once again.


No, what is upsetting is what its going to do to the economy. I don't care who fucks it up.


yet over and over you keep trying to lay blame solely on one party. man up, admit both sides fucked up, and quit trying to convince others that the one person now responsible is any more evil than the idiots from the past.


I have never once layed the blame solely on the Dems, in fact I have only commented briefly on the current economic situation where I lay the legislative blame for current problems primarily on the Dems. That is demonstrable and was predictable, with the root cause in the repeal of Glass Steagall and "Fair Housing" initiatives.

What I HAVE commented on is what will happen in the FUTURE as a result of the Dems proffered policies. That is my business, economic modeling and forecasting. With the Dems in control, forecasting based on GOP policies that have little chance of implementation would be a waste of time.




rulemylife -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 10:55:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I have never once layed the blame solely on the Dems, in fact I have only commented briefly on the current economic situation where I lay the legislative blame for current problems primarily on the Dems. That is demonstrable and was predictable, with the root cause in the repeal of Glass Steagall and "Fair Housing" initiatives.

What I HAVE commented on is what will happen in the FUTURE as a result of the Dems proffered policies. That is my business, economic modeling and forecasting. With the Dems in control, forecasting based on GOP policies that have little chance of implementation would be a waste of time.


I don't know if I would be bragging about that.  One need only look to the many financial advisers and investment firms that cost their investors millions of dollars due to their "economic modeling and forecasting" skills.

And I have to wonder what your point is about Glass-Steagall since it was Phil Gramm and two other Republican co-sponsors in the House that authored the legislation to partially repeal it.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 11:49:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I have never once layed the blame solely on the Dems, in fact I have only commented briefly on the current economic situation where I lay the legislative blame for current problems primarily on the Dems. That is demonstrable and was predictable, with the root cause in the repeal of Glass Steagall and "Fair Housing" initiatives.

What I HAVE commented on is what will happen in the FUTURE as a result of the Dems proffered policies. That is my business, economic modeling and forecasting. With the Dems in control, forecasting based on GOP policies that have little chance of implementation would be a waste of time.


I don't know if I would be bragging about that.  One need only look to the many financial advisers and investment firms that cost their investors millions of dollars due to their "economic modeling and forecasting" skills.

And I have to wonder what your point is about Glass-Steagall since it was Phil Gramm and two other Republican co-sponsors in the House that authored the legislation to partially repeal it.



And Clinton that signed it. It was a horse trade for the Community Reinvestment Act.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 12:00:27 PM)

So, just in the interest if keeping all  the Sarah Palin bickering rounded up in one corral, let's post this little essay from Peggy Noonan here.

quote:

She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be. She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.

McCain-Palin lost. Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.

"The elites hate her." The elites made her. It was the elites of the party, the McCain campaign and the conservative media that picked her and pushed her. The base barely knew who she was. It was the elites, from party operatives to public intellectuals, who advanced her and attacked those who said she lacked heft. She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon.

"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.

"She shows our ingenuous interest in all classes." She shows your cynicism.

"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!

"The media did her in." Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it's arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they're perfect in every way. It's yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.

"Turning to others means the media won!" No, it means they lose. What the mainstream media wants is not to kill her but to keep her story going forever. She hurts, as they say, the Republican brand, with her mess and her rhetorical jabberwocky and her careless causing of division. Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn't the media want to keep that going?



"She Might As Well HAve Been A Bonbon!"

What I especially enjoyed (and find particularly relevant to this thread) is Noonan's artful exposure of Palin as a cynical prop of the Republican leadership, to manipulate the party's dumbest members. And of course, Noonan's observation of something that I've pointed out here several times - that Palin is too stupid to even grasp how stupid she is. Palin is a "ponder-free zone". And keep in mind, this is coming from a staunch conservative, one of Reagan's most trusted advisors, a speechwriter for both Reagan and Bush the Elder, and a woman who took a leave of absence from her job to campaign for Bush the Lesser in 2004. I will now go to the cabinet and remove a packet of microwave popcorn while i await the usual chorus of "she's not really a conservative, she's not really a republican, she doesn't understand mainstream America, etc."

Edit: fucking formating...




Lucylastic -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 12:05:33 PM)

but.... but.... but.... Panda, shes a woman, she is just jealous of palins pecker power.




DemonKia -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 1:11:54 PM)

lol

Lucy, spot on. As Ann Coulter would probably point out (as she did about another pundit critiquing Palin), Noonan's just ugly & unsuccessful, & jealous of what a gorgeous success Ms Palin is . . . . .

(Please note the tongue jammed into my cheek . . . . . . [8D] )




Loki45 -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 2:07:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
lol

Lucy, spot on. As Ann Coulter would probably point out (as she did about another pundit critiquing Palin), Noonan's just ugly & unsuccessful, & jealous of what a gorgeous success Ms Palin is . . . . .

(Please note the tongue jammed into my cheek . . . . . . [8D] )


I *still* have a hard time understanding why anyone would consider palin attractive. For me, it's always been about more than looks. To be honest, palin's look does nothing for me. That is further hindered every time she opens her mouth. I can't see the attraction at all.




DemonKia -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 2:43:55 PM)

Well, Loki, earlier in this thread a link was posted to an Ann Coulter column where she did indeed say that a female critic of Palin was jealous of Palin's good looks & career success . . . . . .

Personally, the soccer-mom thing that Palin cultivates is something to run screaming from, but to each their own . . . . .




tazzygirl -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 2:48:36 PM)

oh Loki! some men find dumb sexy. i think she is a very attractive woman, especially in comparison to many who are in politics. however, its ruined when she starts to speak, sadly enough. she is indeed charming and engaging. mix looks and personality with say... Clinton's political savvy... and you got a tough political force.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 2:54:49 PM)

She's a truly homely woman. That vacant, blank-eyed zombie grin makes her look like the "after" picture on the wall of a lobotomy doctor's office. "Hi! My name is Sarah, but don't ask me how to spell it!"




Loki45 -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 3:03:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
She's a truly homely woman. That vacant, blank-eyed zombie grin makes her look like the "after" picture on the wall of a lobotomy doctor's office. "Hi! My name is Sarah, but don't ask me how to spell it!"


My sentiments exactly. I don't find a redeeming quality about her....except maybe her choice of wardrobe (as opposed to the dreaded pantsuits). Though that's hard a reason to support her.

When the campaign was in full swing, people started to see the resemblance between her and Tina Fey....and I remember thinking "no wonder I don't like Tina Fey."




tazzygirl -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 3:09:42 PM)

part of what i dont like that came from the whole Palin episode is the catty attitudes that have erupted once again. a woman can have a problem with another woman based upon things other than looks. i mentioned to someone else... yeah... no doubt you would fuck her... but.. couold you LIVE with her for the rest of your life?




cadenas -> RE: Palin to resign as governor (7/11/2009 8:16:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
But we don't have that problem today. Because the economy is in a recession, demand for loans is low. Thus, no inflation. And once the economy recovers, the money supply should increase in line with the growth of the economy. So still no problem.

All that aside: compared with the overall economy, the federal deficit is actually relatively small. The US GDP 2008 is around $14 trillion. In order to see a 100% inflation rate, the Fed thus would have to create about another $14T. But the US deficit is forecast to be around 1 trillion. So even if you were right on both points, the deficit quadrupled, AND it really did increase the money supply, we'd still not see a superinflation. In reality, we'll probably see no inflation at all, or single-digits at worst.


Demand for personal loans is low. Demand for business loans is extremely high. Unfortunately credit is still boudn up.


Yes, on the microeconomic scale you are right. From a macroeconomic perspective, it doesn't matter if demand is low because businesses don't need loans, or if it is low because they are ineligible. Either way, they end up not requesting funds from the Fed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The second paragraph merely depends on your definition of "superinflation". A term I never heard before you used it. More commonly its "hyperinflation", which has no precise threshhold. The 1970s were considered to be "nearing hyperinflation", and that is the sense I was repeating your use of superinflation. I assume you dont think that 20% inflation is out of the question under Obamas policies, and that you dont think that 20% inflation wouldnt be disasterous to the US and world economies.


Hyperinflation is just an inflammatory term that, as you say, has "no precise threshold" and is bandied about by those who want to score emotional points. Don't you think that an inflation rate in the teens per year is fundamentally different from an inflation rate in the hundreds per DAY? Inflation in the 1970s was "nearing hyperinflation" the same way I am nearing the moon when I climb up on a chair.

Why are you saying WOULD be disastrous? when we are already in the middle of the aftermath of that exact disaster? The 1995-2008 inflation has PROVEN to be disastrous to the world economy!

And it is still a mystery to my why you claim that Obama's policies have anything to do with it when it was George Bush who turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history. And he didn't even have Reagan's excuse because House and Senate BOTH were also Republican.





Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625