@dubz4dummyz
I dont see it that way as you stated in post 52. Ukraine makes their own decisions regarding NATO, whatever the US wants does not mean Ukraine makes any decisions regarding joining NATO. Not sure Norstream is a triggering event either, I think it goes back further than just a year or two. If it is solely about NATO then I guess NATO is worth the loss of thousands of citizens and all the future destruction coming.
@witswits
You knowingly made useless threads to combat what you feel is a forum filled with stuff from the other side, your posts state exactly that. You are fixated on what that other group does and says and you made so many threads of no value just to push down the other content and that is why I moved some of them and your antagonizing them are why you get boxed.
Please read the rules and guidelines and follow them already.
@BigGame90
Banks are stuck because as you mentioned they leveraged on government debt using zero cost cash, they could borrow from the FED and buy leveraged bonds and notes and make a risk free 10% return and that is why the money multiplier no longer works. Banks are not lenders, banks are speculators and leveraging hedge funds seeking to play the markets and game the FED. Banks are not forced to mark to market on their CRE loans or their debt holdings so they can just use overnight REPO instruments to keep out of liquidity trouble and make their balance sheet look clean. I dont see any large banks getting in trouble they have enough clean assets to short term borrow and they can survive. The banks that failed were ones who took risks on illiquid investments and on CRE loans at too high of leverage relative to cash on the books and solid investments. Greed is what nailed banks like Silicon Valley, taking too much risk seeking that return and that is what MIGHT cause small banks to get burnt.
Good point
@wallstreetcappers
Calm down -- what is comical is you think that might be a quote from Economist. 
I gave a more detailed answer on this already -- go read it.
You do not seem to really have a grasp on the FED, yet, nor monetary policy, nor inflation.
I asked you in the other thread about whether you had a subscription to see if you had read a couple of good articles they had about that issue.
But, you did not seem to want to seriously discuss that either. Just like you do not want to discuss this. You simply want to jump in when someone suggests that Biden's policies might have a part to play in it.
If you want to provide data to discuss -- then do that.
Otherwise, you just seem like you are trying to sound like you want to seem to know more than the folks on here that say that.
Instead, it sounds like you have a superficial understanding at best and want to absolve Biden altogether. Which is why I always say read the data and see what the experts in the field say.
Biden, may not be totally to blame -- but he certainly cannot be let off of the hook on this. I have detailed this in length elsewhere.
While the folks on here that want to blame Biden totally are off base -- the way you attempt to explain it away looks very poor and coming from your political viewpoint.
It would be better for you to provide something substantive in the way of data or backed up by experts for them to understand.
Otherwise, it is simply your 'opinion' versus theirs.
Many experts will simply disagree with your assessment -- BUT they will back it up with data.
But from your political side, you cannot see anything wrong with any Biden administration fiscal policy and that clouds your 'opinion'.
The FED, Congress, AND Biden (mainly, his knucklehead advisors) all have a role to play in this mess.
To the folks that are going to vote, the economy is going to play a huge deciding factor and this administration is starting to realize that a little late. The folks will care more about who is in office when things got this bad NOT as much of an 'excuse' of 'it could have happened under any President'. IF there COULD be a case good enough to be backed up by economists that this was the case -- the Biden administration would have them front and center everyday -- WITH their data to back it up; they simply cannot and so they do not.
Americans have been left behind by inflation for a prolonged period too — Biden’s entire term to be exact.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index was rising at a 1.4 percent rate when Biden took office in January 2021. By March, it was rising by 2.6 percent and by January 2022, it was skyrocketing by 7.5 percent. It peaked at 9.1 percent (a 40-year high) in June 2022 and in December was still 6.5 percent. A year later in December 2023, it was still rising at 3.4 percent. The Federal Reserve targets two percent for its acceptable rate: so, for 35 consecutive months in Biden’s presidency, inflation has been above this level.
This has had an enormous cumulative impact on prices and the Americans paying them. The reason inflation has been so big is due in large part to Biden’s spending being even bigger.
Over his first three years, Biden has spent both $5.9 trillion more than was spent in pre-pandemic 2019 and run deficits of $5.9 trillion — with another $1.6 trillion projected for 2024 and federal publicly held debt reaching $27.9 trillion, 99 percent of GDP. This is a massive amount of extra money pumped into America’s economy.
Biden’s excessive spending has helped over-weight demand relative to the supply of goods — too much money chasing too few goods. Naturally, prices rise as a result.
But that is only half of Americans’ pricing squeeze. The other half comes from the huge jump in interest rates that the Federal Reserve had to implement to cool Biden’s spending-infused inflation inferno. Eleven times the Fed was forced to hike rates, taking them from 0.25-0.50 percent in March 2022 to 5.25-5.50 percent in July 2023.
So, Americans are trapped between inflation’s twin pressures: The prices they pay and the money they borrow.
The president is right to be worried about prices, but he is wrong about the culprit. It’s not “greedflation” or “shrinkflation” as he claims, it’s Biden-flation. It’s real and he’s really responsible.
Biden is forever causing problems and blaming others — illegal immigration, foreign policy disasters and an America-last energy policy come quickly to mind. But inflation is one he cannot escape.
Posted originally on TheHill.com 20 Feb. 2024
Putin went to Joe trying to resolve the Dunbas region problem. Right after talking to Joe, Zelensky shutdown Russian television in Ukraine, a provoking move. Joe did nothing but provoke a conflict even stating a small incursion was ok.
---Joe funded Hamas through UNRWA
---Joe funded Houthis with aid to Yemen.
---Joe funded Iran with billions in frozen assets. What the hell was he thinking? They will be my buddy now????
@Raiders22
Thats lots of words and no real information, so you like to call me out as usual and tell me to go read some publication as if that proves your perspective and of course it does not. I have been on this forum longer than you and have given more data and direct details that you but luckily it is not me vs you.
If you read my replies today which you do not because you are biased and have an axe to grind against me because I challenge you, it is right there that I gave details and firm reasons for my views not partisan swipes like most here do or your usual cut and paste proof and telling people that OTHERS agree with you as a form of a put down. I dont need to prove myself by telling you to read what other EXPERTS have to say, that is a pretty lame retort but you use it all the time.
I have said repeatedly that old school monetary policy is flawed and cannot be used to direct inflation and I gave the WHY, I gave what old school theory was and how it worked I also listed what has changed and why it does not work as a theory. I gave proof via the FED balance sheet and have linked it in the past but why do that nobody is going to go look at the FRED website with the FED data, you also fall in that group. The FED has blunt tools (said before) and limited options to try and influence the economy but the players in the money supply circle cannot be forced to follow an old school role and they do not and that is why monetary policy fails from a 1990s textbook econ class.
I also asked to discuss direct consumer based programs and that spending president to president but others and yourself just want to look at "spending" an "inflation" which is a silly way to approach a complex equation. CPI inflation is consumer prices, thus to determine consumer inflation relative to government spending you have to isolate consumer programs and spending...but hey I dont know what I am talking about because you and some faceless expert say so.
@wallstreetcappers
I am sure if they are interested in discussing it they will look at a link if you provide it. There are plenty of the guys on the Right that will discuss things with you. There are very few on the Left that are interested in doing that -- in fact you are about the only one.
It is not so much calling you out as it is explaining to you that people react better when they have evidence and data that you used to support your opinion is all.
When someone says inflation is such-and-such and you say well that is not the President's fault -- you should show them numbers to back up what you think.
Economics and finance are data-driven and results-oriented fields. That is why any article you read, or video you watch, will have charts and data to back up what they are saying.
I always read your posts. I can tell you put some thought into them even when I disagree with them. I am not sure what you are challenging me about in this instance, I just requoted someone in response to what a guy posted here.
I simply do not respond when I do agree with you is all and in this instance I am not even completely disagreeing. BUT you called me out for a repost of a quote about Bidenomics.
Simply saying that 'old-school...is flawed' can only take you so far in making your argument. You have to show them what you mean and back it up with data and then be prepared if they have counter-data or arguments against it.
Economics is not as clear-cut as saying something and expecting everyone to agree; it is a very disagreeable field by nature.
Like they always told us: this field along with meteorology are the only two fields where you can be right only half the time and expect to keep a job.
The issue in the argument you guys have, both sides have some validity -- as I have pointed out repeatedly.
But to ignore spending as a factor is somewhat disingenuous if you are going to consider the entire situation.
You can argue about how much of a factor, how much of a lag, how much of a recovery time, etc. But you cannot dismiss it entirely -- especially when it is upwards of $6T and growing.
The experts are not necessarily 'faceless'? They are well-known. It is never 'lame' to further your education on any subject by reading studied experts about it; in fact t it is lame if we do not do that and assume we already know more than they do. We should all be constantly learning. I can assure you, this is a field where we are always learning.
Like I always try to point out -- if you cannot understand both sides well enough to argue them -- how can you effectively counter an opposing view.
The FED may have 'blunt' tools and 'limited' ways to use them -- BUT they NEED to use them, and use them effectively and they did not do that.
Again, Biden, the FED and Congress all get blame. BUT Biden is the one in office while it happened and that is what a lot of folks will remember.
@wallstreetcappers
For example, when you say this sort of thing it helps to substantiate it with something.
Shapiro, I believe, did a nice job of breaking this down -- or at least the guy used his data. If you go look at some of those charts where it is broken down into the 'demand', 'undetermined', and 'supply' factors, you will see a big jump in the 'demand' portion.
For example, the PCE chart would show the 'demand' portion at 1%, the 'undetermined' at 1% and the 'supply' at 1.5% right about the time the inflation started to jump and the folks were back at it, etc.
Then at the peak it was D 2.7%, ud 1.5%, S 2.8%. So, there was absolutely a huge 'demand' jump. Prior to the start of the rise, the 'demand' portion was actually negative ~ -.5% or so.
So, you cannot dismiss the 'demand' factor out-of-hand; what you can do is ask why the jump in 'demand'? That is where you have to consider infusion and spending etc.
But when something that even before the pandemic was considered around 30% of a factor and, recently, was about 36% of a factor -- you cannot simply say it is NOT at least a big part of the problem.
@Raiders22
When I state something I always give context because in a high high majority of my replies I am refuting what others here including you fail to give and that is proper context. People generalize because they read something or watched some partisan piece that is made to create a narrative and that is always flawed, like every single time so my replies are almost always to give context and proper background. Ive showed charts, plenty of them but it has to be used in proper framing of the point I am making. I think most experts are not much different than I am, I have a business degree, background in finance and the markets, Ive done thousands of hours of deep research on topics and I've read plenty of opinions always with an open mind but also always expecting there to be an agenda or a narrative and so I look at most things as a way to get more information and then form a more grounded result. I have no partisan agenda when it comes to economics and I think the role of government in the maximum is extremely limited and economic theory supports my view on that..but what you find here and most blogs/articles is the attempt to tie a partisan view to economics and thus the role of government is exaggerated and you fall into that group yourself.
Ive said so many times that I think the FED plays a much heavier role in the economy than the government does as the life blood of corps is cheap cash and liquidity and as I think BigGame referenced today that the role of derivatives and the financial markets is too large and in fact larger than the total contribution of the government to the economy. The markets are not controlled by the government and inflation is not strongly influenced by the government. That has been my position and I do not need to lean on others words or views to draw that conclusion, that comes from $$$$$ the sum of $$$$$ proves what moves this economy, the markets, inflation etc etc and the government is a very small player, and thus the CPI is not strongly moved from an increase in government debt. If you want to know how CPI is influenced then separate out CONSUMER programs and funding, that is the C in CPI, so I dont care with regards to CPI what the government added in debt, ONLY the increase in CONSUMER based programs and spending. I could go on about banks and how monetary policy failed CPI but inflated other markets like real estate and equity markets but the discussion here is not monetary policy its INFLATION and BIDEN and blaming DEMS for inflation, well that is false and the CONSUMER based data proves that. To move CPI the magnitude we saw in two years is impossible from the increase in CONSUMER based programs, impossible.
@wallstreetcappers
Yes, I get that you are putting it in context. I sincerely do. BUT when you are attempting to refute a point someone is making and they actually present data -- like inflation is 6% or whatever -- it just helps to have something to back up the point you are making.
They use data and numbers; I think you should as well.
I have not seen you show charts lately. I am sorry if I have missed those -- or maybe they were in some of the threads I have been skipping.
Ive done thousands of hours of deep research on topics and I've read plenty of opinions always with an open mind but also always expecting there to be an agenda or a narrative and so I look at most things as a way to get more information and then form a more grounded result.
Good to hear --but sometimes the data will remove any narrative, especially if you remove whatever spin they are using certain numbers for.
Economists generally are less partisan than other financial sectors. They usually are the ones having their work reviewed. Now you are correct that a news outlet may put a political bent on how they present it.
I have no partisan agenda when it comes to economics and I think the role of government in the maximum is extremely limited and economic theory supports my view on that
I think you feel you do, and maybe you try to. But you seem to be for a lot more of the government spending on social orgormas, etc. But when folks say the government role should be limited -- I always wonder if they mean it like they think they do. Limited means NOT spending as much and NOW having to actually cut back. Just as you would have to tighten up in your household.
Ive said so many times that I think the FED plays a much heavier role in the economy than the government does as the life blood of corps is cheap cash and liquidity and as I think BigGame referenced today that the role of derivatives and the financial markets is too large and in fact larger than the total contribution of the government to the economy. The markets are not controlled by the government and inflation is not strongly influenced by the government. That has been my position and I do not need to lean on others words or views to draw that conclusion
To a degree --BUT the spending part is ALL government and NOT the FED. For sure the FED saw this situation coming -- all us did -- and should have been out in front of it. Now Powell is genuinely messed it up and I have already written on this. He should be gone as quickly as possible. So, it may have been a tough time to manage the situation -- but that was his repsonsibilty and he willingly took it on and, therefor, should be fired for mismanaging it.
Again, if you want to isolate the spending out -- do it. That is fine -- but you cannot ignore it, nor downplay the role. You can argue about how much weight it carries at any given time -- as I pointed out above.
But THAT is certainly a part that the government does control and it cannot dismissed as a factor at all.
Yes, people always tend to generalize; we all do. You do it when you dismiss the 'demand' and the spending. It seems as if you do not consider it a factor at all when you generalize it that way.
Like I say, you can say other factors play a role also -- and to what degree. BUT when others complain about spending and demand they are correct as well.
@wallstreetcappers
Plus, if you would subscribe to Economist you might come across an article one of our local yokels aided on. 
Just kidding. It may not be worth it unless it is something you like that stuff a lot. Too many good sites cost money to get the good stuff online nowadays. But overall it is a good one to have. But there are plenty of good free outlets also.
I won't blow up the font. If this inflation happened under Trump it would be called Trump-flation. If it happened under OB, it would be Obomination-inflation. Just go down the line....Bush-flation is my favorite.......Love the BUSH
A bigger issue is if Israel/US takes out Iran's oil refinery. China gets a bunch of oil from Iran and it would cause more tension with US and China.
That is what is called super solid right der
Profound
Trump agenda would make inflation worse. He plans devaluation of US dollar, mass deportation to reduce work force, higher tariffs and tax cuts for the rich. On Foxnews, Trump likes to complain about inflation but he doesn't know how to reduce it. In contrast, inflation has already declined from 2021 to 2024 during Biden administration.
@sundance
The following question is for the economists inside this thread. What happens when we have nobody purchasing our debt and it goes 'no bid'?
@wallstreetcappers
@Raiders22
Question for those smarter than me on this topic….
Hypothetically….if this “tipping” point on debt involved Japan or China for example, dumping their Treasuries, price discovery occurs then the US could theoretically buy back their debt as discounted prices. Buying the higher yield debt and replacing it with lower….as interest rates likely stay elevated (and higher) for longer….
Is this the “world is already gone” scenario or is this plausible ??
@kcblitzkrieg
That possibility implies MOST all other countries have failed and gone BK. The US is top rung with regards to debt, as I mentioned our debt to GDP is not in any risk range and I think the rest of the world knows our FED would get very very creative if necessary. Not to insult anyone who reads those gold bug wackadoo sites but if the US got to a tipping zone, the world is in a very very very very bad place, much larger issues than US debt if it goes that far.
The FRED links wont be looked at and nobody is going to go to the details of separating out consumer based government spending and how that can quantify a move in CPI, we are more fixated on where Trump is campaigning or how one party can be blamed for the ills of society. Members here are more interested in taking personal shots at each other to annoy than to be interested in how inflation and monetary policy work.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
