Uh, the thread was on inflation. If you have not gotten a 9% raise in 2021 or since the beginning of this year you have 9% less family buying power for goods and services. If you did get a raise you can calculate how much you are behind, or ahead.

And, lastly, have you considered medical help for your anger issues? 

Yeah, and I'm saying you don't know how this not, inflation, nor how capitalists are driving this fallacious argument. Third, Biden doesn't control gas prices, you twit.

It's rather telling that you feel I have anger issues, it really says more about you than me. Have you ever considered that your BDS is out of control, and clouding your own ability to demonstrate any understanding of how capitalism works?

Your gas prices are ridiculously low €0.87 per liter, here it is €1.99 per liter…it pays off to be the global imperialist powerhouse, all it takes is the blood of your young men and women and countless of innocent people across the globe.

So the thread is on legitimate political discourse?

Gas prices plummeted during the pandemic, below $2.00. Why was that?

b3ta: please approach every thread in here with the naive and curious eyes of a newborn babe. It's rude of you to suggest that this thread was made with anything less than the purest of intentions, simply because this same user has made scores of similarly smarmy threads in the past. Calling into context any one user's history of obvious bias and inconsistent rhetoric undermines the lofty goals of classical liberalist discourse, or whatever bullshit they're telling themselves these days.

Your right. Yes, I said, your right.

praise be to midlander!

The funny thing is he's still off and yet he's bragging about it. "Oh if you just make up some numbers obviously this fits my prediction." Sure, dude.

Don't make volunteer think. It ends badly.

List them. Do it. Spend the time. Spare your family having to put up with you in real life for that much longer.

They’ll just print some extra cash…

Oooo! Can't wait to see the corporate profits number!

Were those figures ripped up, taped back together /eaten / flushed down the toilet?

I'm not sure why reading is so hard for you ... or maybe it's just that misinformation is so easy. 7.5% includes food and fuel. The all items less food and energy index is 6.0%.

"The all items index rose 7.5 percent for the 12 months ending January, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending February 1982. The all items less food and energy index rose 6.0 percent, the largest 12-month change since the period ending August 1982."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

This thread is really good at hitting all the same points, the sane ones are making.

For example;

Seeing the misinformation on Volunteer's post above about January's numbers, and in the interest of correcting possible misinformation, I went to the archive to pull up December's numbers that he used to kick off the thread. Same issue of not understanding how words work. Apparently he thinks (or wherever he sourced the information thinks) you can just say the govt doesn't calculate for food and gasoline (energy) wherever you want. Below is a quote from his OP:

"The government has admitted that inflation was 7%, but their calculations do not take into account price increases in gasoline or food, so 9% is probably much too low a figure. Just an observation."

Now a quote from the BLS news release for Dec '21:

"The all items index rose 7.0 percent for the 12 months ending December, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending June 1982. The all items less food and energy index rose 5.5 percent, the largest 12-month change since the period ending February 1991."

And of course the source because that's just good practice: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_01122022.htm.

Would be nice to know where the quote from the OP came from, so we can all know what source to avoid for misrepresenting the statistics, but I won't hold my breath that he'll be back to post it.

I should also add in case you don't click through to read the BLS news releases. The "energy" portion is more than just gasoline ... I know I'm using them above as if they are interchangeable, but they're not. "Energy" includes energy commodities (gasoline and fuel oil) as well as energy services (electricity and natural gas).

Except the OP wasn't right, see my posts above.

You're still here?

Nope. :D

Take it from me, folks. Flags work.

Oh!? What did I miss?

Some landscape designer wandered in thinking himself an economist.

Ah, I see. I actually put them on ignore a week or so ago after it was brought up in the covid thread(?) and have kept them there so far.

I disagree. The bits that vanished were by and large bullshit.

Not my bits, in my not so humble opinion :(

Not inflation, extortion.

The money itself is dying, buy bitcoin

Just spitballing here, but given your track record on misunderstanding or misrepresenting economics on these forums, you might want to post some sources if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Also, never take economic advice from anyone on the internet who can't spell "Volcker" correctly.

At any rate, here's some writing on Volcker for anyone who wants to dig in deeper in order to understand why Reagan's economic adviser Michael Mussa said, "to establish its credibility, the Federal Reserve had to demonstrate its willingness to spill blood, lots of blood, other people’s blood." (Other People's Blood, n+1 magazine)

Become the bigger fool, buy bitcoin.

Well, just happened to have my graduate transcript from the University of North Carolina. It include Macroeconomics B, Quantitive Methods of Business Economics A, Management B, Marketing B, and Finance B.

You?

Mine's longer.

All that and you still didn't know how to spell Volcker!?! Embarrassing.

Here's what Volcker recommended to Chairman Powell about managing the Fed by the way:

Volcker died in 2019, well before the current rampant inflation took hold.

I'll go out on a limb and say the message would be the same.

volunteer, it seems like you're saying stuff costs more because of inflation. because stuff costs more, businesses are charging more and making more money. if that extra money they're getting by raising prices isn't going to raising wages, where is it going?

Consider a unionized auto assembly plant when labor costs are fixed for the life to the contract. The amount of money the auto manufacturer has to pay their vendors, which are located all over the world, can be going up dramatically because of the price the vendor has to pay for raw materials and labor, even though the unionized auto assembly plant has fixed labor costs.

That assumes that labor use being paid a wage, or higher wage than average. Right to work states almost eliminated any kind decent wage. When companies brag about their ability to raise costs, three and four times, that's all about shareholder profits. 

beta, i don't think he's assuming anything. unionized auto assembly plants have nothing to do with anything in this thread. i'm pretty sure he's just a confused old man wandering around lost trying to understand whether we're in the '70's or '90s now.

or not

Interest rates along aren't going to resolve our systemic inflation problems at this point. Government spending is going to have to shrink (no slow down, but actually shrink), because it is by far the largest source of inflation in the economy over the past 4 years.

I don't disagree. My point wasn't that interest rate hikes solved our problems, they shifted them to difference ones.

Deficits are 6.4% for the year, FWIW, and GDP is up 2.7%. That math doesn't work.

Government shutdown for 6 months in 2025 and 2026. Or 2 days less a year furloughs for all federal employees every week for the next 3 years? Maybe that might cut down spending enough. That or gwarton and all those rich architects, developers, and trump pays 50% federal income tax and 20% taxes in all the states they do business in. No tax deductions for people with over $1,000,000 a year income and businesses earning $50 Million a year or more. Make a certain amount, you don't need subsidies, deduction or anything to reduce your adjusted gross income at all and pay full taxes for every taxable dollar earned!

Ok, jest aside, there is a point where you need more taxes. Stop military spending. We got systems that can vaporize people from outer space and wipe away entire civilizations without using nukes, pathogenic or chemical weapons. Just vaporize. We don't need to send humans into conflict areas. We already have that for the past 15-30 years.

Well, that or we reduce IRS staffing to 3 individuals and one being the network admin that makes sure the computers are fully operational to suck your bank account dry and then take 1000 years to process your tax refund and take away gwharton et al social security and medicare funds and watch gwharton's medical bill for a regular medical checkup become a $250,000 bill for the short 1 hour visit to the doctor. We need to raise taxes on those that can afford to pay taxes and remove those deductions for those earning over a certain amount like those earning millions and billions a year because no one needs to earn more than a $1,000,000 a year. All excess personal income taxed at 100% between federal & state. Businesses themselves earning over a certain amount say.... $50,000,000 a year can not take deductions or otherwise to reduce their taxes. They pay full taxes and they can't take tax deductions because they have employees. They pay tax on full income earned @ 20% on federal income tax. No deductions or tax exempt or shenanigans to get out of paying! This raises revenue.

Remember office workers must be paid higher rate because of mandatory college education than a manual labor worker. (joke)

Government spending is an issue and part of the issue is it provides for services and such that Americans needs. While some spending in foreign matters probably should be cut or terminated simply because we need to take care of our own nation, first. If we have to protect all these other nations, then maybe they should become member territories of the United States or states of the U.S. If we invest so much on these other countries on-going then they should be paying us taxes so in turn help fund protecting them. We aren't getting money back from the countries that owe us money for the money we spent on them... you know.. those debts. We shouldn't be forgiving those debts and they should be paying us back. We do stupid things that are not financially sustainable. U.S. financially been doing well mostly before WW II (except for the Great Depression) like the 20s and in our growing period during the 19th century (aside from the Civil War). 

There is a point of going into an international economy. It is another to be at war or involved in military conflict without even a decade of reprieve since before World War II. That would eat up our resources and isn't sustainable either. If we are using our forces as a protection force of other nations, maybe they should become U.S. territories or member states and pay taxes. We need to do more on the raising the amount the government receives from the various forms of taxes to be able to fund its spending. Cutting spending isn't the solution unless you give up all domestic services or they come at being heavily gutted while military spending remains the same or more... which is what the gut government spending proposals have been. Maybe some of those countries should be "foreclosed".

We must not be bankrolling "protecting all our 'allies'" while they constantly get themselves into shit and conflicts that we have to in turn save their butts for the Nth time. We aren't their military or police force. They don't pay us taxes or their debts for when we do this. Either pay up or they belong to us and foreclosed on like the banks. Pay debt or we foreclose. The collateral is their country.

Not exactly double income tax rate on everyone. That is assuming the same rate. 95-98% of the country's wealth is held by 2% that 80-90% of the 2% that holds over 90% of the wealth of the nation pays only

Right now, the US military is the only thing backing the value of the US dollar. So if we eliminate all military spending, the dollar becomes instantly worthless. Probably not a good idea.

That's a neat way of showing that you don't understand the US dollar gwharton.

I obviously understand it better than people suggesting eliminating defense spending is going to do anything to improve inflation. That's just nonsensical.

Not really but keep telling yourself that.

Who else here has been CEO of a private equity investment company? Show of hands? You? I'll wait.

You've used your own funds or capital from investors to invest in companies That doesn't mean you understand where the value of the US dollar comes from. I know plenty of companies like yours. They're very specialized in their market segment but really don't know much outside of it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. I'd forgive you for your ignorance, except that you continue to insist on presenting yourself as knowledgeable about things you clearly know nothing about. Maybe reconsider that attitude for the future. 

The US dollar is a global reserve currency, which is the primary basis for its value and use in the global economy, which in turn is what underpins its value in the domestic economy and drives the credit engine which keeps everything going. The ONLY reason we retain that global reserve status is because of US security guarantees directly predicated on US superpower military strength. 

Without that military strength backing up the security guarantees, the US dollar loses its reserve currency status, the government is no longer able to borrow against that status (which is the only thing keeping them going at the moment), and the dollar economy collapses. It's really that simple.

I am aware of how the value of the US dollar is created by foreign exchange markets. I (and many economists) disagree with you that maintaining it's reserve status is dependent solely on the US military. Most agree that the US dollar maintains it's reserve status for three reasons. 1. We're a stable sovereign nation. 2. We have consistent strong economic growth. 3. The democratic nature of our government. Without a doubt our military might is what allowed us to force the world into using the US dollar as a reserve status right after WWII. In today's world though our military might is only a small aspect of #1.

I'm aware of how our dollar maintains it value through foreign exchange markets. Most economists (and myself) disagree that the US dollar only has worth because it's a reserve currency or that it maintains that status only because of our military.

Most economists agree that our dollar's status as a preferred reserve currency is because of: 

1. traditionally stable sovereign nation
2. backed by robust, persistent economic growth
3. democratic nature of the U.S. government and its institutions.

The US military does play a part in #1 but it's not a large reason.  For the 5-8 years after WWII the US military was a major factor in forcing others to use the US dollar as a preferred reserve currency.  In modern times though the US military isn't really needed to maintain that status. 

Sorry for the double post - I encountered a site glitch and thought I'd lost the post.

gwharton - the value of any currency comes from either gold or a combination of assets otherwise it is worth absolutely nothing and effectively just monopoly money that you can't use even a planet Jupiter size volume of that currency to buy even a loaf of bread. The U.S. dollar used to be backed by gold as the bench mark. It's ultimately backed in an indirect way... gold, oil, land, materials and anything of intrinsic value of the U.S. government.

Why don't we just foreclose on the planet, then... gwharton?

Currency valuation is ultimately a supply-demand issue, just like most economic pricing issues are. Stability of value is highly prized in a currency, because it's being used as the medium of exchange for relative pricing in other goods and services. But it still all comes down to supply and demand. With the US dollar, the supply is very large, and has recently been growing dramatically through both government expansion of the money supply and massive credit leverage. 

Primary demand is generated by the US government itself, which only accepts payments denominated in its own currency (example: taxes). Secondary demand is generated by things like reserve status and access to markets. 

In Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), we recognize that USG (or any sovereign) effectively monetizes all its spending, regardless of debt or balance of payments. Every penny of USG spending is new money created, so an increase in supply and therefore highly inflationary. USG then uses a number of other means to both reduce this supply (tax policy primarily) and increase demand (reserve status, import/export imbalances, etc.). 

Of the three things you list, our status as a stable sovereign nation is a piece of what I described as the larger and more important aspect of the US global security guarantee. Our sovereignty is backed and maintained by our military might. Without it, we are no longer a sovereign nation. So on that point, you are agreeing with me even though you aren't admitting it. On point 2, yes the USA is an enormous and enormously productive market, in which most economic activity is denominated in dollars. But this is not a one-way cause and effect relationship as you suggest. Your third point, relative to the USG form of government being nominally democratic (LOL), that means very little with respect to currency valuation or reserve status. So that's entirely irrelevant.

We don't need to be their global reserve. All that extra money doesn't really exist or printed so it gets deleted/destroyed and not be replaced. Another thing is, if we are all these countries security force then why are they not paying us for this service? They have their own military. What are they doing? Jerking off? I don't know but this is U.S. taxpayers paying them so they can buy milk for 50 cents and we pay $5.00 for it. We are spending our money and not being paid back the debt owed. They never pay back because they won't and deliberately won't. They are in business to use and abuse us for their benefit. They are jerks that will pull loans from banks and not pay back. If banks operated on these loans like we do on the "loans" we give out by underwriting their security... those banks would close up doors and go out of business. What do banks do when you don't pay the loan you taken out? Often, there is this thing called collateral. You take out a construction loan or mortgage, what happens when you don't pay off that loan or mortgage? FORECLOSURE. Why don't we do the same thing. If we are going to provide ongoing security, why don't we just absorb these other nations into our country and they pay taxes to us. They be territories and some become future states for example.

gwharton wrote:

“Of the three things you list, our status as a stable sovereign nation is a piece of what I described as the larger and more important aspect of the US global security guarantee. Our sovereignty is backed and maintained by our military might. Without it, we are no longer a sovereign nation. So on that point, you are agreeing with me even though you aren't admitting it. “

Incorrect. 

You stated that the US military is the only thing backing the value of the US dollar. You then went onto say that the US military is the only thing keeping the US dollar a preferred reserve currency.

Neither of those statements are correct. I listed the why the US dollar has value (foreign exchange markets) and why it’s used a preferred reserve currency. While the US military is a part of why the US dollar is a preferred reserve currency it’s not the only reason.

“On point 2, yes the USA is an enormous and enormously productive market, in which most economic activity is denominated in dollars. But this is not a one-way cause and effect relationship as you suggest.” 

I never suggest it was a one-way cause and effect relationship. 

I clearly articulated that after WWII the use US used it’s large military to influence (force) the US dollar to be the currency used in international trade. Reference: United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, aka The Bretton Woods Conference. After 5-7 years of the US dollar being used for all international business, it basically became so widely used that changing to another currency wasn’t feasible. 

 “Your third point, relative to the USG form of government being nominally democratic (LOL), that means very little with respect to currency valuation or reserve status. So that's entirely irrelevant”

I disagree, I think it means quite a bit. 

The form of our government decentralizes power and increases overall economic stability. Basically, it’s difficult for one person, one state, or one branch of our government or private business can’t cause big waves in the global economy. Even when they can the structure of our government allow us to control certain aspects of our economy that limit the size of the waves. Simply put - we're more stable than any other country (aka business) in the world.  

As for MMT. Yes, our government can spend without financial constraints because they are the sole issues of our currency. This issue is that we borrow from other nations. The only reason we can do this is because our country has a high globally recognized credit rating. We have that because of the three reasons I previously.