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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

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

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 . . . . . . )

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!"

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.

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.