On May 7, 11:49 am, heav <p....DeleteThis@inyopro.com> wrote:
> I guess gasoline was cheaper in Kalamazoo at times than the national
> average. We moved to western Montana in 1973 from Kalamazoo, and the
> price of gas at the little general store on the highway was 36.9,
> which seemed high, and it was there that my wife, who was working at a
> local cafe, started hearing that gas was going to go to $1 a gallon!
>
> Gold was $35 an ounce until around that time too. As you know, it's
> over $1000 an ounce now.
>
> So we probably should be framing this discussion in terms of the value
> of the dollar. I think the total U.S. indebtedness right now is
> something like $49 trillion, up from $11 trillion at the start of
> Reaganism, so crank up the printing presses and launch the
> helicopters!
You're trying to imply cause and effect which doesn't exist. The
TOTAL Federal Debt today is under $10 trillion, so clearly the entire
amount of federal debt is only 20% of your $49 trillion number. The
rest, is state, local govt, business, private debt, etc, which Reagan
had no control over. I'd also point out that it had been steadily
rising at about the same rate during the Clinton years and both Bush
presidencies, so try to turn to link it to Reagan?
And while I would agree that there is some valid concern over debt
levels in the economy, why do you always take things in the most
negative view possible? Should total debt today be what it was in
1981? Of course not. The economy today is much larger than it was
then and rising debt goes hand in hand with growth.
Was it Bernanke who suggested we could avoid a repeat of
> the Depression by dropping bales of cash from helicopters to make sure
> the economy kept afloat?
Virtually every reconomist will tell you that it's a good thing to
have a central bank that can adjust liquidity to prevent a depression
or inflation. Have they not done an excellent job of it, except
during the Great Depression, when they did not do the right thing and
add liquidity? What is your solution?
>
> They better use semi trailers or print large bills if they want to
> distribute $49 trillion. Or maybe boxcars. I personally would prefer
> electronic direct deposit, in case you're listening Big Brother.
Which makes no sense, because of course the FED would never pay off
all public and private debt.
>
> I just ordered "Bad Money" by Kevin Phillips yesterday. It's an
> analysis of how the books have been cooked to overestimate growth and
> underestimate inflation for so long that you just can't trust the
> numbers. He argues that Social Security checks are 70% less than they
> should be because of manipulations like taking food, fuel and housing
> out of the inflation calculations.
Which is false.. The SS cost of living increases are based on the
CPI, which includes food, energy and housing. The author may be
arguing that he doesn't like the WAY they are tracked, but that is
very different than claiming they aren't part of the inflation
calculation. I hope that is the case, or else you wasted money,
because the author's an idiot.
>
> When you remove fuel, housing and food from the inflation figures and
> they skyrocket, it distorts growth numbers, so you can have negative
> growth in reality but "no recession" officially. That seems to be the
> situation we are experiencing now.
Again, this is looking for either a negative or some kind of
conspiracy angle in everything you look at. The call on recession is
made by a private, non-profit group that has been doing it for
decades. They use a variety of indicators, some of which obviously
have to be adjusted for inflation to be valid, and some, like
employment, that do not. And I'd rather leave it to them and go with
their official call, which continues to be made the same way as it has
been, rather than going with what you think "seems" to be going on.
> Phillips has an article in the May issue of Harper's Magazine
> outlining the arguments from his new book. >> Stay informed about: Yikes! Diesel $4.50/gallon 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
