I agree with much or your post especially that the reason for inflation are multiple and complex but we’re definitely not in a stagflation environment. You don’t have job and wage growth like this in stagflation but the opposite. That was the situation in the late ‘70’s when the term was coined. There was both high inflation and high unemployment.
Democrats actually getting some things done lately…I’m beginning to get more optimistic about the midterms
Perhaps a new term needs to be coined. The shrinking labor participation is being overshadowed by job growth in an environment that is pushing to raise unemployment numbers also in conjunction with attempts suppress demand. My running thesis is that the grasshoppers who made hay when the sun shined are now retiring. This is leaving a glut of job openings being filled by incompetent (used in its definition, not insult) people. Much of the work force is being promoted from competence to incompetence due to the job shortages. Yes, Covid did disrupt supply chains, but now we have people in place who do not know how to properly run The Grand Machine. Those who are most susceptible to Covid (boomers) are taking the extra precautionary steps. They are also the ones with the most experience. Also with Covid being highly contagious, it doesn't help key personnel are forced to take extended time off. This is why a hard recession will largely correct this issue. It forces the least competent people out of the job. Usually recessions remove the excess business expenditures and trims the fat. I feel we are in a deflationary environment.
Correct but Biden also kept Wray in at the FBI and put Garland in at DOJ. I mean I would think you’d praising Biden’s push to be nonpartisan with nonpartisan positions in government. But I think it’s kind of crazy to think that Biden would purposefully orchestrate a recession through the fed that would almost certainly hurt his political chances in 22. It’s pretty insane to think any sitting president in an election year would say… you know what’s good for me… jacking up interest rates. So maybe Biden deserves a bit more credit that people are giving him for appointing people to key nonpartisan roles whose goals might conflict with the political convenience.
Funny hat. The admin and the Fed is trying to slow down an overheated economy to fight inflation. I don't agree with it because I think the risk is too high and the tool the fed can use is too limited and may not work at all against the current causes of inflation. And no, inflation is NOT out of control. We've been here before.
The US labor force participation rate is currently at 62.1%. That's 1% lower than 2020 and 0.5% lower than 2016. The US labor force participation rate has been falling since it peaked at almost 68% in 2000. There was essentially no inflation (on average, it actually fell) during the period that the job participation rate declined steadily from ~68% to ~62%. In 2015 when the job participation rate is close to today, inflation was 0.1%. Doesn't seem to correlate much at all - part of this could be due to steady productivity gain over that period. The US private debt is now at ~235% of GDP, I think that's the highest ever. We reached 225% right before the housing crash (the great recession). I do think this could be very deflationary... my biggest concern is once the causes of inflation are resolved (by itself IMO), the fed action (if they overshoot) plus the deflationary pressure due to debt deleveraging could trigger a massive recession (if not worse).
Revisionist history? He won the 1968 presidential election 301 to 191 to 46 (George Wallace carried a few states on a segregation platform). He won the 1972 presidential election 520 to 17, losing only DC and Massachusetts to McGovern (and one faithless elector to Hospers) taking over 67% of the popular vote. There are only three elections in the history of the United States (other than the unanimous elections of Washington) that had one candidate win all but one state (FDR, Nixon, and Reagan).
you''re confused. the Fed-induced economic contraction was artificially created to contain inflation;
Every Senate Democrat votes against defining pregnancy as unique to biological females All 50 Senate Democrats and the independents who caucus with them voted Sunday against an amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act that would federally define pregnancy as a condition unique to biological females only. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced the measure to the sweeping budget reconciliation bill in a marathon voting session in which Republicans introduced dozens of provisions that don't have the votes to be enacted but force Democrats to take a stance on contentious issues.
Good, why should that be added to this bill? Why would anybody feel the need to have congress define what pregnancy is?
The Democrat left has actually lost their minds. This vote documents that for all to see. As far as the process issues, that is not what is important here, especially considering what they are voting on. The process deserves to be used in any way the Republicans desire, in response to the deceitful manner in which the Senate Democrats mishandled this situation.
Good win for Democrats today with lots of good climate stuff in the bill, even though the sausage-making is always ugly. I'll take it and celebrate it while realizing that we are in an era, not a place where one piece of legislation is all that is needed. Finally, Medicare can negotiate drug prices. That will literally save lives and it is criminal that it has been blocked for so long. Would have been a better bill if a cap on insulin costs was included, but Republicans torpedoed that and it failed with only 57 votes. Kind of humorous that Republicans argue that public works spending doesn't help the economy or create jobs but reducing Medicare costs will hurt the economy and cut jobs. Even funnier that they were mad at the oil companies who urged quick passage because it gives them some certainty and allows them to argue that we don't need any more climate legislation until 10 more budget cycles pass. Heck of a 10 days or so for Democrats and for the country.
Some people have a problem with the term “biological female” or “biological male” because they believe sex is not strictly binary. Also, some people have a problem with the idea that evolution is true or the Earth is 4.6 billion years old because they are creationists. What does any of this have to do with the bill?
Biden about to win Player of the Month…he might be an All-Star too let’s see if there are any changes to his approval rating in the coming weeks
It is strictly binary. That is what it is. The people who mentally are confused about that are mentally confused. That is their problem. The infinitesimally small number of people who have some sort of physical genetic abnormality in this area are aberrations. It is sad that they have these genetic aberrations, but they are aberrations nevertheless. If you have a Y chromosome, you are a male. If not, you are a female. It is literally as simple as that. Anyone who has a problem with that, that is in fact their problem. This is important because, like this lunatic bill they just passed, it clarifies how far from reality and the actual current pressing needs of the American people the Democrats in the Senate, and in fact the Democrats period have gotten to be. This will be a campaign issue that will be paired with the detachment from reality that the overall support for this deranged globalist monstrosity of a bill demonstrates the Democrat left to be. Beyond that, Sinema and Manchin are almost certainly done after this vote. Neither one of them is up this time, but in 2024, they are going to be on the hot seat, if they decide to run again, which I suspect that Manchin now very likely will not.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/ But, again, what does this have to do with the bill? That was my question. Not trying to enter into a scientific debate on the extent to which biological sex is binary with you
I agree that Nixon won in 1972 in a walk, making his bizarre, and illegal, operation at the Watergate (rooted in his incredible insecurity) so difficult to believe that the superb investigative reporting by Woodward and Bernstein was dismissed during the runup to the election by the vast majority of the body politic. Watergate simply didn't make sense, so most people just didn't believe it. I believed it, never having trusted Nixon, but in 1968? Nixon wasn't popular at all. He won by less that 1% of the vote. 43.42% to Humphrey's 42.72%. It was that incredibly close. If Robert Kennedy hadn't been murdered and had been the nominee, Nixon wouldn't have sniffed the White House. The only reason it looked like a "big win" to you is due to our electoral college system, as outdated, in my opinion, in 1968 as it was in 2016. I remember arguing with my father as we both walked to the voting booths at my parent's neighborhood civic center, where I was still registered, although I hadn't lived there for years. I told him Nixon was a crook and voting for him was a mistake. Dad was an FDR Democrat and this was the first and only time he voted for a Republican for president, having voted for Humphrey in '68.
