Good ol' Fashioned Inflation Like in the Late 1970s
If we still measured inflation the way we did during out last CPI inflation crisis, we'd say it is now at an annualized 9.6 percent rate based on February figures, reports CNBC's Fast Money:
Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Backing out more methods implemented in 1990 by the BLS still puts inflation at a 5.5 percent rate and getting worse, according to the calculations by the newsletter's web site, Shadowstats.com.
"Near-term circumstances generally have continued to deteriorate," said John Williams, creator of the site, in a new note out Tuesday. "Though not yet commonly recognized, there is both an intensifying double-dip recession and a rapidly escalating inflation problem. Until such time as financial-market expectations catch up with underlying reality, reporting generally will continue to show higher-than-expected inflation and weaker-than-expected economic results in the month and months ahead."
Reason magazine's January 2009 feature from Robert Samuelson on how the last great CPI inflation was defeated in the early 1980s. Hint: it did not involve keeping federal funds interest rates near zero to create "stimulus."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Inflation is a tax on the poor.
No, it's a tax on those foolish enough to hold dollars or fixed-rate dollar-denominated assets.
or people who make minimum wage or hold no assets or assets that are not inflation adjusted. Sounds like the poor to me.
You mean like retirees?
Yep. Like I said - not the poor. That is why it is crucial for older people to retain at least some equity exposure as the throttle back the risk profile of their investments. Anyone who holds long-maturity bonds is going to get clobbered when inflation picks up.
That just means that the poor arent the only ones getting fucked. Yea, if your on a fixed income, your getting shafted too, but minimum wage is by default a fixed income, and, even those who are above minimum wage generally dont have inflation adjusted incomes.
And your also assuming that retirees arent themselves poor. Some may be rich, but others will be poor as well. Especially if you engineer a system where inflation eats away at their retirement.
Inflation is an attack on the value of the dollar. The poor, who by definition do not hold lots of dollars, do not bear bear the brunt of inflation's effects, though they may feel some of the knock-on effects, as all participants in the economy do.
The poor are most likely to hold their savings in cash or cash equivalents which are destroyed by inflation.
The less poor one is, the more likely that savings will be held in the form of assets, which will increase in value with inflation.
The old are only harmed by inflation as far as they are poor. The non poor old hold assets which will appreciate. Fixed income is a euphemism for government stipend. You are poor if your government stipend is the major source of your income. Warren Buffet is old and will do just fine in an inflationary environment.
This might be true if inflation effected everyone at the exact same rate, but the way Fed driven inflation works, the new money ends up in the hands of big banks and big corporations first, and by the time the poor get a hold of the new money, by serving the rich, it has fallen in value since the time of printing.
My last comment was a reply to Dr. K.
This might be true if inflation effected everyone at the exact same rate
Correct. Inflation actually benefits those who receive the news dollars first. Those who receive it subsequently are the ones paying that benefit.
Yes, fiat money is a pyramid scheme.
It's not a tax - it's simple theft by fraud, akin to passing bad checks.
When the government does it, it's "quantitative easing". When you or I do it, it's "counterfeiting".
INSERT COINS AND MAKE SELECTION. THIS MACHINE ACCEPTS ONE- AND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR BILLS.
Jimmy Carter = stagflation. Barack Hussein Obama = stagflation. Hmmm, I wonder what the correlation here is?
Can any of you still believe that we wouldn't have been better off with a Republican president, or that G. Bush was somehow "just as bad"?
http://myconservativetake.word.....llo-world/
p.s. please forgive the initial crudeness of my blog, I hope to change the format and customize it some over the weekend. For now, it is just the standard template.
Hmm...for some reason when I include my blog link in the post itself, it gets marked as spam.
Hmm, for some reason whenever I include the blog link in the post, it gets marked as spam. Sorry for any double-posts, the internet seems to be acting up.
Well, if my investments can keep returning at a rate greater than 9.6% then that's better than nothing. But it's not like no one saw this coming or did see it and said nothing.
No worries. I've still got my WIN button from the last time.
Sorry, I had a comment all ready to go, but the website keeps rejecting my posts as "spam" now that I'm trying to include my blog link. Can anyone advise on how to get around that? For right now, I just put spaces around the periods, which if you're interested, you can just copy and paste into the browser and remove the spaces.
http://myconservativetake . wordpress . com/2011/04/13/hello-world/
I'm not interested.
When you comment, there's a space already there for you to enter your web address. This'll turn your name orange, and allow people to go to your blog by clicking on it. That's the best way to do your blog-pimping hereabouts.
Thank you for the response Jake, but I did that, and it still came up as spam. I'll just have to email the webmaster. Thanks for the reply though.
Maybe it actually is spam, and the filter is correct.
^^THIS
We already have rectal and GREGOOO as blogwhores. We certainly don't need you, loser.
Can't help but notice that your handle is in orange too, Pissyass.
Next time you pathetically try to insult me, have a fucking point, you fucking idiot.
Is that you, Max? Certainly sounds like your nasty little shitmouth - can't even type a sentence without using the word fuck or fucking every other word or two. Must be some sort of speech impediment or tic. Same general temperment, too.
And I did make a point; not my fault that you're too obtuse to comprehend it.
You're even stupider than I thought. My handle is orange because there's an email there, you fucking retard, not because there's a web site link to be blocked by a spam filter.
I do enjoy the fact that you were dumb enough to come back and conclusively prove what a moron you are, though. Thanks.
You're even stupider than I thought.
What makes you think you can think?
🙂
This from the genius who can't tell the difference between an email address and a URL? Or didn't even take the time to do a rollover to check?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Or didn't even take the time to do a rollover to check?
I checked, fool. I never said that a URL and an email addy were the same thing. I merely implied that giving out your email address makes you just as much a whore as you accuse others of being. BTW, who turns the computer on for you?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Just keep digging, rectal. I love it.
Anonopussy/rectal: you are retarded; please STFU. That is all.
NERDFIGHT!!!
And both you and Pissyass are totally clueless. Couple of tools.
Goddamn you're stupid, Episiarch. Don't you know that an email address and a URL are the same fucking thing?!?
Hey SugarFree, right now I'm eating candy corn dipped in syrup and rolled in powdered sugar. And washing it down with the milk left over from a bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. You want some?
All I really want is to dip my balls in the milk for your cereal. Like I did this morning. Refreshing.
I was wondering why that milk smelled like it went bad. Wash those things once in a while. Do it for the people you love.
Epi likes them all vinegary.
Oil and vinegary.
It's like there's a salad in my pants and everyone's invited to toss it!
But one has an @ in it! I don't understand!
Warty's statement once again rings true: why do I have to have such shitty, pathetic enemies?
I'm not being your enemy, dude. Your women are too ugly to make it worth hearing their lamentations.
What women? 🙂
Shut up, you stupid fucking cunt. No one wants to listen to you.
Hey, Warty, your name is orange. BLOGWHORE!!!!!!
I know, and the web design on my blog is completely boring too. Heloooooo, white on black?? 1994 called!!!! OMG!!
You shouldn't insult the Urkobold like that, Warty. You blogwhore.
Fuck the Urkobold. My taint is well-armored.
In Urkobold, taint armors you!
Great, now we're going to be called into a 3 hour meeting to discuss how you're all to be mutilated. You don't know what the Urkobold is like when he's pissed. Thanks, douchebags.
You think they want to listen to you? You're delusional, doofus, - and as to fucking cunts, you've probably never run across one that would while she was still conscious.
That was for Warty. (Goddamn threaded comments.)
No shit, moron. Not all of us are as retarded as you. BLOGWHOIRE
Stop whoring, Warty. BLOGWHORE!
We already have rectal and GREGOOO as blogwhores. We certainly don't need you, loser.
LIES!!!
More Reason Blog whores is always better!!!
It was call it spam because it quacks like a duck... wait, no, what?
If your spam quacks, you probably need to cook it longer.
Re: 1980 Redux,
I feel your pain....
.... and I like it!
Over the last few days, we've seen the market trading down on the fears of inflation crushing the world wide economic recovery.
It's hard for people to remember, but there used to be a time (back when we had rate increases) that the stock market would rally when the Fed raised interest rates.
When the market's primary fear is about inflation, it rallies when the interest rate goes up. I think we're entering that territory now.
But don't worry, by the time the Fed gets around to deciding to raise interest rates again, inflation may have chocked off the recovery by then--so they'll raise rates right when they need to be lowered.
It's how the Fed operates. It's who they are.
inflation may have chocked off the recovery by then
Inflation will block the wheels to keep the recovery from rolling downhill?
You knew what I meant. Is this thread about typos now?
Letters move around on me all the time.
Even when I reread stuff...
I drop words too. Especially articles. Learning to read music was a mess--no, I wasn't improvising! That note was somewhere else when I read it.
Yes, I knew what you meant. It's almost right as is, unless you mean that inflation will remove the chocks from the recovery and cause it to roll downhill. But that's kind of messy, and not the best analogy.
Yeah, I just mispelled it.
I mean to say "choked"!
: )
I remember. I remember getting eight plus percent on bank CDs that were enormously helpful for paying my way through college. I haven't priced them in like forever, but the Volker/Reagan era was a terrific time to be a young adult with investment options out the yang yang.
I think you'd be lucky to find CDs that pay over 1%.
That will never happen again because the corporatists in charge want to make sure you have no choice but put your money in the market. The risk free high yeild investment is a thing of the past
Or, it may have something to do with low interest rates.
Back in the eighties, the 30 year bond was trading in double digits because of the inflation.
Nobody wants to return to the days of double digit inflation.
In the meantime, TIPS are available if you want to buy them.
Or, it may have something to do with low interest rates.
I think Nash is saying that artificially low interest rates are the result of a conspiracy to nudge more people into the stock market.
Is this thread about typos now?
Ken, you have been here long enough to know that the answer to that question is....yes!
The market fell yesterday because Goldman called a top on crude oil sending it down over $4/bbl.
And if inflation is so bad why is crude oil 40% off its high?
And natural gas is 70% off its high?
Perhaps you were unaware that inflation is not the only thing that moves the price of oil.
Because people think the inflation is gonna cut demand and hamper the recovery. If the recession was about people not buying things because they couldn't afford them, then how can higher prices help that situation?
If you're pricing a commodity out of the equation, then people won't be using as much.
"Wednesday marked the third straight day of lower prices on the Nymex. Front-month Nymex crude is down almost 6% this week as several forecasters, from the International Energy Agency to Goldman Sachs, warned that high oil prices were eating into energy demand and hobbling the global economic recovery."
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....78896.html
Oh, and oil might be down, but it's down from a two-year high...
"Energy stocks led the selling as crude oil tumbled to $106.25 a barrel and fell further in after-hours trading after finishing the previous week at $112.79 a barrel, a two-year high."
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....44266.html
Re: shrike,
World - please look at the nitwit who still believes inflation is merely rising prices.
World - please look at the nitwit who still believes inflation is merely rising prices.
Unfortunately most of the world still does believe that. You can blame it on an economically illiterate mainstream media and a left-of-center public education establishment, the latter of which would seem to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of ignorance on the subject.
I'm pretty sure the Goldman "Oil Top" came after a phone call from the White House: 'get oil prices under control, or no more free money for you guys to speculate with.'
But, then, I'm pretty sure the market hasn't been driven by fundamentals for quit a while now.
/Let's end QE2, get the (incredibly painful) double-dip out of the way, and move on with our lives.
Either that or the amount of oil the world demands is inversely related to its price.
I mean, did the White House have to make a call on all the other commodities too?
Pure CT there - Alex Jones.
Where is that NAFTA super highway, by the way?
Oil looks to be at 107/bbl
What the fuck are you talking about 40% off its high? When was Oil $150/bbl?
Supplies of Oil are great right now and demand is low.
If it is not supply and it is not demand then how the fuck else do you explain $107/bbl?!?!
And natural gas is 70% off its high?
Either you are lying like you were about oil or the US natural gas industry is getting really good at fracking.
Crude hit $147/bbl in July 2008 and natural gas $11 in 2005.
And you cannot have inflation when prices/wages/assets are falling in unison - you other idiots.
Things have changed dramatically since July of 2008.
June of 2010 it was under $70 a barrel.
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/oilandgasspot.html
As for the rest of the CRB index?
Well, take a look!
http://www.barchart.com/chart......=technical
Which is why commodity fluctuations are better left out of the CPI.
Oil fell to $35 in late 08/early 09 sometime. Why use that as a start date to measure inflation?
It is fundamentally dishonest to do that.
"It is fundamentally dishonest to do that."
No, what's fundamentally dishonest is pretending that transportation and energy aren't important components of what consumers are paying for when they buy things.
Remember, the goal isn't to prove that the Democrats are smart or stupid. It's to measure the change in prices. Why kind of bullshit index wouldn't take the price of energy into consideration at all?
But higher energy prices are a part of the core inflation rate as an input component.
High oil prices = higher polymer prices = higher finished good prices.
So I fully agree - the delta in finished good price is the measurement objective.
I just don't pretend flooding or drought that increases wheat prices is a monetary event like dollar hawks do.
I get it - dollar hawks see the inflation boogeyman everywhere and I am a dollar dove so I don't.
"I get it - dollar hawks see the inflation boogeyman everywhere and I am a dollar dove so I don't."
You're not an inflation dove.
You have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, and you're going "la la la la la la la la la".
Such a childish reply that disregards my evidence in the same post.
FOMC voted 10-0 on my side last month.
All you have is a conjecture.
Such a childish reply
When are you going to start calling us all Christfags again?
I miss that.
"And you cannot have inflation when prices/wages/assets are falling in unison - you other idiots."
Again, this is where you seem to be mistaken.
If oil was at a two-year high last week? Just because it's come down off its high of last week doesn't mean it isn't around its two-year high.
There's a lot of space between $106 a barrel and under $70 where it was a years ago. ...even if it was $6 higher a week ago.
Some of that price increase may be due to things that aren't necessarily about fiscal policy--but anybody who wants to say oil isn't indicative of inflationary pressure at all needs to point to the rest of the CRB index to show that the price of oil is an anomaly.
Here's the index for food:
http://www.crbtrader.com/data......&sym=BWY00
See any anomalies?
Yeah - If I expand the chart to five years I see a lot.
Do you see things all kinda movin' in the same direction lately?
I see a V-shape which does not indicate inflation - just a rebound to previous a level.
That last price peak was at the peak of a global economic boom. If we hit high prices in the middle of a recession, that is telling.
For the four billionth time, even an inflation rate of one percent is "high inflation" if the natural rate is an inflation rate of negative three percent.
Crude hit $147/bbl in July 2008 and natural gas $11 in 2005.
So both peaks were before Q1 and Q2 and before TARP and before Obama's stimulus and at the peak just before the recession hit and unemployment was at what 5%?
hmmm
If you are looking for an idiot I suggest find a mirror.
Oh and yes you can have inflation (inflation is a monetary phenomena) while prices all fall in unison.
Simply put you can have a drop in spending/demand (like during a recession) and have the dollar be devalued by over supply. There is nothing magical about that happening. The only difference is that when it happens it is harder to measure and it confuses small minds such as yours.
Not to mention that after the president revealed his deficit reduction plan earlier today--isn't it safe to say that even the Progressive Jesus is on board?
And if inflation is so bad why is crude oil 40% off its high?
It's also $107 over its low.
Anyone else watching Obama's speech?
If we don't see the projected deficit reduction by 2014, "My plan will require us to come together and implement more spending cuts".
See, Obama IS serious about the deficit. He always stands by his word.
Re: Au H20,
Sorry, NO. I was watching the Maury show... I had to prioritize.
Stagflation!
I welcome it with open arms.
I 'doubled' my money with iShares Silver Trust ETF over past six months. But the buying power didn't double apparently. As a matter of fact, if I were looking for a barrel of oil, I'd be able to buy about 0 more oil than I could six months ago. Funny that.
Oh, I'm being a scrooge here. I can buy 30% more oil than I could six months ago...with double the dollars. So everything's actually just peachy.
Silver's been just crazy to watch. I only have physical silver and whatever ratio is contained in the ishares commodities ETF (0.31% as of 7/2009). I thought about dumping some because $40/oz seems high to maintain for too long.
I jumped on that silver-train because silver wasn't too cheap relative to dollars, but a 'bubble' in gold had inflated relative to silver.
Silver normally tracks a ratio of 40 or so to gold, reflecting actual supply and demand. But G. Gordon Liddy and Glenn Beck told everyone to buy gold and their minions drove that ratio up to like 60-ish.
So silver was just too good to pass up. Better than I thought it would be though.
Do their minions really have that much money?
Not anymore.
Silver normally tracks a ratio of 40 or so to gold
For centuries it's tracked about 16 to 18 to gold. As the industrial uses of silver increase, it might be closer to 16 than 18. Silver has been underpriced for a long time (which may have something to do with its increased industrial use so perhaps substitutes will be used as the price moves back closer to its historical ratio).
I calculated that I have something like $3000 worth of physical silver in crappy coins that are worth nothing as coins. And that was when it was only $35/oz. Very tempting to sell some of that off.
A lot of peeps were saying that Barrack would be Carter II but it is eerie how history is repeating itself.
And no Reagan in sight.
no reagan? just when we need another union prez into astrology & tax hikes
Except for his utter lack of cowboy roles and chimp costars I'd say Christie looks a lot like a modern Reagan.
If god has a sense of humor he would make him Donald Trump.
Sadly the universe is cold and hateful
I post this in the morning links and email it to them and no hat tip.
Hat tip: John
They would have given one to super douche Vennaman. I swear to God that guy has the goods on the Stache in a cheap hotel room with a standard poodle. (And that would also explain the ten Travels With Charlie posts)
Yes, that relationship is rather strange, considering that Vanneman is indeed a huge douchebag.
HEY!
John---I saw no such email and don't generally read comments threads in morning links; would not have denied you the cred if I had heard about from you.
I sent it Brian. Honest truth.
and you should read the morning links. Johnny Longtorsoes links are usually better than Reason's and many of the links you guys throw up later in the day are ofen discussed on the morning links. Lower yourself to dine with the peasents once in a while. You will be surprised.
John, sorry if I offended you. That still won't give me time to read all the comments threads on this board.
You didn't offend me at all Brian. But the comment threads are really quite good here. You guys should read them when you can.
eh
getting a hat tip is anti-climatic.
All you get is scorn by rather, anyone else who you like ignores it and then Tupla liberrtate and epi will thread jack it into a discussion about how much Warty likes to rape.
Quality adjustment method by BLS is flawed. The service component of goods is not measured. Having to now spend 20+ minutes on a phone tree should be factored in as lower quality for that good, but it isn't. Also, product durability has greatly diminished over last 3 decades due to ubiquitous use of lighter (i.e. flimsy) materials.
Well, I remember that people said that the Obama stimulus package would lead to massive inflation but so far it has not. Funny how theory does not match reality sometimes.
What's 9.6% a year?
I would call it mild to moderate. But the problem with inflation is that it's tough to get under control once it starts gaining momentum.
"I would call it mild to moderate"
At 9.6% / year, prices double something like every 7 years. That doesn't sound mild to moderate to me.
I was only thinking in terms of one year. If we see that rate year after year we'll be in trouble. And not the mild to moderate kind.
Re: Meta_Man,
World - and shrike - meet yet ANOTHER nitwit who thinks inflation is simply rising prices.
World: meet irony of sarcastic South-of-the-Border type who was born without Sarcasm Sensor.
If I recall correctly Shadowstats.com's proprietary CPI calculations mostly just plug back in 'non core' components like Food and Energy. There may be more to it, but i think its mostly pretty simple stuff that leads to falsely-impressive 'shocking' data.
And while, yes, food and energy ARE real things we actually spend our money on, they do not compare well on a normalized basis over time... meaning, volitility in single commodities do not really reflect true longer term consumer spending power shifts across the board, but rather over-weight the CPI toward short term price fluctuation...
His SGS calculator is here =
http://www.shadowstats.com/inf.....c=Find+Out
Comparing a 1-yr period 1979-1980, to current TTM, right now we're looking @ ~2% inflation versus 14% back in '79. Color me unimpressed.
FYI, you can get his 'hyperinflation' report here =
http://www.shadowstats.com/art.....n-2010.pdf
This guy has been banging this drum now since his business started... (i recall reading this same argument in 2006). It's a gig. As they say in business, there's always two ways to sell people something = Fear or Greed. And Fear is always more powerful.
I hear people arguing about 'Real Data' all the time (e.g. like how the forward P/E is calculated with normalized earnings rather than net including one-time items..."its all a charade" they claim. "Losses are ignored!"); they argue that the majority of the data people use is misleading... but they ignore the fact that majority of people use the 'misleading' info in specific ways that are in fact more use useful than the 'real' data actually is. (e.g. normalized earnings allow proper 'comps')
Whatever. I'm just saying that it sure as hell aint 1979 right now, and no amount of Data Monkeying is going to prove it to me.
Although... 1979 was not a good year for the Arab world, either. Raid on Grand Mosque of Mecca, Iran Hostage crisis, Egypt decides to formally recognize the state of Israel (for kicking their ass again), we start paying them bribe money in exchange for that... funding 20+ more years of Egyptian dictatorship. Whoo hoo! That worked out well.
Oh, and in Pakistan, they burned our embassy down! Ahh, the more things change... the more they stay the same.
shadowstats makes the same mistake the government makes in treating inflation as a price phenomenon instead of monetary.
Ja!
Re: robc,
Understand that Shadowstats.com does not pretend to be the last word regarding the CPI; it's purpose is to make the dishonesty behind the manipulated BLS numbers that more obvious.
Even if Shadowstats is not a true reflection of the phenomenon, it is still a usefull approximation, at least MORE usefull than BLS's CPI.
Sorry, "its purpose", not "it's"
I agree that shadowstats is a better approximation than the CPI.
However, the fed reserve releases an even better approximation with the M2, so, ummm, whats the point again?
Re: robc,
The shadowstats CPI index has prettier colors.
What happened to Japan's economy (pre-earthquake) is what we're going to see here unless we make some changes.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.....nomic-drug
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=bj
As I said in response to John (not criticizing John for this, but he posted the link) in original thread,
inflation is monetary.
Link above, if I didnt screw it up, is annual change in M2.
Inflation is at about 4.5%, but was over 10% two years ago.
Was that the "monetized" portion of the stimulus?
M0 measures the base money supply, M2 includes a lot more, so isnt directly changes by things like that (M0 shot up, but the velocity of money was crashing, so they offset some).
I didn't realize M0 was spiking again. Fuck.
I can hear the printing presses from my house.
QE2?
I suppose my ignorance is because I've sort of been willfully ignoring all the horror that comes out of the financial press. La la la la la la...
Mo measures, mo problems.
It's all about the Benjamins. Bernankes.
Because QE1 fared so well.
I thought (wrongly) that gold & silver were already overvalued, so I went with puts on T-bonds. So far, I'm only doing a little better than breaking even, but the year is young.
Don't make fun of him.
Inflation is at about 4.5%, but was over 10% two years ago.
For those who want to see the effect of inflation on prices, it generally takes about 18-24 months for M2 inflation to spread throughout the economy via prices. So price inflation may ease (no reverse) in a couple years.
Hint: it did not involve keeping federal funds interest rates near zero to create "stimulus."
Yep, there was indeed a time when the Fed actually tried to do what was in the best interest of the economy, but those days are long gone.
Now they are nothing but stooges of our insane government. Bernanke and his sidekick Geithner will go down as two of the biggest criminals in American history.
I wonder how long it'll take before someone initiates presidential impeachment proceedings in Congress. Any ideas?
I'm not against the idea, but I very much doubt it will happen at all. What do you suppose the charge would be?
Being a totalitarian asshole.
But I think I understand what you're trying to say; if we charged Obama, we'd have to have charged Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, etc. It'd be a double standard. But we HAVE to start somewhere, right?
As for charging Obama, how about blatantly and unequivocally violating his oath of office, for starters, which, for the supreme leader of the most powerful civilization in the history of the world, should be a pretty damned serious crime?
Waste of time and taxpayers' money - no way would the present Senate convict him. Matter of fact - I don't know that any Senate would ever go through with convicting and removing a president from office, short of him committing murder maybe.
That's because it's apparent, in any analysis of the political machinations that have dominated the Union for over a century, it's likely that no Senate would do such a thing.
Undoubtedly, however, he deserves impeachment and conviction, and a punishment that is suitable and equal in severity to his conscious attempts to further the placement of 300 million people into bondage and subservience in a constitutional republic of the supreme natural laws of liberty.
It literally took me 5 minutes to get over that, and I was staring at this comment before I posted it, and realize just how fucked up all of this is. It's that feeling of realization and breathlessness you sometimes get.
Reason magazine's January 2009 feature from Robert Samuelson on how the last great CPI inflation was defeated in the early 1980s. Hint: it did not involve keeping federal funds interest rates near zero to create "stimulus."
Unfortunately debt has grown so vast and widespread that this tool is now too painful for any public official to be caught using. That doesn't mean interest rates won't go up. It just means it won't be the Ben Bernank making that decision.
Re: Tim Cavanaugh,
If history serves as teacher, Bernanke is this time's George William Miller... And that may mean that, in 2012... Hmmm...
I'm sure you remember his American Express commercial? G. William's, that is.
Inflation, huh? Go here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.co.....Symbol=USD
Set the chart to see the yield for a 10-year Treasury from 1971 to the present. You'll see that in the 70s the range was from about 6% to 10%, with a peak at almost 16% in 1981. The average over this entire time period is 7.17%. Current yield? Less than 4%. "Reason" folks can invest in gold if they please. I'm sticking with stocks, up 50% under Obama.
Have a happy crash asshole!
Meanwhile, gold is up 70% under Obama. Of course, neither figure says anything about what will happen going forward.
Gold is in a bubble and stocks are not.
US stocks are still cheap on a current EPS multiple of about 12 vs 20 in the 2000 bubble.
Wow ? just wow
Re: shrike,
"Hope Springs Eternal."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSXbgfKFWg
Re: Alan Vanneman,
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv5i2s1.htm
Happy dirty carrot-eating day, Alan.
I like the time line of this:
For six months to a year Old Mex has been posting links to the Shadow Government web site.
Then Tuesday CNBC links to it. Then yesterday Drudge links to CNBC.
Then Today Reason links to CNBC.
Why is CNBC the authority here?
I disagree with Old Mex on a number of things....but I trust him infinitely more then CNBC.
Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad)
WTF?!?!
Inflation is a measure of the effects of monitary policy.
ipad2 being the same price as an ipad1 is productivity boost.
The CPI to be an accurate measure of monetary inflation should be adding to the inflation rate when productivity increases not subtracting.
Increases in production have nothing what so fucking ever to do with the monetary value of the dollar!!!!
Reliable independent (non-governmental) consumer price indices are few and far between. The Billion Price Project at MIT have been calculating independent price indices for several countries since 2007, derived from menus of prices of goods listed by online retailers. The calculated rates of inflation for the countries studied are at:
http://bpp.mit.edu/daily-price-indexes/
The BPP figures differ somewhat from official figures for several reasons (prices for services aren't included, for example), but generally they're in the same ballpark, and there doesn't seem to be any systematic bias in either direction even for most of the developing countries in the list. (Only for Argentina is there no room for doubt of rigging downwards of the inflation numbers.)
So. Who to trust. MIT or some guy with a website...?
Who to trust. MIT or some guy with a website...?
MIT vs some guy with web site...
You are making a distinction without a difference.
Your post is really good providing good information. Garlic health benefits I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Sinus headache