Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 13
More dreadful news for president Biden in a Goldilocks jobs report as unemployment falls to 3.7% and the economy adds another 199,000 jobs. So, lessee...
--199,000 jobs added (above expectations)
--3.7% unemployment (near its fifty-year low)
--Unemployment rate down and participation up
--Hours up
--Inflation down
--Strong (but not too hot) wage growth
--4.7 million more jobs than pre-pandemic
--Below 4% unemployment for 22 months straight, the longest stretch below 4% since the late 1960s
--Wages growing faster than inflation
--Women (ages 25 to 54) at an all-time high for labor force participation
-- Gasoline is under $3/gallon in 20 states
If this is the republicans' idea of a disastrous economy, all I can say is please give us more.
No. of Recommendations: 14
Don't lose sight of what's really important to America and the world.
Hunter Biden did drugs and hired hookers and rented a Lambo.
He failed to pay 3 years taxes on time.
Because of that, we must allow Russia to take Ukariane, China to take Taiwan, and let Iran kill all the Jews in Israel, and jail a Texas physician if he performs an abortion to save a pregnant woman's life.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Cheap Fossil Fuels.
Drill Baby Drill.
Low Trump taxes ON THE RICH.
Low Trump Taxes on CORPORATIONS.
CORPORATE PROFITS.
RECORD DEFENSE SPENDING.
Yes, the economy is good.
Go Dems. Go Biden.
Glad The Left failed a long time ago at crushing American Superiority.
Now they've embraced it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
While it all sounds good..
Meanwhile..following a cherry report..
“However, there is some worry that the end of Covid-era stimulus payments and the continued pressure from higher interest rates could eat into spending.
Net household wealth fell by about $1.3 trillion in the third quarter to about $151 trillion, owing largely to declines in the stock market, according to Fed data released this week. Household debt rose 2.5%, close to the pace where it has been for the past several quarters.
Fed officials have been watching wage data closely. Rising prices tend to feed into wages, potentially creating a spiral that can be difficult to control.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/08/jobs-report-novemb...America’s attention though is focus on the Biden Crime Family bring more woe and worry to the dem party.
No. of Recommendations: 8
All very good points about the current economy.
But if you want to understand why US voters are unhappy about the economy, you just need to look at three charts:
https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/co...https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30UShttps://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx...It's great to have low unemployment. But most people have jobs, so going from something like 4.1% to 3.7% doesn't affect a lot of people.
That's not what voters are unhappy about. Instead, the first is that
prices are still really high. Not
just the rate of inflation - but that they still get sticker shock when they go to the grocery store or the gas station. Though the rate of inflation is still
really high compared to recent historical norms - before the recent spike, the last time inflation had topped 3% was back in 2011, and was typically between 1-2%. People
don't like 3% inflation, and touting that inflation has come down from 9% to 3% is not a winning argument. Nor is the fact that gas prices have fallen from $5 per gallon to $3.30 per gallon, when they were closer to $2.50-2.75 per gallon before the pandemic.
And then there's interest rates, which are at generational highs and affect both consumer debt and mortgage debt (linked above). Again, far more people are affected by high costs of buying a house or a car than they are by a half-point reduction in unemployment rates.
That's why no so few people are happy with the economy. Prices are
so much higher than they were eighteen months ago, and interest rates are at levels we haven't seen in twenty years. Unless
those things start changing - and fast - the "Biden Economy" will be an anchor, not a balloon, in the coming election cycle.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The out of touch and their links......
Yep, as usual, they have all the answers.
*giggle*
Around the world, their system is under fire.
No. of Recommendations: 5
The out of touch and their links......
Why do you constantly mock links? It's helpful to readers if you provide the source material for your assertions.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why do you constantly mock links? It's helpful to readers if you provide the source material for your assertions.
***
Mocking links as the end all be all of those who can't comprehend that links aren't even close - in some cases to the real answer.
And now those same Establishmentarians and Academics are saying "duh on paper we're great, but hey, people aren't feeling great"---but their links, are incomplete vis a vis reasons.
But hey, it's something.
Just not everything.
Pssst: They're pissed with GREAT economic numbers.
Imagine how it's gonna get when things really are bad.
:)
No. of Recommendations: 3
Mocking links as the end all be all of those who can't comprehend that links aren't even close - in some cases to the real answer.
Yeah, but the post you just responded to was just providing links to graphs showing the gas prices, mortgage rates, and inflation rates referenced in the discussion. None of the links were offered as proof of some "real answer." Just convenient ways for the reader to see what movements in those prices and rates actually were.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only took umbrage at "links" -- not out of touch, not things that might be existing not related to those links.
:)
Keep it up.
How's the link thing worked out so far.
MAGA all over the place......
No. of Recommendations: 5
Why do you constantly mock links?
Just speculation, but I suspect it's because it encourages him to look outside the MAGA bubble. And he doesn't want to do that because then maybe some actual facts will slip in.
No. of Recommendations: 11
How's the link thing worked out so far.
I think it's worked out well - I believe that people who read my posts are able to understand more clearly what I'm saying, and easily evaluate whether what I'm claiming about things (like, say, that inflation is still higher than it was before the pandemic).
No one but you seems to think that the purpose of providing links is to do things like prevent "MAGA all over the place....," rather than to assist in communicating with fellow posters.
No. of Recommendations: 6
That's not what voters are unhappy about. Instead, the first is that prices are still really high. Not just the rate of inflation - but that they still get sticker shock when they go to the grocery store or the gas station.
Wash state was just successful in cases charging chicken companies with price fixing. They were sharing sensitive data and using it to reduce production so they could keep prices high. Biden has put Pharma on notice about "marching in" on patents where the gov participated - to keep prices low. From what I gather if the price is too high we can allow competitors to produce. Not sure how that will work since it's never been used.
Inflation is not doing badly, but people have the sense it's doing badly. Part of the problem may be normal capitalist practices though.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Inflation is not doing badly, but people have the sense it's doing badly.
Again, there is a difference between price levels and the monthly or TTM inflation rate. The U.S. hadn't seen a rate of price increases like we had from mid-2021 to mid-2022 in forty years. The fact that those price spikes have now slipped outside the 12-month inflation comparisons doesn't lower prices. The two-year inflation rate, comparing 2023 prices to 2021 prices, is 13.5%. People are mad about that. The fact that the rate is lower in 2023 than it was in 2022 doesn't make them happier about that.
Plus, even the inflation rate is still doing badly - just not as badly as it was in 2022. Inflation at 3% is still higher than at any time since 2011. That's not great - and that's the best way of looking at inflation for the Administration.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think it's worked out well - I believe that people who read my posts are able to understand more clearly what I'm saying, and easily evaluate whether what I'm claiming about things (like, say, that inflation is still higher than it was before the pandemic).
He's not talking about you. He's referring to posters who regurgitate links and shoot out talking points but when you poke at their posts you find out quickly that there's not a lot of knowledge underneath.
No. of Recommendations: 2
He's not talking about you.
Are you sure? He wrote it in response to my post, and I'm the only one who's linked anything in this thread (other than one LM post high upthread).
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think it's worked out well
***
Well then 0- did you hear that world? It's worked out well.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Well then 0- did you hear that world? It's worked out well.
You clearly ignored what I actually said. I don't provide links because I believe that it will change the world. I provide links because I think that they will be useful and convenient for people who read my posts.
I know that this character you post under is purely performative, and that it (and others) exists not for the purpose of having a conversation - or even to communicate a transparent and intelligible position - but instead to engage in vague and deliberately elliptical displays about various topics. That's not why I post here. I post here to have actual discussions, and so I try to actually tell people what my points are in a way that effectively communicates them.
There's nothing improper about making performative and purposely unclear posts, of course. I'm just curious why you disparage efforts to try to be more easily understood.
No. of Recommendations: 1
You also gloss over things - such as I didn't just speak about links, but about the out of touch thinking that the links are the conclusive thing.
But hey, like you said, it's all worked out rather well.
Though - 100% of polls disagree.
You can post how and why you like, discuss what you like.
Just like I can say - that the insulated bubble people and their links many times miss the whole picture, and therefore are useless.
BTW even before Dem-Flation, people's perceptions weren't that great.
No. of Recommendations: 9
You also gloss over things - such as I didn't just speak about links, but about the out of touch thinking that the links are the conclusive thing.
I think you're just, again, misunderstanding the purpose of a link.
When someone posts a link, they're not asserting that the statement supported by the link is conclusive because of the link. They're just giving the reader a way of looking at the basis for their claims.
So upthread, I made a statement that inflation hasn't been this high since 2011. I posted a link to the information that led me to say that (in this case, the Bureau of Labor Statistics TTM calculation of the CPI). The link isn't intended to mean that it is conclusively true that inflation hasn't been this high since 2011. After all, there are other bodies that measure inflation than BLS, and other measurements of inflation than CPI, and other timeframes than TTM. The link is there so that someone can look at the backup for what I'm asserting.
The same is true of things like quotes. The link isn't there to prove that the matters asserted in the quote are conclusively true, but rather to document where the quote came from and to allow a reader (if they want) to see the larger context.
Again, none of this is useful for what you (the author behind all these characters) use the boards for. You're not trying to make easily understood discernible arguments, so there's no need for you to link to things. In fact, it would be counter-productive for you, since often you're trying to portray a character that is being deliberately coy and obfuscating what their real positions are. But for people trying to have actual discussions, links are very helpful for communicating your thoughts.
No. of Recommendations: 3
When someone posts a link, they're not asserting that the statement supported by the link is conclusive because of the link. They're just giving the reader a way of looking at the basis for their claims.
With respect, there are a number of posters who do exactly that - throw out a link to a "respected" source and that's the be-all, end-all of their argument. Further, these same posters immediately *dismiss* any link that is not from a "respected" (Read: left wing media or similar) in an attempt to Poison the Well.
No. of Recommendations: 8
With respect, there are a number of posters who do exactly that - throw out a link to a "respected" source and that's the be-all, end-all of their argument. Further, these same posters immediately *dismiss* any link that is not from a "respected" (Read: left wing media or similar) in an attempt to Poison the Well.
Again, I think that's overstating how these things are used.
Different sources have different degrees of credibility or support for the matter being asserted. Take my assertion claim. Linking to the BLS' official figures on inflation, for example, is a more credible source for claims about the inflation rate than linking to some columnist writing about how they can't remember the last time inflation rose so fast. The former isn't absolute unshakable conclusive truth about inflation rates....but it's much much better than the latter in supporting the point being asserted. That doesn't mean it can't be argued with; it just means that one party is presenting much more credible evidence than the other.
The Poisoning the Well fallacy doesn't mean exactly what you are using it for. Poisoning the Well is a fallacy if the negative things being asserted about a source are untrue or unrelated to their assertions; it's not a fallacy if the statements are true and related to the credibility of the assertions. Thus, for example, if someone is linking to a sports analyst to support their prediction that the Dolphins will make the playoffs, it's not Poisoning the Well to point out that said sports analyst has a poor track record in predicting playoff contenders.
Highly partisan news reporting sources (whether on the right or the left) do not have the same economic incentives to "stress test" their assertions than other sources. They have goals other than trying to find some platonic objective truth (or come as close as this imperfect world will allow). To use an analogy from a non-political field, a reporter from the National Artichoke Producers' trade publication Artichokes Today might run a quote from a random scientist saying that artichokes can help prevent halitosis. But because the purpose of that publication is to promote artichokes, it is far less likely that the reporter has done much background-checking to see whether the scientists' credentials qualify him to speak on that topic, has sought out any other scientists to support or refute that claim, or even asked a follow-up question asking what the scientist did to test that conclusion. Whereas a more neutral publication - say, a nationally circulated scientific journal, would be expected to do more of that stress-testing.
Which, again, is why links are important - because they allow people to assess the credibility and biases of the sources and evaluate them.
No. of Recommendations: 5
All very good points about the current economy. But if you want to understand why US voters are unhappy about the economy, you just need to look at three charts: inflation, mortgage rates, and gas prices.
time frames
ECI dropped April 2021 to June 2022
inflation rose April 2021 to June 2022
mortgage rates rose May 2022 to November 2023
gas prices rose February 2022 to June 2022
The recent drop in the Gallup Economic Confidence Index (ECI) lines up with inflation. Inflation moved above 3% in April 2021, and peaked in June 2022. ECI dropped over that time period.
Mortgage rates moved above 5% in May 2022, and peaked November 2023.
Real gas prices have been moderate since 2015. Gas prices had a temporary surge starting in February 2022 (Ukraine) with a peak June 2022. It took a few months for domestic supply to reactivate.
The 4 big drops in ECI happened around the time of Bear Markets.
drops in ECI:
January 2000 to February 2001: from 56 to -8
January 2007 to October 2008: from 11 to -72
February 2020 to April 2020: 41 to -32
April 2021 to June 2022: 2 to -58
Bear markets:
March 2000 to October 2002: 49% loss
October 2007 to March 2009: 57% loss
February 2020 to March 2020: 34% loss
January 2022 to October 2022: 25% loss
Difference in months (Bear-ECI):
2 to 20
9 to 5
0 to -1
9 to 4
Recoveries from these drops in ECI was roughly V-shaped for about 50% recovery and then mixed after that:
April 2002 to January 2007: from 22 to 11
April 2010 to February 2020: from -13 to 41
November 2020 to April 2021: -1 to 2
August 2023 to ???: -30 to ??
So it could take 6 years for ECI to go positive, and anything that causes a Bear market will move ECI lower. Or maybe we will see something new, when inflation is declared past.
==== References ====
Gallup poll 2023 November 1-21:
How would you rate economic conditions in this country today -- as excellent, good, only fair or poor?
Excellent 2%, Good 17%, Only fair 31%, Poor 50%
Right now, do you think that economic conditions in the country as a whole are getting better or getting worse?
Getting better 23%, Getting worse 72%, Same 5%
Gallup Economic Confidence Index = ((2+17-50)+(23-72))/2 = -40
The combined responses are used to create the Gallup Economic Confidence Index (ECI), which has a theoretical range of +100 (if all respondents say the economy is excellent or good and that it is getting better) to -100 (if all say it is poor and getting worse).
see chart for Gallup Economic Confidence Index, 1996-2023 at:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-e...US Regular All Formulations Gas Price/Consumer Price Index
Real gas prices were flat from 1991 to 2004, doubled from 2004 to 2009, remained high from 2009 to 2015, and have been moderate from 2015 to 2023.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=p93wS&P 500 Bear Markets Since 1928
https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500corrbeartables.pd...
No. of Recommendations: 6
It takes a well educated, somewhat financially sophisticated person to appreciate the meaning of the data you presented.
The average person does not appreciate that inflation has affected every nation on earth. The average American only knows that they are hurting financially. They listen to the loudest voices and respond accordingly.
Add in AI bots in nefarious mitts and we got trouble in River City.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That is true. I mentioned a while back (with supporting data) that inflation was a worldwide phenomenon. Not a "Biden" problem. And, as others have pointed out, we recovered from it faster than most (all?) other nations. Or are recovering, if you don't think we're recovered yet.
The article I linked then made an argument that we might actually see some deflation soon. Gas prices already have, but fluctuations are normal for petrol, so I don't think much about that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
That is true. I mentioned a while back (with supporting data) that inflation was a worldwide phenomenon. Not a "Biden" problem. And, as others have pointed out, we recovered from it faster than most (all?) other nations. Or are recovering, if you don't think we're recovered yet.What surprised me is that is our inflation seemed subdued compared to what happened elsewhere. We're in pretty good shape methinks. A bill has been introduced to cause hedge funds, etc., to divest themselves of their housing inventory over the next 10 years. I'm interested. I have a house, but I am interested in regulating the housing market so people can own houses. One article I read said a lot of the inventory is in black and latino neighborhoods. Can someone explain that to me?
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-reasons...
No. of Recommendations: 3
Highly partisan news reporting sources (whether on the right or the left) do not have the same economic incentives to "stress test" their assertions than other sources. They have goals other than trying to find some platonic objective truth (or come as close as this imperfect world will allow).
Once again albaby, you hit the nail ON THE HEAD.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Again, there is a difference between price levels and the monthly or TTM inflation rate. The U.S. hadn't seen a rate of price increases like we had from mid-2021 to mid-2022 in forty years. The fact that those price spikes have now slipped outside the 12-month inflation comparisons doesn't lower prices. The two-year inflation rate, comparing 2023 prices to 2021 prices, is 13.5%. People are mad about that. The fact that the rate is lower in 2023 than it was in 2022 doesn't make them happier about that.
Plus, even the inflation rate is still doing badly - just not as badly as it was in 2022. Inflation at 3% is still higher than at any time since 2011. That's not great - and that's the best way of looking at inflation for the Administration. And corporate profits have risen.
"'Excess profits' at big energy and consumer companies pushed up inflation, report claims. New research argues that the impact of companies maintaining margins by passing on higher prices to consumers should not be overlooked as a contributing factor to inflation."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/08/excess-profits-of-...A chart:
https://randomterrabytes.net/2022/05/22/inflation-...And I thought price fixing was a thing of the past. Rude awakening # 6254.
"The Attorney General’s Office secured $35.5 million in restitution through resolutions with 15 of the 19 broiler chicken producers named in a 2021 price-fixing lawsuit. These producers, accounting for approximately 95% of broiler chickens sold in the United States, engaged in a widespread illegal conspiracy to inflate and manipulate prices, rig contract bids, exchange information, and coordinate supply reductions to maximize profits. The lawsuit asserts violations of Washington state antitrust laws."
https://seattlemedium.com/attorney-general-bob-fer...“Greedflation.”
The term defines as what happens when businesses raise prices higher and faster than is needed to cover increases in their costs. We’ve reported before that soaring corporate profits have contributed more to inflation than the Federal Reserve Board’s preferred targets, wages and consumer demand. Two recent papers, however, measure their impact and identify some of the leading culprits by name.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-05-10/...I still think we're doing fine, but we need to take a good look at these capitalist assholes. This is anathema to the right.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Inflation peaked June 2022.
Gallup Economic Confidence Index (ECI) declined April 2021 to June 2022: 2 to -58
If ECI recovers 50% per year, ECI is:
-28 in June 2023
-13 in June 2024
-6 in June 2025
-2 in June 2025
ECI in June 2023 was actually -32. If ECI is significantly below -13 in June 2024, then maybe something else is affecting ECI: long-term effects of the 2020 pandemic, changes in government aid programs, concern about global warming, hidden inflation, social media, or something else.
Biden goes into 2024 with the economy getting stronger, but voters feel horrible about it, December 11, 2023
"Pollsters and economists say there has never been as wide a gap between the underlying health of the economy and public perception."
https://apnews.com/article/biden-economy-jobs-infl...Digesting inflation, Dec 4, 2023
The impact of inflation on consumer sentiment decays at a rate of about 50 percent per year
https://www.briefingbook.info/p/digesting-inflatio...Gallup Economic Confidence Index
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-e...Record Rise in Poverty Highlights Importance of Child Tax Credit, September 12, 2023
"If Congress had continued the American Rescue Plan’s Child Tax Credit increase in 2022, about 3 million additional children would have been kept out of poverty"
https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/record-rise-...
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Poisoning the Well fallacy doesn't mean exactly what you are using it for. Poisoning the Well is a fallacy if the negative things being asserted about a source are untrue or unrelated to their assertions; it's not a fallacy if the statements are true and related to the credibility of the assertions. Thus, for example, if someone is linking to a sports analyst to support their prediction that the Dolphins will make the playoffs, it's not Poisoning the Well to point out that said sports analyst has a poor track record in predicting playoff contenders.
That's the fallacious argument in action. In this case, we're talking not about predictions (where the reasoning would apply) to factual reporting (where it doesn't).
The world's worst math student might be horrible at math, but if the student says "2+2 = 4", the student is correct in that statement. The student is correct because the statement is correct; it doesn't matter if the kid is wrong most of the time.
Many posters here attempt to reject reporting that doesn't tell them what they want to hear. These same people are hilariously the same ones who constantly complain about everyone else being either in a bubble or in a cult.
Which, again, is why links are important
Links are important as supplements and sources of reference. When they're used as a be-all, end-all they're useless, especially when used as a tool of left wing confirmation bias, as they often are.
No. of Recommendations: 3
When they're used as a be-all, end-all they're useless, especially when used as a tool of right wing confirmation bias, as they often are.
Fixed that for you.
