The reason unemployment is so low, and you can't find a worker.

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
No, it did sail past you. This was your response above (above).

I was trying to show you that the production of a car (1920s private production) created more SUPPLY than the production of a dam (1930s public spending) in the short run --- because the problem is a near term imbalance right now. Inflation is being cause by too much money (demand) chasing too few goods (supply).

The production of MORE EXPENSIVE ENERGY using public money does not address a supply problem. It exacerbates it.

Then you responded with the fact that FDR did not cause unemployment, as if that had anything to do with what I posted, yet you through this out in your response, showing that you missed my point.

We have the opposite issue. Not enough people working producing food, energy, and goods relative to the money supply, causing inflation. (Unemployment in 1930 was caused by a banking run, a liquidity crisis that concentrated wealth. The things that led up to that are things that should be addressed in our commerce regulatory system, one of the roles for the Federal Government. 2008 was also created by failures in the regulation of our banking system).

Then you responded with electricity from dams producing better life for Americans. Of course it did, but the payout was long term, (and today) we cannot build more dams.

In the near term, where we have a problem (money chasing the supply of goods), you will not propose anything to deal with the money supply / goods supply problem. Instead you think Americans are marginally producing trinkets in a service economy. That's not even true because the Chinese do that.

Americans produce services. We have a "service economy" as a result of bad previous policies. We can fix those policies but can't do it with more government spending at a time of high inflation. That takes corporate tax cut policies that would grow the building a factories, something that Trump was doing. It will probably take wage concessions, not union-driven wage increases.

You think the Fed will fix this by raising interest rates? Inflation hurts the poor and middle class, especially those on fixed incomes in the private sector. Who gets hurt by raising interest rates?

The fix has to come from the fiscal side -- wasteful spending programs. But you won't touch that, because you are a big government Dem, even though that is the root cause problem squeezing Americans with higher prices for goods that they actually need to buy. You don't like the label that this describes, well OK, I'll refrain from that if you can get to the point of understanding the concepts, the flaws in your position.

Guess what will happen with inflation when the dollar starts to weaken relative to other currencies and we are not producing things in the private sector within this country? It's actually true that our trading partners followed our bad policies, and even to a greater extent. They are further along in growing government relative to the private sector. Again, I will refrain from the descriptive label.

You are an economist. You should be able to figure this out.
Anything sails past you idiot.

Go ahead.
Tell me your spending cuts. You are incapable of doing it without being stupid and naive despite the fact you think you're enlightened. And tell me how much unemployment you are willing to accept. ??? It's easy. Just say a percentage. One thing that sail right by you guys is that you think you can cut spending, increase unemployment and keep getting elected. Then you have no power to cut spending. You clowns can't think critically.

What wasteful programs? Do you want to cut SS and Medicare? Defense? Homeland Security?

More factories? It makes no sense for companies to build more factories if the demand is not there. The companies know that.

We may be moving more to a service economy but so what? Don't American's want better jobs? Besides,
we may be employing fewer Americans in factories but our actual production is just fine. That's because of productivity improvements. My guess is you can't write a simple computer program. I have written some fairly sophisticated programs.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I don't know if he's an economist, but he most certainly is a big government democrat.

It's an extremely distorted position to take when we are in an inflationary cycle. I'm trying to be firm without inflaming him too much.

Democrats think like Catch. And that's the problem. The country is now loaded with them. They don't understand the really complex things that create and even worsen our problems. When you simplify down they tend to get emotional, as if the word "clown" and "idiot" are less denigrating than "socialist" on a politics board.

On the flip side the Republican solutions don't look like solutions, because when you cut taxes you also need to cut spending. That's where they run up against Democrats. Compromise for so many years turned into bad policies, because the public did not hear what it wanted to hear, and politicians wanted to stay in office.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
I don't know if he's an economist, but he most certainly is a big government democrat.
Wrong Mike. It's just that we as a country have sailed way past your weak policies. You want low inflation and low unemployment, and your policies don't get us there. Maybe I will be banned again by saying and your ilk would love the low taxes in Afghanistan.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
It's an extremely distorted position to take when we are in an inflationary cycle. I'm trying to be firm without inflaming him too much.

Democrats think like Catch. And that's the problem. The country is now loaded with them. They don't understand the really complex things that create and even worsen our problems. When you simplify down they tend to get emotional, as if the word "clown" and "idiot" are less denigrating than "socialist" on a politics board.

On the flip side the Republican solutions don't look like solutions, because when you cut taxes you also need to cut spending. That's where they run up against Democrats. Compromise for so many years turned into bad policies, because the public did not hear what it wanted to hear, and politicians wanted to stay in office.
You're the one starting with the insults. Read the first line of your last two posts.

I ask again. Tell me your spending cuts. ?? There is not one R on this board who says anything much more than cutting the Department of Education. That gets us nowhere near a balanced budget.

Do you know where to find basic federal spending data?
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,031
62,648
1
Wrong Mike. It's just that we as a country have sailed way past your weak policies. You want low inflation and low unemployment, and your policies don't get us there. Maybe I will be banned again by saying and your ilk would love the low taxes in Afghanistan.

"My" policies demonstrated low inflation, low unemployment and Americans of ALL races, sexes and religions getting ahead.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/09/...ss-boom-that-benefited-women-minorities-most/

And no recovery was needed. Just simple policy that builds confidence in our nations employers. Confident employers raise wages, hire, develop products, expand.... All of which drive the economy.

Did you know that under 48 months of Trump, NFIB small business confidence fell under 100 only twice? Under Obama, I think went OVER 100 only twice in 96 months. Similar situation with Biden.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
"My" policies demonstrated low inflation, low unemployment and Americans of ALL races, sexes and religions getting ahead.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/09/...ss-boom-that-benefited-women-minorities-most/

And no recovery was needed. Just simple policy that builds confidence in our nations employers. Confident employers raise wages, hire, develop products, expand.... All of which drive the economy.

Did you know that under 48 months of Trump, NFIB small business confidence fell under 100 only twice? Under Obama, I think went OVER 100 only twice in 96 months. Similar situation with Biden.
One point at time.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I or anyone else wants high inflation and high unemployment for Americans of all races, sexes and religions?
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,031
62,648
1
One point at time.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I or anyone else wants high inflation and high unemployment for Americans of all races, sexes and religions?

The point was that "my" policy has a demonstrated track record of success.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
READ THIS. All of it. Before you make another foolish post.

This is what you can create by going into a post to which you are responding, pressing enter, and then typing. Try it some time.


Anything sails past you idiot.

Go ahead.
Tell me your spending cuts. You are incapable of doing it without being stupid and naive despite the fact you think you're enlightened. And tell me how much unemployment you are willing to accept. ??? It's easy. Just say a percentage. One thing that sail right by you guys is that you think you can cut spending, increase unemployment and keep getting elected. Then you have no power to cut spending. You clowns can't think critically.

Public spending cuts at this point will increase unemployment because we cannot have tax cuts, unless those tax cuts are targeted at wealthy individuals. Corporate taxes increase inflation, which is the problem we are trying to solve.

I am willing to accept whatever unemployment is necessary to get to 2% inflation. That's impossible to predict. Even the Fed PhD's can't do that. One big counter effect is when you hurt production by increasing the price of energy. Restricting, or lengthening the permit process, is BAD POLICY. That increases unemployment and inflation. It creates stagflation, just like an Oil Embargo.

I would cut things like the Department of Education, the size of nearly every federal agency. I would throw out and simplify the tax code. It can be progressive somewhat, but doesn't need to be so complicated that it takes lawyers and accountants. I would cut just about everything sent to the states that is outside the role of the federal government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I would cut the number of overseas military bases and focus our military on strategic weapons and border protection (Coast Guard / ICE). Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. pay for their own defense.

Part of this is reversing Biden's pro-China policies that were nothing more than a reversal of Trump policies. Biden is making the world a more dangerous place, and it CLEARLY SHOWS in what has happened since his taking office.

You won't say what you would cut. You are a tax and spend democrat, the worst thing we could do in a stagflationary environment.


What wasteful programs? Do you want to cut SS and Medicare? Defense? Homeland Security?

More factories? It makes no sense for companies to build more factories if the demand is not there. The companies know that.

The demand is there because the Dems grew the money supply at an astronomical pace. Don't you understand why we have inflation? Dems used the Covid response as a means to get a leftwing agenda passed. They held up the confirmation of Powell until after he financed all of it. The Dem miscalculation was the inflation created in advance of the midterms, created by their policies. They for some reason did not realize that increasing the money supply 40% into a shut down economy would create very high inflation. That is nuts. Even I can understand that.

We may be moving more to a service economy but so what? Don't American's want better jobs? Besides,
we may be employing fewer Americans in factories but our actual production is just fine.

Of course people want good jobs. What you want is not what you get with the wrong policies. And no, our production is not fine with this size of the money supply. Debt to GDP is way over 100%.

That's because of productivity improvements. My guess is you can't write a simple computer program. I have written some fairly sophisticated programs.

Now this is so far off it's hilarious. You made a pretty bad guess . I'm not like @PSUEngineer89, but perhaps I could be.


  • Did you know that, probably before you were born, I was writing software at a very low level (because it was effectively a video stream compiler) which was like a precursor to today's spreadsheets? It would interface with a 4GL higher math language much like VBA interfaces with the I/O of a spreadsheet.
  • Did you know that I wrote, down to the matrix inversions, software that would screen data, regress it in multiple ways, and test the different postulated models against independent data, thereby selecting the best model? And all in one step with the press of a button. You just select the table of data.
  • Did you know that I wrote my own regression algorithm that could decipher "happenstance" time series data, again down to the most basic linear algebra operations, so as to prevent the need for third party licensing?
  • Did you know that I wrote software that allows a sample of fluid to be taken within a chemical plant, have it analyzed in a lab, and then move multiple valves in the plant to not only control the quality/property, but to also keep the plant stable? This, without involving a person other than a lab tech to run the test.
I've got more but you don't like long posts, and I'm not sure you understand any of this anyway.

My formal training is chemical engineering, not software engineering, and I've got much more that falls under ChE, at all levels throughout various downstream manufacturing businesses.

Unlike most of today's young professionals, I had enough initiative to be self taught in a lot of things. The government did not do it for me. I worked even when laid up in a hospital.

Now tell us what you have done.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
READ THIS. All of it. Before you make another foolish post.

This is what you can create by going into a post to which you are responding, pressing enter, and then typing. Try it some time.




Public spending cuts at this point will increase unemployment because we cannot have tax cuts, unless those tax cuts are targeted at wealthy individuals. Corporate taxes increase inflation, which is the problem we are trying to solve.

I am willing to accept whatever unemployment is necessary to get to 2% inflation. That's impossible to predict. Even the Fed PhD's can't do that. One big counter effect is when you hurt production by increasing the price of energy. Restricting, or lengthening the permit process, is BAD POLICY. That increases unemployment and inflation. It creates stagflation, just like an Oil Embargo.

I would cut things like the Department of Education, the size of nearly every federal agency. I would throw out and simplify the tax code. It can be progressive somewhat, but doesn't need to be so complicated that it takes lawyers and accountants. I would cut just about everything sent to the states that is outside the role of the federal government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I would cut the number of overseas military bases and focus our military on strategic weapons and border protection (Coast Guard / ICE). Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. pay for their own defense.

Part of this is reversing Biden's pro-China policies that were nothing more than a reversal of Trump policies. Biden is making the world a more dangerous place, and it CLEARLY SHOWS in what has happened since his taking office.

You won't say what you would cut. You are a tax and spend democrat, the worst thing we could do in a stagflationary environment.




The demand is there because the Dems grew the money supply at an astronomical pace. Don't you understand why we have inflation? Dems used the Covid response as a means to get a leftwing agenda passed. They held up the confirmation of Powell until after he financed all of it. The Dem miscalculation was the inflation created in advance of the midterms, created by their policies. They for some reason did not realize that increasing the money supply 40% into a shut down economy would create very high inflation. That is nuts. Even I can understand that.



Of course people want good jobs. What you want is not what you get with the wrong policies. And no, our production is not fine with this size of the money supply. Debt to GDP is way over 100%.



Now this is so far off it's hilarious. You made a pretty bad guess . I'm not like @PSUEngineer89, but perhaps I could be.

  • Did you know that, probably before you were born, I was writing software at a very low level (because it was effectively a video stream compiler) which was like a precursor to today's spreadsheets? It would interface with a 4GL higher math language much like VBA interfaces with the I/O of a spreadsheet.
  • Did you know that I wrote, down to the matrix inversions, software that would screen data, regress it in multiple ways, and test the different postulated models against independent data, thereby selecting the best model? And all in one step with the press of a button. You just select the table of data.
  • Did you know that I wrote my own regression algorithm that could decipher "happenstance" time series data, again down to the most basic linear algebra operations, so as to prevent the need for third party licensing?
  • Did you know that I wrote software that allows a sample of fluid to be taken within a chemical plant, have it analyzed in a lab, and then move multiple valves in the plant to not only control the quality/property, but to also keep the plant stable? This, without involving a person other than a lab tech to run the test.
I've got more but you don't like long posts, and I'm not sure you understand any of this anyway.

My formal training is chemical engineering, not software engineering, and I've got much more that falls under ChE, at all levels throughout various downstream manufacturing businesses.

Unlike most of today's young professionals, I had enough initiative to be self taught in a lot of things. The government did not do it for me. I worked even when laid up in a hospital.

Now tell us what you have done.
Where the hell do you get the notion that anybody, except energy producers and a very small number of fruitcake environmentalists, want to increase the price of energy? For my whole life since the 1973-74 oil embargo, I have been very concerned with increasing energy prices.

YOU FOOLISH CLOWN.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
Where the hell do you get the notion that anybody, except energy producers and a very small number of fruitcake environmentalists, want to increase the price of energy? For my whole life since the 1973-74 oil embargo, I have been very concerned with increasing energy prices.

YOU FOOLISH CLOWN.

Now you are getting angry. That's a sign that you know you are wrong. And "foolish clown." a derogatory term, is more denigrating than "socialist," an appropriate descriptive term on a political message board that describes the policies that a person advocates. I thought we could return to civility.

Perhaps Dems don't want to increase the price of energy. (I actually think long term they do based on what they say, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant are policies, not motives, and not rhetoric.)

Dems have increased regulations on the energy industry. In fact they publicly said they want to end fossil fuels, which cuts off capital and provides a disincentive for more production. Which then, by the way, increases prices -- THE COST OF ENERGY.

It's not just regulations. They are blocking or delaying with red tape the required permits, especially for pipelines. At least this is what I am hearing. I'm retired from the industry.

If these things were not true Biden would not be tapping the Strategic Oil Reserve to create an inflationary dip in front of an election. There is no emergency, the purpose of the reserve. In fact Dems claim the emergency is climate, which is the opposite "emergency" created by using the SOR.

I guess you are going to punt on my knowledge/skills, a ridiculous claim that says more about you than it does me. I don't know where that one came from, but it does speak to your mental state.

Perhaps I should not be engaging with you. At one time I had you on ignore.

One of my weaknesses is memory, sadly.
 
Last edited:

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
Now you are getting angry. That's a sign that you know you are wrong. And "foolish clown." a derogatory term, is more denigrating than "socialist," an appropriate descriptive term on a political message board that describes the policies that a person advocates. I thought we could return to civility.

Perhaps Dems don't want to increase the price of energy. (I actually think long term they do based on what th, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant are policies, not motives, and not rhetoric.)

Dems have increased regulations on the energy industry. In fact they publicly said they want to end fossil fuels, which cuts off capital and provides a disincentive for more production. Which then, by the way, increases prices -- THE COST OF ENERGY.

It's not just regulations. They are blocking or delaying with red tape the required permits, especially for pipelines. At least this is what I am hearing. I'm retired from the industry.

If these things were not true Biden would not be tapping the Strategic Oil Reserve to create an inflationary dip in front of an election. There is no emergency, the purpose of the reserve. In fact Dems claim the emergency is climate, which is the opposite "emergency" created by using the SOR.

I guess you are going to punt on my knowledge/skills, a ridiculous claim that says more about you than it does me. I don't know where that one came from, but it does speak to your mental state.

Perhaps I should not be engaging with you. At one time I had you on ignore.

One of my weaknesses is memory, sadly.
I'm angry because of your insults. It is up to you to return to civility. I won't tolerate your insults. I'll point out your insults every time.

We can get to my knowledge/skills later. Remind me ... later.

So you admit "perhaps Dems don't want to increase the price of energy".
Some regs are needed in every industry. I'm sure Biden has not increased regs on the industry all that much in the short time he has been in office. Those who want to "end fossil fuels" are a pretty small minority with basically no political power.

The permits issue is up for debate. Biden claims believably that oil companies are not using all their permits. At least two issues are here:

1) the oil companies are probably finding it hard to hire experienced workers.
2) the costs have to be getting higher. Oil companies drill the cheapest, easiest wells first.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I'm angry because of your insults. It is up to you to return to civility. I won't tolerate your insults. I'll point out your insults every time.

Saying one of my points sailed past you? That is an insult? Perhaps I should have written "... you do not understand" when your reply did not address the post I made? I am not using terms like "fool" or "clown." (Should I get angry?) Yours is an emotional response.

What you should have done is to explain what you would cut in government to replace it with infrastructure. What you should have done is to explain what you would tax in the private sector that would not hurt the little people, i.e., cause more inflation. (Corporate taxation raises inflation.)

We can get to my knowledge/skills later. Remind me ... later.

My guess is that you will never get to this, because at this point you want me to be a "fool." And you won't be able to support claims with facts, because you don't know me. Yet you decided to compare you with me, in a rather misguided way no less. Your decision, not mine.

So you admit "perhaps Dems don't want to increase the price of energy".
Some regs are needed in every industry. I'm sure Biden has not increased regs on the industry all that much in the short time he has been in office. Those who want to "end fossil fuels" are a pretty small minority with basically no political power.

I admit that I cannot read minds, but that I can make a guess based on what people do.

I guess the President is a "pretty small minority with basically no political power." It's either that or he doesn't really mean what he says. And if that's true then he is just a liar trying to manipulate his far left base for their votes.

The permits issue is up for debate. Biden claims believably that oil companies are not using all their permits. At least two issues are here:

1) the oil companies are probably finding it hard to hire experienced workers.
2) the costs have to be getting higher. Oil companies drill the cheapest, easiest wells first.

^^^^
Bottom line, there was absolutely no reason for Biden to change anything regarding our fossil fuel industry. So why did he do that when every change marginally made production less than it could be and prices higher than they needed to be?

There was absolutely no reason to change border policies either. That's going to be another inflationary cost in the near term.

There was no reason to denigrate the police force and create phony system racist claims. I know you don't agree with the Dems on this, but you are voting Dem, and that means you're keeping people like this in office.

You should be a Republican and get on the bully pulpit to switch existing government spending over to real, physical infrastructure. But you have to start with cuts in the base case, because we have inflation.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
Saying one of my points sailed past you? That is an insult? Perhaps I should have written "... you do not understand" when your reply did not address the post I made? I am not using terms like "fool" or "clown." (Should I get angry?) Yours is an emotional response.

What you should have done is to explain what you would cut in government to replace it with infrastructure. What you should have done is to explain what you would tax in the private sector that would not hurt the little people, i.e., cause more inflation. (Corporate taxation raises inflation.)



My guess is that you will never get to this, because at this point you want me to be a "fool." And you won't be able to support claims with facts, because you don't know me. Yet you decided to compare you with me, in a rather misguided way no less. Your decision, not mine.



I admit that I cannot read minds, but that I can make a guess based on what people do.

I guess the President is a "pretty small minority with basically no political power." It's either that or he doesn't really mean what he says. And if that's true then he is just a liar trying to manipulate his far left base for their votes.



^^^^
Bottom line, there was absolutely no reason for Biden to change anything regarding our fossil fuel industry. So why did he do that when every change marginally made production less than it could be and prices higher than they needed to be?

There was absolutely no reason to change border policies either. That's going to be another inflationary cost in the near term.

There was no reason to denigrate the police force and create phony system racist claims. I know you don't agree with the Dems on this, but you are voting Dem, and that means you're keeping people like this in office.

You should be a Republican and get on the bully pulpit to switch existing government spending over to real, physical infrastructure. But you have to start with cuts in the base case, because we have inflation.
I vote with Dems on policing because I think R's are worse. I can't help but think R's actually like to see inner city blacks knock off each other. I won't try to prove it but I would love to see R's disprove it. I certainly don't want to see blacks knock off each other.

About border policies, I am sure for almost 100% of Dems, it is about basic empathy for other humans. People who are escaping poverty and violence. The 2013 Immigration bill was killed by R's in the HOR after it passed the Senate. The bill gave R's almost everything they wanted and was supported by a good number of R's in thesenate.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I vote with Dems on policing because I think R's are worse. I can't help but think R's actually like to see inner city blacks knock off each other. I won't try to prove it but I would love to see R's disprove it. I certainly don't want to see blacks knock off each other.

I don't know why you would think this. Dems started the Defund the Police movement and have been gaslighting violence by claiming Systemic Racism. The root cause is broken families, which they won't touch. It isn't the police. And these criminals are not going to just be responsible bridge builders. They need to do their work with a ball and chain -- learn how to be responsible with a work ethic -- the thing their absent fathers did not do.

Just look at New York safety/crime under republicans versus democrats. Heck you've got Dems like Soros destroying cities.
About border policies, I am sure for almost 100% of Dems, it is about basic empathy for other humans. People who are escaping poverty and violence. The 2013 Immigration bill was killed by R's in the HOR after it passed the Senate. The bill gave R's almost everything they wanted and was supported by a good number of R's in thesenate.

Ok, where do you draw the line? How do American citizens support anyone who wants to come? Right now that is Dem de facto policy.

That's the issue here. Dem voters don't understand the real cost of their empathy. (And I think, among the Dem elites, this is really about securing power -- votes -- by making citizens poor and dependent.). Poverty for American citizens is where this is heading. We're actually heading towards communism.

Of course there is the collateral damage of drugs, just 100,000 deaths per year. But that's OK because we place a priority on empathy for people that do not even live here.

Trouble with all of this is that your average Dem thinks there is someone richer than them who will pay the costs.

The mechanism has been inflation, but Dem's lie about the fact that inflation is actually a government tax. They blame corporations for the money supply and public spending problems.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
I don't know why you would think this. Dems started the Defund the Police movement and have been gaslighting violence by claiming Systemic Racism. The root cause is broken families, which they won't touch. It isn't the police. And these criminals are not going to just be responsible bridge builders. They need to do their work with a ball and chain -- learn how to be responsible with a work ethic -- the thing their absent fathers did not do.

Just look at New York safety/crime under republicans versus democrats. Heck you've got Dems like Soros destroying cities.


Ok, where do you draw the line? How do American citizens support anyone who wants to come? Right now that is Dem de facto policy.

That's the issue here. Dem voters don't understand the real cost of their empathy. (And I think, among the Dem elites, this is really about securing power -- votes -- by making citizens poor and dependent.). Poverty for American citizens is where this is heading. We're actually heading towards communism.

Of course there is the collateral damage of drugs, just 100,000 deaths per year. But that's OK because we place a priority on empathy for people that do not even live here.

Trouble with all of this is that your average Dem thinks there is someone richer than them who will pay the costs.

The mechanism has been inflation, but Dem's lie about the fact that inflation is actually a government tax. They blame corporations for the money supply and public spending problems.
The 2013 Immigration Bill had limits. And border technology and measures Republicans wanted.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,031
62,648
1
All boomers are democrats? I find that hard to believe as I think they are the core audience for Fox News.

There is no intersectionality there rumble.

I'm talking straight up democrats who don't want to contribute to society.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
READ THIS. All of it. Before you make another foolish post.

This is what you can create by going into a post to which you are responding, pressing enter, and then typing. Try it some time.




Public spending cuts at this point will increase unemployment because we cannot have tax cuts, unless those tax cuts are targeted at wealthy individuals. Corporate taxes increase inflation, which is the problem we are trying to solve.

I am willing to accept whatever unemployment is necessary to get to 2% inflation. That's impossible to predict. Even the Fed PhD's can't do that. One big counter effect is when you hurt production by increasing the price of energy. Restricting, or lengthening the permit process, is BAD POLICY. That increases unemployment and inflation. It creates stagflation, just like an Oil Embargo.

I would cut things like the Department of Education, the size of nearly every federal agency. I would throw out and simplify the tax code. It can be progressive somewhat, but doesn't need to be so complicated that it takes lawyers and accountants. I would cut just about everything sent to the states that is outside the role of the federal government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I would cut the number of overseas military bases and focus our military on strategic weapons and border protection (Coast Guard / ICE). Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. pay for their own defense.

Part of this is reversing Biden's pro-China policies that were nothing more than a reversal of Trump policies. Biden is making the world a more dangerous place, and it CLEARLY SHOWS in what has happened since his taking office.

You won't say what you would cut. You are a tax and spend democrat, the worst thing we could do in a stagflationary environment.




The demand is there because the Dems grew the money supply at an astronomical pace. Don't you understand why we have inflation? Dems used the Covid response as a means to get a leftwing agenda passed. They held up the confirmation of Powell until after he financed all of it. The Dem miscalculation was the inflation created in advance of the midterms, created by their policies. They for some reason did not realize that increasing the money supply 40% into a shut down economy would create very high inflation. That is nuts. Even I can understand that.



Of course people want good jobs. What you want is not what you get with the wrong policies. And no, our production is not fine with this size of the money supply. Debt to GDP is way over 100%.



Now this is so far off it's hilarious. You made a pretty bad guess . I'm not like @PSUEngineer89, but perhaps I could be.

  • Did you know that, probably before you were born, I was writing software at a very low level (because it was effectively a video stream compiler) which was like a precursor to today's spreadsheets? It would interface with a 4GL higher math language much like VBA interfaces with the I/O of a spreadsheet.
  • Did you know that I wrote, down to the matrix inversions, software that would screen data, regress it in multiple ways, and test the different postulated models against independent data, thereby selecting the best model? And all in one step with the press of a button. You just select the table of data.
  • Did you know that I wrote my own regression algorithm that could decipher "happenstance" time series data, again down to the most basic linear algebra operations, so as to prevent the need for third party licensing?
  • Did you know that I wrote software that allows a sample of fluid to be taken within a chemical plant, have it analyzed in a lab, and then move multiple valves in the plant to not only control the quality/property, but to also keep the plant stable? This, without involving a person other than a lab tech to run the test.
I've got more but you don't like long posts, and I'm not sure you understand any of this anyway.

My formal training is chemical engineering, not software engineering, and I've got much more that falls under ChE, at all levels throughout various downstream manufacturing businesses.

Unlike most of today's young professionals, I had enough initiative to be self taught in a lot of things. The government did not do it for me. I worked even when laid up in a hospital.

Now tell us what you have done.
I'm self taught in Microsoft Access with a good amount of VBA. I'm the only person in my department who actually gives a shit about productivity. Thus I have proven results. I took one assignment I was trained for and reduced the time it takes by a factor of 32. I made the process more accurate, and I had the foresight to make the information useful for future uses. I have other similar accomplishments with Access and VBA.
 

SheldonJoe2215

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2015
4,311
4,534
1
Portland, OR
Anything sails past you idiot.

Go ahead.
Tell me your spending cuts. You are incapable of doing it without being stupid and naive despite the fact you think you're enlightened. And tell me how much unemployment you are willing to accept. ??? It's easy. Just say a percentage. One thing that sail right by you guys is that you think you can cut spending, increase unemployment and keep getting elected. Then you have no power to cut spending. You clowns can't think critically.

What wasteful programs? Do you want to cut SS and Medicare? Defense? Homeland Security?

More factories? It makes no sense for companies to build more factories if the demand is not there. The companies know that.

We may be moving more to a service economy but so what? Don't American's want better jobs? Besides,
we may be employing fewer Americans in factories but our actual production is just fine. That's because of productivity improvements. My guess is you can't write a simple computer program. I have written some fairly sophisticated programs.
I love reading the ramblings of the old white guys with an overinflated sense of self-confidence.
 

rutgersdave

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2004
596
303
1

The new workforce, the over 55 crowd. When I was working, even when you were productive, the companies were trying to get rid of you when you reach 55. Now, with inflation, retirees that thought they saved enough, will unexpectedly go back to work into their 60’s and 70’s. I retired at 53 years old and retired for 14 years so far. I’ll stay retired.

America is changing, no more immigration, and there will be fewer retirees. NO RETIREMENT FOR YOU.

Americans over the age of 55 will take roughly half of all new jobs created in the next decade, economists estimate, as the U.S. population ages and more people postpone retirement. What’s more, the biggest jump in labor force-growth in coming years will come from those age 75 and older, where overall employment is projected to nearly double by 2030, according to Labor Department forecasts.

We’re redefining old age,” says Richard Johnson, director of the Program on Retirement Policy with the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. “Workers 65 and older are going to become much more important in the coming decade than they are today.”

The trend holds major implications for U.S. employers who have now spent more than two years trying to hire, in part because of what it says about who remains available to work and which worker populations have the most untapped potential. Employment among prime-age Americans — aged 25 to 54 — has more than fully recovered and surpassed its prepandemic level. But employment among those above age 65 fell roughly 10% at the start of the pandemic and has yet to recover, Johnson says.
 
Last edited: