Post 2022 Election

[laughing dog]

No one said that.

Doubtful.

They said fiscal policy has little bearing on THIS inflation.

Why not? There was a lot of fiscal stimulus in the wake of COVID shutdowns, much of it continuing well past economy reopening. Why do you think it had little bearing, even if you want to arbitrarily restrict the lack of effect to THIS inflation?

You mean denial of economic reality.

I do not. More money (monetary easing, fiscal stimulus) chasing fewer goods and services (from lockdowns and supply chain shortages) leads to inflation. In this case, quite a bit of it too.

A worldwide simultaneous jump in inflation strongly suggests that the quick acceleration is due mainly to supply shocks and constraints rather than overly expansionary policy. Your simplistic “more money chasing fewer goods” explicitly acknowledges the supply shock influence.
“Mainly” does not mean exclusively due to supply shocks.

 

[southernhybrid]

There was a huge problem with the world's supply chain, largely due to COVID. That drove up the price of cars among other big items. Then the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a big jump in oil and grain prices, as anyone knows who follows the news and has taken even one Economics course or who follows markets and inflationary data closely.

People blame gas prices on Biden, which is absurd. Oil was artificially low during the early part of the pandemic because people weren't driving very much or traveling by air. When things picked up again, oil rose, and then the rise accelerated due to the war, as I've already mentioned.

The stimulus might have had a small impact on inflation, but a lot of poor and lower middle class folks used that money to pay their basic bills and even middle class people who might have been out of work for a bit, relied on some of that money for the basics. I don't see the evidence that the stimulus had much to do with inflation. But wait....there's more. Wages have risen quite a bit, partly due to the shortage of workers as well as workers no longer willing to work for poverty wages. That adds to the cost of doing business. Inflation is complicated and it's usually due to many different factors and circumstances, especially with all the problems facing the world today. I'm tired of the stupid comments that it's all the fault of Biden or Congress. That's just a simplistic way of looking at it.

 

[Derec]

[video of Robert Reich]

Not an economist either, much less an "award-winning" one. He is a lawyer cum politician.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, I do know that. But I also don't think there's any real useful purpose in teaching a course that is designed to be so difficult that the class average is 40%. Organic chemistry is a tough course with a lot of material to pack into a couple of semesters.

Hit the books, work through those mechanisms, push all those arrows. Or pick an easier major (like English or Art History).
Nothing wrong with having challenging courses. It's not for everyone, and the solution is not to dumb it down so more people can do well in the class. That way lies massive grade inflation.
US universities are popular with international students. They also produce a disproportionate number of science Nobel prizes.
But how long can that continue with the attitude that courses should be dumbed down so more people do well in them?

But so are a lot of other courses. If one wishes to actually teach so that students learn and understand and maybe even love organic chemistry, it's altogether possible to do that, without 'lowering standards.'

I am all for better teaching and fostering passion for field.
But as long as Orgo is prerequisite for the preMed track and as long as preMed is filled with people attracted to medicine because of things like money, social status and family expectations, then there will by necessity be a lot of people attempting Orgo with no genuine interest in the material. Which means it will be difficult to increase performance without sacrificing standards. Like the Gen Chem class I mentioned. They are basically covering 3/4 or less of material the same sequence at the same college covered 4 years ago.

Instead, it's pretty much taught as a weed out course. Teaching it so that students learn the most possible from the course is different than teaching it so that you get half of the students to give up on science.

It's a natural weed-out course though, as it is a genuinely hard class. And there is nothing wrong with weeding out non-hackers. Especially since a lot of them are there just because it's a prereq.

FWIW, I have a minor in biochemistry.

 

[Derec]

Cite? No, not a cite that fiscal spending tends to cause inflation; we need a cite that — as you have repeatedly claimed — recent Democratic spending has been by far the MAJOR cause of inflation.

I said A major cause, not THE.
But here is an interview with John Cochrane and Thomas Coleman about their fiscal theory of inflation.
They both hold PhDs in economics, btw. Unlike Konczal and Nygren.

Can you do this from a source other than UChicago with its well-known right-wing bias?

So now an economist with a PhD in economics from Berkeley is unacceptable becuase of the university he taught at?
But a non-economist who is described as having "a cult following among progressives" in his bio is?

You yourself stated that there is agreement on the causes; the question is about the relative strengths of the causations. (Pro-tip: Interjecting such a blatantly obvious tautology like this, as though it refutes another poster's comment — in this case, mine — makes you look like a smug pedant, and discourages readers from reading further.)

It's hardly a tautology. There are many who deny any connection between government spending and inflation (or at least THIS inflation).

And why do you rant so relentlessly against Biden's trillions of spending during economic bust while you remain silent on Trump's irresponsible trillions transferred to billionaires and multi-millionaires during economic boom?

First of all, my complaint was that fiscal stimulus was continued well past the point the economy reopened. And Biden wanted - or rather was pushed by "progressives" - to spend $3.5T more. That would have pushed inflation even more. Are you denying that?
As to Trump's tax cuts - they do not have many fans on here. Arguing against them is preaching to the choir. But Dem spending, including B³ has many fans on here, and so is a fruitful topic of discussion. Now, Trump tax cuts had some good points - like increased standard deduction and lowered cap on SALT deductions, but overall they were not so positive, I agree.

Can't you get over your unrequited fascination with AOC and her progressive agenda?

Are you confusing me with lpetrich? I am not hanging on AOC's every tweet.
But she and her Squad are now a bigger part of the Democratic House delegation and also a more powerful faction in the Democratic Party at large. That is concerning, and that makes her wing of the Dem coalition worth discussing. Had Dems squeaked a majority in the House, we surely would have seen more inflationary bills passed. Revived B³ for sure, but more than that too, and maybe even the full $60-100T GND.

That's Derec's bag, refusing to discuss any cause for inflation other than AOC's agenda.

That is not true. I acknowledge other causes like supply chain crunch. But people like Katie Porter (and many on here) support the high spending agenda and therefore cannot admit that too much government spending is inflationary.

(And Derec fantasizes straw-men, imagining that the rest of us are as dogmatic as him about single-cause inflation.)

Also not true.

Derec will of course not change his opinion one iota, but I thought the Nygren quote might add a new perspective for Infidels with an open mind. The spending power implied by Covid stimulus and loan relief is dwarfed by the loss of (psychological?) spending power associated with falling asset prices.

The recent financial market losses are paper losses for one. They are not realized until the assets are sold. Second, if you bought right before the Pandemic, S&P500 for example is still ahead. January 2020 ~3,300. November 2022: ~4,000. There was a massive decrease in asset prices only if you carefully choose your starting point.

 

[Derec]

A worldwide simultaneous jump in inflation strongly suggests that the quick acceleration is due mainly to supply shocks and constraints rather than overly expansionary policy. Your simplistic “more money chasing fewer goods” explicitly acknowledges the supply shock influence.

It is not simplistic, as I never denied the role the supply shock played. But policy played a role in making inflation worse than it had to be.

“Mainly” does not mean exclusively due to supply shocks.

Do you acknowledge that fiscal policy played a major role, or are you still hanging on the fable that it is "corporate greed" instead?

 

[Derec]

People blame gas prices on Biden, which is absurd. Oil was artificially low during the early part of the pandemic because people weren't driving very much or traveling by air. When things picked up again, oil rose, and then the rise accelerated due to the war, as I've already mentioned.

So far, so true. I agree that Biden gets too much blame in some circles. At the same time, other circles respond by claiming that he (and the Dems) deserve no blame whatsoever. Both are wrong.
It is right what you said. Oil prices plummeted (WTI futures went negative even!) because people did not drive (Atlanta traffic was a delight!) or fly very much. But then, the economy reopened and the demand increased rapidly, while the idled supply needed longer to recover.
But then there is policy. I must admit, Biden is in an unenviable position when it comes to energy policy. Between a rock and a hard place, or if you want to be more highbrow, between Scylla and Charybdis. On one side is the consumers who do not want to pay high prices for oil. On the other is his base, which tends to be very environmentalist and opposed to oil production and transport (esp. pipelines for some reason).
For climate higher oil and gas prices would be great actually. But Biden wants low prices because he helps him with electorate at large, by drawing down the strategic oil reserve. At the same time he cancels a major pipeline and threatens domestic oil producers because that helps him with the base. Oil and energy policies are a topic for another thread I think.

The stimulus might have had a small impact on inflation, but a lot of poor and lower middle class folks used that money to pay their basic bills and even middle class people who might have been out of work for a bit, relied on some of that money for the basics.

It had much more than "a small impact on inflation". And consumer spending was for much more than "basics".

I don't see the evidence that the stimulus had much to do with inflation. But wait....there's more. Wages have risen quite a bit, partly due to the shortage of workers as well as workers no longer willing to work for poverty wages. That adds to the cost of doing business.

I would not quite put it that way, but the great resignation (using the money from excess fiscal stimulus btw) led to an increase in wages workers demanded, also putting an upward pressure on prices.

Inflation is complicated and it's usually due to many different factors and circumstances, especially with all the problems facing the world today. I'm tired of the stupid comments that it's all the fault of Biden or Congress. That's just a simplistic way of looking at it.

I never said it was ALL the fault of Biden and Congress. But he does have his share of the blame. The major fiscal stimulus was continued well after the economy reopened which was inflationary - and remember Biden and much of Congress wanted even more spending.

 

[ZiprHead]

[video of Robert Reich]

Not an economist either, much less an "award-winning" one. He is a lawyer cum politician.

Was he wrong?

 

[Toni]

Yeah, I do know that. But I also don't think there's any real useful purpose in teaching a course that is designed to be so difficult that the class average is 40%. Organic chemistry is a tough course with a lot of material to pack into a couple of semesters.

Hit the books, work through those mechanisms, push all those arrows. Or pick an easier major (like English or Art History).
Nothing wrong with having challenging courses. It's not for everyone, and the solution is not to dumb it down so more people can do well in the class. That way lies massive grade inflation.
US universities are popular with international students. They also produce a disproportionate number of science Nobel prizes.
But how long can that continue with the attitude that courses should be dumbed down so more people do well in them?

But so are a lot of other courses. If one wishes to actually teach so that students learn and understand and maybe even love organic chemistry, it's altogether possible to do that, without 'lowering standards.'

I am all for better teaching and fostering passion for field.
But as long as Orgo is prerequisite for the preMed track and as long as preMed is filled with people attracted to medicine because of things like money, social status and family expectations, then there will by necessity be a lot of people attempting Orgo with no genuine interest in the material. Which means it will be difficult to increase performance without sacrificing standards. Like the Gen Chem class I mentioned. They are basically covering 3/4 or less of material the same sequence at the same college covered 4 years ago.

Instead, it's pretty much taught as a weed out course. Teaching it so that students learn the most possible from the course is different than teaching it so that you get half of the students to give up on science.

It's a natural weed-out course though, as it is a genuinely hard class. And there is nothing wrong with weeding out non-hackers. Especially since a lot of them are there just because it's a prereq.

FWIW, I have a minor in biochemistry.

FFS Derec—I know how to pass and do well in organic chemistry. Did you skip the part where I wrote I have a minor in biochemistry? I fucking did organic chemistry just fine. It wasn’t the most difficult course I’ve taken but it was probably one that I ended up disliking because of how it was taught.

There is no need to ‘dumb it down’ in order to r teach it. Profs just need to deign to do some actual teaching.

I’ve also done extremely well in material that is actually more challenging but taught with the idea that students should learn the material not quake in fear that they will fail.

 

[Derec]

Was he wrong?

Yes.

 

[Derec]

FFS Derec—I know how to pass and do well in organic chemistry.

I didn't suggest you didn't. This is not about you, this is about NYU firing a professor because 80 GenZ students think the Orgo class is "too hard". It is also about a college in Georgia de facto cutting out more than 1/4 of GenChem curriculum to make the class easier.

Did you skip the part where I wrote I have a minor in biochemistry? I fucking did organic chemistry just fine. It wasn’t the most difficult course I’ve taken but it was probably one that I ended up disliking because of how it was taught.

Again, I did not suggest you personally did not. So why are you arguing with me about a point I did not make?

There is no need to ‘dumb it down’ in order to r teach it. Profs just need to deign to do some actual teaching.

I agreed with you that some professors could get better at actual teaching. That does not mean that this alone would every student would pass a hard class like Orgo or that dumbing down classes to increase grades is not happening already.

You did not even comment about colleges de facto cutting out topics like redox from GenChem because professors are not covering them in their lectures and exams. What do you think about that?

 

[Swammerdami]

I agree that Biden gets too much blame in some circles. At the same time, other circles respond by claiming that he (and the Dems) deserve no blame whatsoever. Both are wrong.
... I must admit, Biden is in an unenviable position when it comes to energy policy. Between a rock and a hard place, or if you want to be more highbrow, between Scylla and Charybdis. On one side is the consumers who do not want to pay high prices for oil. On the other is his base, which tends to be very environmentalist and opposed to oil production and transport (esp. pipelines for some reason).

Did any Infidel claim that Dem stimulus "deserve no blame whatsoever" for inflation? But it's good to see you finally acknowledge — if that's what this was — that the stimulus was not the SINGLE major cause of inflation.

I for one think the impending demise of American democracy is a far more serious problem than a one-time price surge. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about that, Derec? Whose victory should rational Americans hope for if the 2024 choice is between Trump (or DeSantis) and Biden?

Maximizing voter support should be the top priority for Democrats. If "buying" support with "giveaways" is the way to do that — though it's not clear that it is — include me in! History shows that democracy is EXTREMELY fragile; and the U.S. is on the brink of disaster. ANY opinion about U.S. politics that doesn't start with an emphasis on Republican hatreds, lies and agenda to subvert democracy is a misguided opinion.

... the great resignation (using the money from excess fiscal stimulus btw) led to an increase in wages workers demanded, also putting an upward pressure on prices.

Mental illness (and its corollary, drug abuse) is one of the biggest problems facing the U.S.A. If the stimulus freed some people from a vicious cycle of stressful drudgery, that is good. Even if a haircut now costs a few dollars more.

Inflation is complicated and it's usually due to many different factors and circumstances, especially with all the problems facing the world today. I'm tired of the stupid comments that it's all the fault of Biden or Congress. That's just a simplistic way of looking at it.

I never said it was ALL the fault of Biden and Congress. But he does have his share of the blame. The major fiscal stimulus was continued well after the economy reopened which was inflationary - and remember Biden and much of Congress wanted even more spending.

If you weren't so adamant in your hatreds for AOC, Pelosi and all things Democratic, I might be taking your side in this debate! Here's another arrow for your quiver: Germany measures its inflation rate via Euros, Japan via Yen, and so on. The dollar has soared against Euro and Yen; inflation comparisons would change if dollar pricing were used.

FWIW, I have a minor in biochemistry.

Does this sort of snark contribute to discussion? Or did you just want to signal that Pelosi is another unobtainable woman whose affection you covet?

 

[Derec]

Did any Infidel claim that Dem stimulus "deserve no blame whatsoever" for inflation?

Maybe not in those exact words, but that is definitely the gist of the claims Zipr and others are making. Also see the Katie Porter thread.

But it's good to see you finally acknowledge — if that's what this was — that the stimulus was not the SINGLE major cause of inflation.

What do you mean? I never claimed inflation was monocausal. I always maintained that fiscal policy and supply chain issues mutually reinforced each other.

I for one think the impending demise of American democracy is a far more serious problem than a one-time price surge.

One-time? The inflation is still high, but lower than the peak. To bring it down Fed had to impose steep interest rate hikes, which may still push us into a recession.
Also, inflation can reinforce itself by price expectations and and wage-price spiral. The high inflation era of the 70s wasn't easy to get out of for those reasons. I hope Fed acted soon enough to avoid that this time.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about that, Derec? Whose victory should rational Americans hope for if the 2024 choice is between Trump (or DeSantis) and Biden?

I usually vote Dem. I voted for Obama twice and Biden once.

But that does not mean I do not have a lot of criticism for the Dems where appropriate. And when it comes to spending like a drunken sailor, criticism is very much appropriate.

Maximizing voter support should be the top priority for Democrats. If "buying" support with "giveaways" is the way to do that — though it's not clear that it is — include me in! History shows that democracy is EXTREMELY fragile; and the U.S. is on the brink of disaster. ANY opinion about U.S. politics that doesn't start with an emphasis on Republican hatreds, lies and agenda to subvert democracy is a misguided opinion.

There are several things wrong with this paragraph. For one, you are exaggerating dangers to the US democracy (while downplaying dangers to our economy). Also, buying voters' support with misguided fiscal stimulus is a bad policy and should not be encouraged. Third, you seem to be saying that Reps should never again win the presidency - which is a very dangerous language, as dangerous to democracy as you claim GOP is.

Mental illness (and its corollary, drug abuse) is one of the biggest problems facing the U.S.A. If the stimulus freed some people from a vicious cycle of stressful drudgery, that is good. Even if a haircut now costs a few dollars more.

Me reading the above:

If you weren't so adamant in your hatreds for AOC, Pelosi and all things Democratic, I might be taking your side in this debate!

Sigh. I do not hate "all things Democratic". Hell, I usually vote for them. I do not even hate AOC, but I do think she and her far-left Squad are bad for the Democratic Party and bad for the US.
But did I read this right? You may be taking my side if not for your misconceptions about my feelings toward Democrats?

Here's another arrow for your quiver: Germany measures its inflation rate via Euros, Japan via Yen, and so on. The dollar has soared against Euro and Yen; inflation comparisons would change if dollar pricing were used.

Well it is natural that inflation is measured in the currency of the country in question. But here is another one: inflation rates between countries are difficult to compare, as each country will measure it differently.

Does this sort of snark contribute to discussion?

I was being a bit snarky, sure.
What I meant with the clap is "good for you Toni" about her bioChem minor and having done well in Orgo. It was partly genuine and partly snarky simply because my points were not about her, but about the whiny crybabies who got a professor fired because the class was "too hard".
By the way, what do you think about firing a professor because of a petition signed by <1/4 of students in a class? Or how about the dumbing down of genChem curriculum at a local Georgia college I witnessed and described upthread?
Do you have any thoughts about that, or are you too busy speculating about whose "affections" I might covet?

Or did you just want to signal that Pelosi is another unobtainable woman whose affection you covet?

Now who is being snarky? Of course you are wrong here - I am not lpetrich! I do not covet their "affection". LMAO at the very suggestion!

 

[Toni]

FFS Derec—I know how to pass and do well in organic chemistry.

I didn't suggest you didn't. This is not about you, this is about NYU firing a professor because 80 GenZ students think the Orgo class is "too hard". It is also about a college in Georgia de facto cutting out more than 1/4 of GenChem curriculum to make the class easier.

Did you skip the part where I wrote I have a minor in biochemistry? I fucking did organic chemistry just fine. It wasn’t the most difficult course I’ve taken but it was probably one that I ended up disliking because of how it was taught.

Again, I did not suggest you personally did not. So why are you arguing with me about a point I did not make?

There is no need to ‘dumb it down’ in order to r teach it. Profs just need to deign to do some actual teaching.

I agreed with you that some professors could get better at actual teaching. That does not mean that this alone would every student would pass a hard class like Orgo or that dumbing down classes to increase grades is not happening already.

You did not even comment about colleges de facto cutting out topics like redox from GenChem because professors are not covering them in their lectures and exams. What do you think about that?

I agree that in all likelihood, the prof should not have been fired.

My personal observation is that perhaps students’ complaints about organic being ‘too hard’ was a pretext or a last straw.

 

[laughing dog]

A worldwide simultaneous jump in inflation strongly suggests that the quick acceleration is due mainly to supply shocks and constraints rather than overly expansionary policy. Your simplistic “more money chasing fewer goods” explicitly acknowledges the supply shock influence.

It is not simplistic, as I never denied the role the supply shock played. But policy played a role in making inflation worse than it had to be.

“Mainly” does not mean exclusively due to supply shocks.

Do you acknowledge that fiscal policy played a major role, or are you still hanging on the fable that it is "corporate greed" instead?

I never said anything that could remotely interpreted as claiming the current inflation is mainly due to corporate greed. I did say lack of competition exacerbated our inflation.

I think it is either deep economic ignorance or ideological rigidity to think the major factor in this large spike in worldwide inflation is expansionary policy. At best, expansionary policy may sustain the spike.

 

[ZiprHead]

Was he wrong?

Yes.

So all those charts and graphs and number he presented were what? Lies, misinterpreted, mistaken?

 

[Elixir]

My personal observation is that perhaps students’ complaints about organic being ‘too hard’ was a pretext or a last straw.

Maybe some of them should have gone for Vo-Tech.

 

[Toni]

My personal observation is that perhaps students’ complaints about organic being ‘too hard’ was a pretext or a last straw.

Maybe some of them should have gone for Vo-Tech.

FFS sometimes profs are horrid as people, not just as instructors. Sometimes profs are verbally abusive students, are obviously vehemently racist or sexist, unfair, have not put one second's thought or effort into a class for decades, and more. I personally know of profs who called students stupid in class, made students feel stupid for asking a question, told female students they didn't belong in the field and should just find husbands, who struck students (!), who reused the same test for years and punished students who accidentally stumbled upon that fact and used copies of old tests to help prepare, who 'accidentally' marked some correct answers wrong on the tests of certain students they disliked. Off the top of my head. For certain the profs who physically strike students, call them stupid or tell them they don't belong in a class because they are female (or male) should have lost their jobs. Of course, there are those who engage in sexual relationships with students, sometimes exchanging grades for sex. Even if students complain--which in my observation is extremely rare, admin is generally too lazy to fire them for the actual reason they deserve to be fired and will find some other stupid reason (class is too hard!) if they bother taking any action at all.

 

[lpetrich]

Howie Klein on Twitter: "Hakeem Jeffries was elected Democratic House leader without a recorded vote. They can spin it any way they want, but many members told they are VERY uncomfortable by how this came down and feel like they were railroaded. At least Wall Street and AIPAC are overjoyed" / Twitter

Hakeem Jeffries elected to replace Nancy Pelosi as House Democrat leader in next Congress | Fox News describing his election as "uncontested".

Nancy Pelosi said earlier that "For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect, and I'm grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility." Thus departing from the final years of the Soviet Union.

Hakeem Jeffries confident he can unite Dems after Pelosi exit, says he has 'great respect' for AOC | Fox News

"I have great respect for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and every single member of the House Democratic Caucus," Jeffries said. "The majesty of the House Democratic Caucus is that we are so incredibly diverse, in terms of race and gender and religion and sexual orientation, region, life experience, and even ideology from the left to progressives, New Dems, Blue Dogs, moderate and centrist Democrats, all points in between."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No way! Politics were involved in determining the Party Leader in the House?! OMFG!!!