# Post 2022 Election

#### Derec

##### Contributor
A minor nitpick. Obama gave a major speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention. His ascension to running for POTUS was carved in stone, and one needed to be brain dead not to know that guy was force to be reckoned with. Bill Clinton spoke in 1988 and overstayed his welcome. He was a rising star, but there wasn't the same fait accompli as that Obama had for a POTUS run. The question for Obama was whether to go in 2008 or wait for 2012/2016.
Ok, I will give you Obama. Clinton though was not thought to be a major contender until New Hampshire.
The Democrats have a very wide field, however.
They had an extremely wide field in 2020 and settled on Biden. Most anticlimactic primary season ever!

A DeSantis or Trump Presidency will be a big problem as the GOP will try every trick in the book to delay judicial nominees.
They can't. Dems still have the Senate until 2024. Unless Walker wins and somebody dies leaving a seat open that they can take over.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Thomas has been on the court forever, about 2/3's of my life!
I thought you were older than that.
Sure, Thomas is by far the longest serving sitting judge, but he is only #12 on the all-time list, as he overtook Bushrod Washington today. Congrats are in order! He won't get into top 10 until next year, but if he holds on for another five and a half, he will be #1.

Breyer, Ginsburg have since retired after going on the court after him.
Ginsburg did not retire. She died in office. She should have retired - given all her health challenges - before 2014 when Dems had Obama and a Senate majority.

Souter stepped down a bit ago too, and was on just before Thomas.
He was a quitter. Retired after less than 20 years on the bench.
Thomas won't be happy until he undoes 240 years of constitutional law going all the way to Marbury v Madison, finding that he (and SCOTUS) have no right to rule on issues.
Quite a bit of an overexaggeration.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Yeah, he's been schooled on this issue several times. Apparently the lesson never breaks through Derec's biases.
LMAO! There have been claims that fiscal policy has no bearing on inflation, sure. But that is far from being "schooling" or "lessons". And my only bias here is economic reality.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Why should we believe the polls about Biden when the polls about the midterms were so wrong?
Were they really that wrong? For example polls in my state predicted Kemp would cruise to reelection while the Senate race was within MOE and likely headed for a r-u-n-n-o-f-t. Which is what happened. Overall, polls predicted that Dems would likely hold the Senate and GOP likely take over the House, which is what happened.

That said, presidential favorability has been polled much more frequently than state races, which reduces random error and by many different polling outfits. If polls by different outfits with different methodologies provide consistent results (poor favorability for Biden), then the chance of a systematic error is reduced too.
Cherry picking two races out of hundreds.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Yeah, he's been schooled on this issue several times. Apparently the lesson never breaks through Derec's biases.
LMAO! There have been claims that fiscal policy has no bearing on inflation, sure.
No one said that. They said fiscal policy has little bearing on THIS inflation.
But that is far from being "schooling" or "lessons". And my only bias here is economic reality.
You mean denial of economic reality.

#### blastula

##### Contributor
Cherry picking two races out of hundreds.

The polls were very good this cycle.

#### thebeave

##### Veteran Member
Yahoo News is reporting that the GOP had big problems with young voters. Who turned out to vote in good numbers and overwhelmingly supported Democrats.
I wonder though, are they going to show up at the polls if/when Kamala campaigns for President?

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Yahoo News is reporting that the GOP had big problems with young voters. Who turned out to vote in good numbers and overwhelmingly supported Democrats.
I wonder though, are they going to show up at the polls if/when Kamala campaigns for President?
What do you think?

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
It may be not so much for Kamala Harris as against the GOP and all it has become.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Kamala has a point there, to be fair.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Kamala has a point there, to be fair.
She does except she's enough out of touch to not realize very few students over the age of 20 (and too many under 20) live in dormitories. My personal peeve with this (based on living in a neighborhood adjacent to the local university) is that most students lack the experience in standing up to adults and for their own rights to be very effective ad effectively negotiating house rules with room mates, leases with landlords, and dealing with the inevitable issues that come up in off campus student housing: landlords who treat tenants like crap, irresponsible roommates, out of control parties. It takes very, very little for things to change from being just fine to a total shit show in a single evening. I've watched it happen. So, based on that, Kamal is right: students are stupid. Or rather, their inexperienced, away from home on their own generally for the first time and their dealing with a wide range of...maturity and responsibility levels on the part of their room mates and their neighbors, and indeed their landlords.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
I think the "youngsters are stupid" comment was clearly intended as a joke. But that doesn't mean Harris isn't unelectable for other reasons. Her shrill voice being one.

#### Elixir

I think the "youngsters are stupid" comment was clearly intended as a joke. But that doesn't mean Harris isn't unelectable for other reasons. Her shrill voice being one.
It’s a shame that it matters, but it does.

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
I think the "youngsters are stupid" comment was clearly intended as a joke. But that doesn't mean Harris isn't unelectable for other reasons. Her shrill voice being one.
Would have been fine if she did standup for a living.

While there is much truth to the comment, some things aren't suppose to be said out loud. This might have been one of them. Or at least phrased differently.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Dems get in array on future leadership after Pelosi departs - POLITICO - "Lawmakers have managed to stealthily defuse rivalries for nearly every position at the top of the House caucus, despite their three major leadership retirements."

With a picture of Pramila Jayapal D-WA captioned "Rep. Pramila Jayapal announced she was running for reelection as chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus."

"House Democrats are increasingly likely to elect their troika of top leaders for the next Congress without any major confrontation, ensuring a show of unity as they enter the minority."

Rep. Adam Schiff D-CA decided not to run for House Minority Leader, the #1 spot, instead wanting to run for the Senate. He would succeed Dianne Feinstein, at least if she decides to retire.

PJ decided to run for that reelection rather than become House Minority Whip, the #2 spot.

Reps. Joe Neguse D-CO and Pete Aguilar D-CA are competing to become House Democratic Caucus Chairman, the #3 spot.

That means that Reps. Hakeem Jeffries D-NY, Rep. Katherine Clark D-MA, and Pete Aguilar D-CA will likely be elected to these three spots, in that order.

All three in those top spots are retiring from them: Nancy Pelosi D-CA, Steny Hoyer D-MD, and Jim Clyburn D-SC.

Meaning that the Democratic Party leadership will look a lot less like the Soviet Union's leadership in its last years.

Nancy Pelosi: 82, Steny Hoyer: 83, Jim Clyburn: 82
Hakeem Jeffries: 52, Katherine Clark: 59, Pete Aguilar: 43

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Cherry picking two races out of hundreds.
Hardly. Can you point to any evidence that polls got this election wrong?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
She does except she's enough out of touch to not realize very few students over the age of 20 (and too many under 20) live in dormitories.
It's not about the dormitories, it's about the generation. Gen Z was already on track for worst ever, and then COVID and online "learning" happened. They got used to easily cheatable online classes and exams and expect easy street to continue. So they do shit like get an Orgo professor fired because they deem his class "too hard". What a bunch of whiny crybabies!

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
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.

Excess reserves at the Fed were 3.2 Trillion Dollars in May 2020. (Trillion with a 'T.') I don't know what the current figure is — Anyone with Good Google-fu? For some reason, the Fed discontinued publishing that number shortly after the 3,200,000,000,000 record was set. I'd like to read a thorough objective discussion of these huge balances; but to at least some extent it is money "sopped up" from QE and kept out of circulation. #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member Cherry picking two races out of hundreds. Hardly. Can you point to any evidence that polls got this election wrong? Some polls were way off. Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had a very comfortable lead against Republican challenger Tudor Dixon in the polls over the summer and into fall. Then a poll was released on Oct. 31, well into the state's early voting period, finding the race was a virtual tie, and that half of independent voters were supporting Dixon, while less than 30 percent planned to vote for Whitmer. It was conducted by Insider Advantage, a Republican firm that has earned praise in the past for its polling methods and decently high accuracy rating from FiveThirtyEight, a group that aggregates polls. But what voters were being fed by pollsters and the news media was skewed. One reason is that Republican-leaning firms that tend to favor their candidates took our temperature more often — and later in — this cycle than did the usual pollsters on which we rely. It skewed polling averages, according to Nate Cohn, The New York Times' chief political analyst. #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member 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. Sorry. I take the word of award winning economists over the word of some unknown computer programmer. #### Jimmy Higgins ##### Contributor Cherry picking two races out of hundreds. Hardly. Can you point to any evidence that polls got this election wrong? Some polls were way off. Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had a very comfortable lead against Republican challenger Tudor Dixon in the polls over the summer and into fall. Then a poll was released on Oct. 31, well into the state's early voting period, finding the race was a virtual tie, and that half of independent voters were supporting Dixon, while less than 30 percent planned to vote for Whitmer. It was conducted by Insider Advantage, a Republican firm that has earned praise in the past for its polling methods and decently high accuracy rating from FiveThirtyEight, a group that aggregates polls. But what voters were being fed by pollsters and the news media was skewed. One reason is that Republican-leaning firms that tend to favor their candidates took our temperature more often — and later in — this cycle than did the usual pollsters on which we rely. It skewed polling averages, according to Nate Cohn, The New York Times' chief political analyst. Polls were trending back and forth. I wrote early that polls were going to be problematic. But due to modeling turnout. In the end, polls underpredicted the blue turnout a little. I wouldn't say they were completely off at all... well, pollsters that weren't Emerson. I think the problem is, the press fucked up, not the polls. Also, the Democrats didn't fuck up. They saw a bit of worry in Washington and New Hampshire, and they doused the embers with water. They pumped lots of money into local state legislature races. The Democrats took this election seriously from top to bottom! Polls? You look at the polls for Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida... those were on. Ohio had fewer women vote than men, and that will need to be fixed in the turnout algorithms. Men out vote women, the GOP has a much easier time. Also, Dems need Abrams in Ohio to figure out WTF is with women in Ohio. Nevada was close, Arizona was close, Georgia was close. The Polls did pretty well, they do have a margin of error. They seem to suck once victory margins are above 10 pts, but the polls as reported by the pollsters generally showed a close election, and it was. The GOP was selling a massive wave and the Press were misinterpreting the signs. So it is funny to see the press pointing fingers at the Pollsters, when it was the press that fucked it up. #### Jimmy Higgins ##### Contributor She does except she's enough out of touch to not realize very few students over the age of 20 (and too many under 20) live in dormitories. It's not about the dormitories, it's about the generation. Gen Z was already on track for worst ever, and then COVID and online "learning" happened. Yet, Obama won in 2008 by huge margins. The youth can vote, the elderly just vote more. This is a thing. I remember in college most students weren't that interested in politics at all. I was watching returns and seeing Schumer defeat D'Amato ('98?). The focus of younger people isn't the humdrum of politics. It isn't that important a subject yet, because they don't get that what is now can disappear... like we saw with Dobbs. They got used to easily cheatable online classes and exams and expect easy street to continue. So they do shit like get an Orgo professor fired because they deem his class "too hard". What a bunch of whiny crybabies! You be the one whining. The "crybabies" these days are taking much more advanced classes in High School. Don't mistake what you read on blogs as representing what is happening in the classroom. Even grade schools are managing more difficult educations in math, teaching application of math skills much earlier than when I was in school longer ago than I want to admit. Fuck! Shitting on the "younger generation" is so old... it is Biblical! #### Toni ##### Contributor She does except she's enough out of touch to not realize very few students over the age of 20 (and too many under 20) live in dormitories. It's not about the dormitories, it's about the generation. Gen Z was already on track for worst ever, and then COVID and online "learning" happened. They got used to easily cheatable online classes and exams and expect easy street to continue. So they do shit like get an Orgo professor fired because they deem his class "too hard". What a bunch of whiny crybabies! I feel very sorry for all of those students who went through school during COVID. They got a really rough deal and have been cheated out of significant educational and life skills. What should happen is that there should be a two year catch up program for alllif those students, free of charge. Organic chemistry can be a real bear. I remember class averages on tests below 40%__with a good prof. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor #### Politesse ##### Lux Aeterna What should happen is that there should be a two year catch up program for alllif those students, free of charge. This was part of the idea with offering temporary free tuition at most of the community colleges. But of course, most those programs are having their plugs pulled early now that "everything is back to normal", well before any of the students have finished even their remedial coursework let alone an associate degree. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor McCarthy vows to remove Swalwell, Schiff, Omar from House committees | Fox News - Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar McCarthy said Swalwell's association with a Chinese spy, Schiff’s promotion of the Steele dossier and Omar’s criticism of Israel disqualify them from serving on their respective panels. "One thing I said from the very beginning, Eric Swalwell cannot get a security clearance in the public sector," he said. "Why would we ever give him a security clearance and the secrets to America? So, I will not allow him to be on Intel." You have Adam Schiff, who lied to the American public time and again – we will not allow him to be on the Intel Committee either," he continued. "Look at Congresswoman Omar, her antisemitic comments that have gone forward. We're not going to allow her to be on Foreign Affairs." "But we're also going to stand up to what's happening, not just in the halls in Congress, but what’s happening to our higher education institutions, the antisemitism that's going on on these campuses and others," he added. "We will investigate that as well and stop this to make sure that America does have the freedoms that we said we would keep, and we will stand up to it as we move forward." #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Midterm elections 2022 results: The Republican Party wins the House majority - Vox The small Republican majority will mean the likelihood that major legislation is passed in the new Congress is slim, particularly because Democrats held the Senate — and Biden still has veto power, though he indicated on Twitter that he’s willing to work with Republicans if they come to the table to address “the need to lower costs, protect the right to choose, and preserve our democracy.” ... McCarthy has also already indicated that he intends to refuse any increase to the debt ceiling absent cuts to programs that are priorities for Democrats, including clean energy investments and Social Security. In the time that they have left, will the Democrats pre-emptively raise the debt ceiling to forestall that tactic? Republicans are ready to take revenge Republicans are coming into power ready to get back at Democrats for what they perceive as four years of overreach, including their two impeachments of former President Donald Trump (with 10 Republican votes on the second occasion) and their investigation of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Biden and his family — including the business dealings of the president’s son, Hunter Biden — are Republicans’ top targets. They also want to probe the origins of Covid-19 and the US’s messy withdrawal from Afghanistan last year. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) is expected to lead a broad investigation of the Justice Department and the FBI following the August raid on Mar-a-Lago, which led to calls from Trump-aligned candidates to “defund the FBI.” In effect, defund the national police. In July, some Republicans were also pushing for an investigation of the House select committee investigating January 6, suggesting it might involve subpoenaing members of that committee, including outgoing Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois once they are private citizens next year. They were also considering whether to investigate Pelosi’s role in Capitol security enforcement; intelligence and security failures; and the treatment of insurrectionists who have been jailed for their involvement, seemingly in a bid to rewrite the narrative of what happened that day. House Republicans have filed 14 impeachment resolutions against Biden officials Biden has been the target of nine, with two aimed at Attorney General Merrick Garland and one each against Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. The most common charges have been mishandling the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and failing to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. MTG has introduced five of these resolutions. #### Toni ##### Contributor What should happen is that there should be a two year catch up program for alllif those students, free of charge. This was part of the idea with offering temporary free tuition at most of the community colleges. But of course, most those programs are having their plugs pulled early now that "everything is back to normal", well before any of the students have finished even their remedial coursework let alone an associate degree. That’s a terrible mistake. #### Politesse ##### Lux Aeterna I think so, but no one listens to me, haha. #### marc ##### Veteran Member McCarthy vows to remove Swalwell, Schiff, Omar from House committees | Fox News - Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar McCarthy said Swalwell's association with a Chinese spy, Schiff’s promotion of the Steele dossier and Omar’s criticism of Israel disqualify them from serving on their respective panels. "One thing I said from the very beginning, Eric Swalwell cannot get a security clearance in the public sector," he said. "Why would we ever give him a security clearance and the secrets to America? So, I will not allow him to be on Intel." You have Adam Schiff, who lied to the American public time and again – we will not allow him to be on the Intel Committee either," he continued. "Look at Congresswoman Omar, her antisemitic comments that have gone forward. We're not going to allow her to be on Foreign Affairs." "But we're also going to stand up to what's happening, not just in the halls in Congress, but what’s happening to our higher education institutions, the antisemitism that's going on on these campuses and others," he added. "We will investigate that as well and stop this to make sure that America does have the freedoms that we said we would keep, and we will stand up to it as we move forward." If he does that then they should learn the lesson of MTG. Use all that extra free time to speak out to the press and social media. #### Derec ##### Contributor People? LMAO! Sure, some polls were off. But in the aggregate they were good. You must separate polls themselves from reporting and punditry. Nate Silver's analysis had Reps very favored to win the House and slightly favored to win the Senate. So they did not win the Senate - big whoop, things with 41% chance happen all the time. Even in 2016 polls were not bad. National polls had Hillary ahead, and she ended up ahead in the national vote (although they both ended up short of a majority). The statewide polls were anything but indicative of a "sure thing" for Hillary, even if most media reported the race as such. But Nate Silver gave Trump an almost 30% chance of winning, or more than one in four. That means that Trump winning was only mildly surprising, no more than getting heads twice. That would not lead you to think the coin is not fair, and neither should Trump winning lead one to think the polls were bad. #### Derec ##### Contributor Sorry. I take the word of award winning economists over the word of some unknown computer programmer. Who is the "award-winning economist" again? Mike Konczal, the Katie Porter guy? He is not even a PhD holder afaik - he only has MS in finance. Most economists, including the former professor of economics at UChicago, John Cochrane, very much accept the role fiscal spending plays in inflation. #### Derec ##### Contributor I think the problem is, the press fucked up, not the polls. Exactly. Just like in 2016. Also, the Democrats didn't fuck up. They did fuck up some, like in NY. But Reps fucked up more, esp. re Senate candidates like Keyser sÖZe or Herschel Walker. #### Derec ##### Contributor Yet, Obama won in 2008 by huge margins. The youth can vote, the elderly just vote more. There are age effects (i.e. members of every generation were young once) and generational effects (i.e. there are differences between Boomers, Xers, Millenials and now Zoomers at same ages). I was talking more about the latter. There is no doubt the Pandemic plays a big role in how Gen Z has developed, given that they were in school (college for geriatric Zs but going all the way to elementary for the younger end of that cohort) during the Pandemic shutdowns. I am sure Dobbs will have its effect on them as well. Younger Boomers, Xers and Millennials did not have to worry about getting a legal abortion if pregnant in their teens or early 20s. You be the one whining. "Be"? Did you take an online English class? I be[sic] not the one whining. The ones whining be[sic] those who signed a petition about their NYC Orgo class being too difficult because they be[sic] used to easy online classes. The "crybabies" these days are taking much more advanced classes in High School. They are not! I mean, some kids are taking more advanced classes. AP, IB. But those are not likely the crybabies signing the petition. After all, only 80 out of 350 students in Professor Jones' Orgo class signed the petition complaining the class was "too hard". Don't mistake what you read on blogs as representing what is happening in the classroom. It's not blogs. It was reported by many outlets, including New York Times. And there is my own observation of an example of US education system getting dumbed down. I know two brothers. Both on a preMed track. Both went to the same local college - no NYU, not even a flagship state university, but an also-ran mid-tier public university. Anyway, they both took general chemistry about four years apart. The elder's class was all right - not the difficulty of a comparable class at Tech or Emory of course, but they went through all the major topics. The younger's post-pandemic Gen Chem 1 and 2 classes - thought by two different professors, so it's not just one bad apple - skipped chapters like parts of bonding, gas laws, colligative properties, parts of thermodynamics, reaction mechanisms and all of redox/electrochemistry. How can you pass Chemistry and not cover something as fundamental as oxidation and reduction? Which is why standardized testing like MCAT is so important I guess. Even grade schools are managing more difficult educations in math, teaching application of math skills much earlier than when I was in school longer ago than I want to admit. For some. And I wonder how much of that was undone by Pandemic learning loss even for them. Fuck! Shitting on the "younger generation" is so old... it is Biblical! Socratic even! And old it may be, but sometimes it fits. Even though, I blame the hapless NYU admins (and admins of that local college I shall not name and shame here even though it would be deserved) much more than the kids. #### Derec ##### Contributor I feel very sorry for all of those students who went through school during COVID. They got a really rough deal and have been cheated out of significant educational and life skills. Educational is kind of obvious. But life skills degradation is more insidious. I would include doing poorly in a class educational, but signing petitions to fire the prof instead of working harder as a life skill failure. The problem is that the powers that be encourage this behavior by giving in to them, thus providing positive feedback. What should happen is that there should be a two year catch up program for alllif those students, free of charge. I would not be averse to that. Organic chemistry can be a real bear. I remember class averages on tests below 40%__with a good prof. You know what they say. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. #### Derec ##### Contributor Old: Nancy Pelosi: 82 0.36, Steny Hoyer: 83 0.34, Jim Clyburn: 82 0.28 New: Hakeem Jeffries: 52 0.28, Katherine Clark: 59 0.21, Pete Aguilar: 43 0.30 Both old and new are middle-of-the-road by Democratic-Party standards. By those data, the new leadership is quite a bit more left-wing than the old. Especially Clark. #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member Sorry. I take the word of award winning economists over the word of some unknown computer programmer. Who is the "award-winning economist" again? Mike Konczal, the Katie Porter guy? He is not even a PhD holder afaik - he only has MS in finance. Most economists, including the former professor of economics at UChicago, John Cochrane, very much accept the role fiscal spending plays in inflation. #### Toni ##### Contributor I feel very sorry for all of those students who went through school during COVID. They got a really rough deal and have been cheated out of significant educational and life skills. Educational is kind of obvious. But life skills degradation is more insidious. I would include doing poorly in a class educational, but signing petitions to fire the prof instead of working harder as a life skill failure. The problem is that the powers that be encourage this behavior by giving in to them, thus providing positive feedback. What should happen is that there should be a two year catch up program for alllif those students, free of charge. I would not be averse to that. Organic chemistry can be a real bear. I remember class averages on tests below 40%__with a good prof. You know what they say. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. 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. 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.' It involves doing things differently that the way the prof (if like most of us who went through organic) learned it. 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. FWIW, I have a minor in biochemistry. #### Swammerdami ##### Squadron Leader Staff member Sorry. I take the word of award winning economists over the word of some unknown computer programmer. Who is the "award-winning economist" again? Mike Konczal, the Katie Porter guy? He is not even a PhD holder afaik - he only has MS in finance. Most economists, including the former professor of economics at UChicago, John Cochrane, very much accept the role fiscal spending plays in inflation. 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. Can you do this from a source other than UChicago with its well-known right-wing bias? 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.) So, what's your cite? Or is your smug confidence all you have? 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? Can't you get over your unrequited fascination with AOC and her progressive agenda? Here's a quote I just stumbled on which may offer a new perspective on spending power, which is, please do recall, heavily based on psychology: Bill Nygren said: [In your third quarter 2022 commentary you estimated that an "unprecedented"28 trillion in capital had been wiped out so far this year and you wrote that you "hope the Fed considers that number as it attempts to balance slowing inflation and slowing the economy." I feel like you don't usually comment on Fed policy in your letters. What compelled you to opine on the Fed this time around?]

Nygren: The reason I highlighted how much capital has been lost in 2022 was that I wanted to validate the feelings of fear and frustration that so many investors are experiencing this year. The amount of wealth that has been lost is truly staggering because during a typical equity bear market, the bond market rallies. The simultaneous bear markets in stocks and bonds are rare, and they're exceptionally painful to retirees who have portfolios balanced between equities and fixed income.

You are right that we almost always stay away from macro commentary and, more specifically, Fed policy. The reason I mentioned it was because $28 trillion of lost wealth is such a big number compared to the$1 trillion COVID-19 giveaways or the half-trillion-dollar student loan forgiveness, yet those numbers were getting tremendous airtime and were cited as reasons interest rates need to go a lot higher. The big increase in rates we've seen this year hit some industries quickly, such as housing and autos. But most industries will slow with a lagged effect. I'm sure the Federal Reserve Board of Governors understands that, but I was hoping to give pause to any investors who thought it was obvious that they should wait for even worse news before they considered investing in either stocks or bonds.

I do NOT claim that Nygren's perspective overwhelms all other views. That's Derec's bag, refusing to discuss any cause for inflation other than AOC's agenda. (And Derec fantasizes straw-men, imagining that the rest of us are as dogmatic as him about single-cause inflation.)

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.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
[video of Robert Reich]
Not an economist either, much less an "award-winning" one. He is a lawyer cum politician.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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.

Last edited:

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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.

Last edited:

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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.

Staff member

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.