The Partisan American... the real issue with American Politics

[RVonse]

Inflation is not up solely because of tariff or war policies. It is up because our government and the fed who is responsible for inflation wants it to be high. They need it to be high because it is the only way at this point to extinguish the US out of control spending that has accumulated over many years. By making the dollar worthless this hides taxation on the stupid savers who thought they would someday retire in dollars. But more to the point of your OP, it will make absolutely no difference which other moron in the future becomes elected. Or which tariffs or other taxation are in place because we will see non stop high inflation from this point forward. Austerity of any form is politically unacceptable. And it is either austerity or inflation from this point forward to survive the debt that has accumulated.

You keep talking of inflation savings away--but most retirement money is in the stock market, it won't inflate away.

I do agree that austerity is not palatable, but we could go a long way towards fixing things if we just reversed what the Republicans have done.

And if we did what DOGE was supposed to do--hunt down the waste--we could easily balance the budget. But you can't put some idiots on an AI and expect to find the problems--DOGE accomplished almost nothing (basically all their claims wins were the AI got it wrong) and even when it did something it was generally a remove the top and bottom stair type answer. That takes a careful analysis of where effort is duplicated. Politicians love to take credit for things--thus we have too many things. We could produce the end result without a bunch of different paths to get there. And politicians love pork. Big things will be done in the districts of powerful politicians. To actually fix things requires understanding the processes and identifying duplication. (And not all of that duplication is government spending. For example, locally you need a business license for every "city" in our metropolitan area you work in. Works fine for a business that sits there, you're in the 4 figures of completely duplicated effort if you're a business that goes to the customer.)

I agree that the stock market won't inflate away. But the stock market also represents a far riskier investment than most people would normally tolerate. A typical worker should not have to play the casino just to make sure their future retirement does not inflate away.

I also agree that DOGE could have helped greatly but (once again) power structures did not want anything useful to come out of this. All the technical industrial complex wanted was more data and security taken from the public. DODE could have been useful but in the end the power structures made sure it wasn't.

 

[RVonse]

Money buys power even in China.

Tell that to Jack Ma

 

[RVonse]

I'm very serious about my retirement. And also very lucky now owning real assets (such as homes and farmland) acquired over many years that have also appreciated an enormous amount over the years. If I would have saved cash in the banks over the years and listened to what the fed was telling us I know I would be much worse off now.

Being paranoid and not trusting the fed or the government has served me very well so far. And at this point late in life I would rather be called stupid than be broke and enlightened as everyone else is.

You have this strange obsession with money in the bank.

It's not what most of us do! Money in the bank is for short term use. I keep enough in there that I don't have to worry about whether the estimated tax payments (the biggest bills we have) will clear. Builds up beyond that, off to the stock market.

That isn't what Warren Buffet does. He puts money in the bank so that large sums of cash can be quickly deployed when the timing is perfect. I'm not saying that is necessarily what ordinary people should do. But people should not be penalized as they are today with inflation simply for saving treasury bonds or other non risk investments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most were tricked into voting for the criminal perv.
Deceived by their own indifference, and their willingness to buy what Fox Entertainment News was selling.

Tricked? No.
But Biden administration wasn't popular by the time 2024 arrived. Neither was Trump for that matter.
But then came Biden's decline, that disastrous debate performance, and his refusal to give up reelection until it was too late to do anything but to foist Kamala Harris onto the electorate.

I don't think the Dems are winning in 2024, even if Biden does step aside (economy... and some of the worst selling what in the heck the party was doing in the history of self promotion), but Biden not stepping aside definitely made things worse.

Had Biden decided not to run in Summer 2023, Dems would have had a very good chance at winning it, despite people being dissatisfied with the state of the economy and other issues.

It is the economy stupid.... or should I say (George HW Bush say?) it is how the people interpret the economy stupid. As I note in the OP, Biden's polling was bad. Though, it has been how long since an incumbent was polling well into a re-election campaign? Have to go back to Clinton who was at least above water. Think (generically, not just Derec) about this, as the OP does apply to W and Obama as well. Obama wasn't polling great, dealing with the Great Recession (which he inherited). Meanwhile W wasn't polling great, not because 9/11 happened (he got a huge poll bump for letting that happen on his watch), but because Iraq wasn't the cakewalk advertised. The GOP walk into the room and fuck things up... the Dems walk into a fucked up room and have to fix it, and are given the same ratings.

The GOP hasn't had a decent President since HW Bush (nearly four decades ago).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most were tricked into voting for the criminal perv.
Deceived by their own indifference, and their willingness to buy what Fox Entertainment News was selling.

Tricked? No.
But Biden administration wasn't popular by the time 2024 arrived. Neither was Trump for that matter.
But then came Biden's decline, that disastrous debate performance, and his refusal to give up reelection until it was too late to do anything but to foist Kamala Harris onto the electorate.

Had Biden decided not to run in Summer 2023, Dems would have had a very good chance at winning it, despite people being dissatisfied with the state of the economy and other issues.

If only the Democrats could elect their perfect candidate next time it will fix everything. That perfect candidate will slow down what Trump did. Wrong.

Correct, very wrong. Project 2025 has been being enacted and Trump is carving out the regulatory portion of the Executive Branch, Loper-Bright has changed Executive Branch regulation substantially, and SCOTUS is generally ruling in favor of the ruling class. Oh, and the Strait of Hormuz has been permanently weaponized. The Dems can't fix that.

At best, voting might conceivably slow down the direction of powerful interests but the money always wins in the end.

Funny, you supported the guy that made the biggest difference in providing the uber-elites a return to the Gilded Age (why do I always want to put a U in Gilded?). It is extraordinary how you support the very things you are against.

The only thing left at this point is for common men to organize and rise up like the Canadian truckers did during the COVID psyop.

Over one million people died, ERs were packed for over a year, and now it is a damned "psyop"?

But that event failed mostly because the liberals were so dumb they fought against labor and sided with the fascist authority Trudeau.

Justin Trudeau... a fascist... ROFLMFAO!!! Justin Trudeau was a pretty face that could give an incredibly empowered speech, while being incapable of carrying 10% of the political load that his Father could. A fascist?! How out of touch do you need to be to even consider such a ridiculous claim?

 

[RVonse]

I totally agree with you that an increase in the money supply is what causes inflation and I have said the same. Keep the money supply constant and the dollar buys the same goods and services.

Amazing how you argue this on faith.

1) If you do manage to keep the money supply constant you seriously harm the economy because the economy is growing. In an ideal world the money supply grows at the same rate as the economy.

2) The main component of the money supply is the movement of money. The Fed controls how many dollars exist, the money supply is the number of dollars * the number of times they change hands. This is why the Fed uses interest rates to control the money supply--raise interest, money doesn't move as fast, the money supply goes down. Lower interest, people borrow more, the money supply goes up. Note that the feedback cycle is slow, the Fed is always playing a game of trying to guess where the economy will be next year.

Why does the economy have to keep growing when the population isn't? And even if the economy is growing, why can't there be deflation? We see deflation all the time with computer chips and television sales yet that part of our economy has not fallen off a cliff. Why would it be so bad to see some deflation in medial costs or student tuition?

More to the point. Why does there need to be a financial class of elites who control whether or not we have inflation? Why does there need to be a managed economy led by central bankers who rule the county? Why not let the capital market control what things are supposed to cost (including interest) with supply and demand.

 

[RVonse]

Justin Trudeau... a fascist... ROFLMFAO!!! Justin Trudeau was a pretty face that could give an incredibly empowered speech, while being incapable of carrying 10% of the political load that his Father could. A fascist?! How out of touch do you need to be to even consider such a ridiculous claim?

He not only stole the donations coming into the truckers, he punished the people who made the donations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Justin Trudeau... a fascist... ROFLMFAO!!! Justin Trudeau was a pretty face that could give an incredibly empowered speech, while being incapable of carrying 10% of the political load that his Father could. A fascist?! How out of touch do you need to be to even consider such a ridiculous claim?

He not only stole the donations coming into the truckers, he punished the people who made the donations.

Federal court did indeed rule that the Canadian Government overstepped its bounds. The donations weren't stolen though, they were frozen, most returned to donators.

It is funny how you whine about Trudeau reacting to a protest you think was lawful... while ICE murdered two protestors. It is almost like you are inconsistent on what you consider tyranny and fascism.

 

[laughing dog]

I totally agree with you that an increase in the money supply is what causes inflation and I have said the same. Keep the money supply constant and the dollar buys the same goods and services.

Amazing how you argue this on faith.

1) If you do manage to keep the money supply constant you seriously harm the economy because the economy is growing. In an ideal world the money supply grows at the same rate as the economy.

2) The main component of the money supply is the movement of money. The Fed controls how many dollars exist, the money supply is the number of dollars * the number of times they change hands. This is why the Fed uses interest rates to control the money supply--raise interest, money doesn't move as fast, the money supply goes down. Lower interest, people borrow more, the money supply goes up. Note that the feedback cycle is slow, the Fed is always playing a game of trying to guess where the economy will be next year.

Why does the economy have to keep growing when the population isn't?

The population is growing. Economies don't have to do anything. But human history strongly suggests that humans prefer to get wealthier which comes with economic growth.

And even if the economy is growing, why can't there be deflation? We see deflation all the time with computer chips and television sales yet that part of our economy has not fallen off a cliff. Why would it be so bad to see some deflation in medial costs or student tuition?

Deflation is usually refers to a reduction in the overall price level, not the price of individual commodities or services. Wide spread "deflation" usually coincides with widespread economic downturns - like the Great Depression. Which is why most modern societies try to avoid deflation.

More to the point. Why does there need to be a financial class of elites who control whether or not we have inflation? Why does there need to be a managed economy led by central bankers who rule the county? Why not let the capital market control what things are supposed to cost (including interest) with supply and demand.

The world tried letting capital market control what things are supposed to cost (including interest) with supply and demand, and the world found that wanting. Apparently the world preferred a little less economic volatility.

 

[laughing dog]

Inflation is not up solely because of tariff or war policies. It is up because our government and the fed who is responsible for inflation wants it to be high. They need it to be high because it is the only way at this point to extinguish the US out of control spending that has accumulated over many years. By making the dollar worthless this hides taxation on the stupid savers who thought they would someday retire in dollars. But more to the point of your OP, it will make absolutely no difference which other moron in the future becomes elected. Or which tariffs or other taxation are in place because we will see non stop high inflation from this point forward. Austerity of any form is politically unacceptable. And it is either austerity or inflation from this point forward to survive the debt that has accumulated.

You keep talking of inflation savings away--but most retirement money is in the stock market, it won't inflate away.

I do agree that austerity is not palatable, but we could go a long way towards fixing things if we just reversed what the Republicans have done.

And if we did what DOGE was supposed to do--hunt down the waste--we could easily balance the budget. But you can't put some idiots on an AI and expect to find the problems--DOGE accomplished almost nothing (basically all their claims wins were the AI got it wrong) and even when it did something it was generally a remove the top and bottom stair type answer. That takes a careful analysis of where effort is duplicated. Politicians love to take credit for things--thus we have too many things. We could produce the end result without a bunch of different paths to get there. And politicians love pork. Big things will be done in the districts of powerful politicians. To actually fix things requires understanding the processes and identifying duplication. (And not all of that duplication is government spending. For example, locally you need a business license for every "city" in our metropolitan area you work in. Works fine for a business that sits there, you're in the 4 figures of completely duplicated effort if you're a business that goes to the customer.)

I agree that the stock market won't inflate away. But the stock market also represents a far riskier investment than most people would normally tolerate. A typical worker should not have to play the casino just to make sure their future retirement does not inflate away.

I also agree that DOGE could have helped greatly but (once again) power structures did not want anything useful to come out of this. All the technical industrial complex wanted was more data and security taken from the public. DODE could have been useful but in the end the power structures made sure it wasn't.

You do realize the DOGE was run by one of the scions of technical industrial complex.

 

[Derec]

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. You've got to be motivated to vote *for* someone.

I agree with your second sentence, but why do you call what I wrote bullshit?
Compared with Biden/Harris, Harris/Walz lost 6M votes, while Trump only gained three. Yes, people want to be motivated to vote for someone, and many were not motivated to vote for Kamala and the Knucklehead independent of Trump and his manifold flaws.

Anyone who voted *for* Trump in 2024 is a vile cunt who fantasises about being as cruel and despicable as he is. Literally anyone else is a better alternative - for the world in general and the US in particular.

I am sure many people voted for Trump for various reasons. I do not think 77M people are all "vile cunt who fantasises about being as cruel and despicable as he is".

 

[Derec]

China is at this time the worlds largest investor in green energy.

They are also the by far largest builder of coal-fired power plants.

Trump thinks it's a hoax and is cancelling green energy projects left and right. One of the reasons China will soon be the worlds economic superpower instead of the US.

That is a mistake on Trump's part.
But China also has fundamental problems with its economy, and their path to economic dominance is far from straightforward.

 

[Derec]

Bullshit. Trump is a lazy, greedy pervert and career fraudster. Convincing even a terminally stupid person of his competence or benevolent intent in becoming president, was quite a trick. Call it a deception if you prefer, but it got a lot of people Including the “I’m not a trumpsucker” type, Derec.

Contrary to your snark, you don't have to sell me on the idea that Trump is incompetent and overall a bad president. I never voted for him.
The fact remains that Dems have their own problems, which hinders their electability. And I do not think the takeover of the Democratic Party by DSA extremists will improve Dems' national electability one bit.

 

[Derec]

And why would they if we won’t? That’s the point.

Actually, according to the graph I provided, US decreased our CO₂ emissions a bit since 2000. But China increased its emissions by more than US total emissions in that time period. That means US could eliminate all its emissions overnight, and it would still not compensate for the massive increase in Chinese emissions.

International agreements are necessary here. Unfortunately, international frameworks over the last few decades kept giving countries like China and India a pass.

 

[laughing dog]

And why would they if we won’t? That’s the point.

Actually, according to the graph I provided, US decreased our CO₂ emissions a bit since 2000. But China increased its emissions by more than US total emissions in that time period. That means US could eliminate all its emissions overnight, and it would still not compensate for the massive increase in Chinese emissions.

International agreements are necessary here. Unfortunately, international frameworks over the last few decades kept giving countries like China and India a pass.

Fewer emissions mean fewer emissions. Without the reductions by the US, there’d be more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The US is responsible for its economic activity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with you that the banks have a lot to do with this as they are near the top of the Financial Industrial Complex (FIC) that rules the US now. As far as lobbying for increases in federal taxation, yes I was and am still in favor of Trumps tariffs and have said so many times. But most people on this board would argue the tariffs cause more inflation not less. The FIC does control inflation however (as you say above) and can or could greatly reduce inflation..... but have chosen not to. Nor can the federal government allow any less inflation anyway at this point due to the size of the debt interest.

The problem here is that inflation isn't the worst enemy.

The Fed could drive the inflation rate to zero. Doing so would be a very bad thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree that the stock market won't inflate away. But the stock market also represents a far riskier investment than most people would normally tolerate. A typical worker should not have to play the casino just to make sure their future retirement does not inflate away.

Our stock investing is mostly index stuff and balanced funds. There's never been a year with a major decline. But there's been a year where we saw more than 50% lost off our house value. And undeveloped land is even worse.

I also agree that DOGE could have helped greatly but (once again) power structures did not want anything useful to come out of this. All the technical industrial complex wanted was more data and security taken from the public. DODE could have been useful but in the end the power structures made sure it wasn't.

DOGE never had a hope because they thought they had a magic spell to fix things. In reality they had their own delusions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm very serious about my retirement. And also very lucky now owning real assets (such as homes and farmland) acquired over many years that have also appreciated an enormous amount over the years. If I would have saved cash in the banks over the years and listened to what the fed was telling us I know I would be much worse off now.

Being paranoid and not trusting the fed or the government has served me very well so far. And at this point late in life I would rather be called stupid than be broke and enlightened as everyone else is.

You have this strange obsession with money in the bank.

It's not what most of us do! Money in the bank is for short term use. I keep enough in there that I don't have to worry about whether the estimated tax payments (the biggest bills we have) will clear. Builds up beyond that, off to the stock market.

That isn't what Warren Buffet does. He puts money in the bank so that large sums of cash can be quickly deployed when the timing is perfect. I'm not saying that is necessarily what ordinary people should do. But people should not be penalized as they are today with inflation simply for saving treasury bonds or other non risk investments.

1) He currently has a lot of loose cash because he doesn't think there's stuff worth buying.

2) His preferred holing period for stock is forever.

3) Want to get on the bandwagon? It's called Berkshire Hathaway.

4) The basic cost of money is about 3%. Treasuries will generally pay about this + inflation. In your zero-inflation fantasy you would be making 3%, minus some transaction costs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why does the economy have to keep growing when the population isn't? And even if the economy is growing, why can't there be deflation? We see deflation all the time with computer chips and television sales yet that part of our economy has not fallen off a cliff. Why would it be so bad to see some deflation in medial costs or student tuition?

Population isn't growing?!

And the economy grows with technology even without population growth.

And the problem with deflation is that it rewards sitting on the sidelines instead of doing. And what happens to an economy where everyone is sitting on the sidelines looking for a better deal tomorrow?? History tells us it's not pretty.

You are talking about some markets where new technology upset the applecart. That's a very different thing.

More to the point. Why does there need to be a financial class of elites who control whether or not we have inflation? Why does there need to be a managed economy led by central bankers who rule the county? Why not let the capital market control what things are supposed to cost (including interest) with supply and demand.

Once again, history tells us the lack of a central bank is much worse. You get repeated booms and busts, far more devastating than what you've ever seen.

 

[Patooka]

I am sure many people voted for Trump for various reasons.

No. They voted for things you agree with. That's why you sympathise.

But at least you can say nigger on twitter X again, amirite?