Core Inflation Rate Highest Since 1981

[Redleg68]

"Joe is crushing it," eh?

Blaming Joe Biden for the current rise of inflation, is either being intellectually dishonest, as many Republicans in Congress are, or it is being ignorant of the fiscal calendar. I could see it being either one of those with you. I have seen dishonesty, partisanship and ignorance on full display in equal share from your posts.

Once again... obviously, the Biden administration is about to make the problem of inflation much worse, but you are ignorant if you don't understand how appropriations bills which were signed into law while Donald Trump was President, are mostly responsible for this increase in inflation that we are currently seeing in 2021. Regardless of who won the 2020 Presidential Election, inflation was going to be on the rise right now. That has been evident since the fall of 2019, which was before the COVID-19 pandemic even began.

So, I will direct this question one more time towards the party of hypocrites, who only pretend to care about inflation and being fiscally responsible, when a Democrat is President :

QUESTION :

Where was this outrage over President Donald Trump's budget proposals, and the over-sized spending packages which he signed into law?

ANSWER :

There was NONE ... because it's not something you truly care about, unless you think you can use it as a weapon to attack a Democratic Party President with.

You are both right and wrong. Government spending will cause inflation long term, but that bump in inflation from Government spending is not here yet. The current bump is mainly because of increased gasoline/energy costs/ housing costs/rent costs and food costs. Figure out who or what created those price increases and that is where you point your finger for the short term. I feel though that this huge increase in government spending has far worse consequences than inflation.

 

[KB5252]

That is not true. Democrats not only didn't rail against it, they voted for it. I'm sorry but deficit spending is the wrong issue to accuse Democrats of being hypocrites with.

You may be correct here, the articles I remembered seem be critical about cuts to programs rather than spending after looking back at them.

 

[AM64]

Absolute mess. To be followed up by more government solutions that will exacerbate the current mess.

The most amazing thing these days is that when a policy doesn't work, nobody even considers backing up and removing it. Obviously that would mean admitting failure, so they keep tinkering and futzing with it to try and make it work. It's something like putting lipstick on a pig while trying to teach it to sing - obviously human evolution (and progress as in progressivism) isn't always in the forward direction.

 

[Orangeburst]

We agree on inflation. Some are focused on causes outside DC. Some are focused on causes inside DC.

Why is Biden pursuing legislation which will make inflation worse?

You are talking to yourself again.
I thought we overcame that with last months session

 

[McDad]

The most amazing thing these days is that when a policy doesn't work, nobody even considers backing up and removing it. Obviously that would mean admitting failure, so they keep tinkering and futzing with it to try and make it work. It's something like putting lipstick on a pig while trying to teach it to sing - obviously human evolution (and progress as in progressivism) isn't always in the forward direction.

Agreed.
AshG mentioned ACA in another discussion with me weeks ago. He says it is problematic. Not good. And yet, when it was even discussed by DJT and others it would be considered for repeal the squealing heard all across AMerica was deafening.

 

[McDad]

You are talking to yourself again.
I thought we overcame that with last months session

I am off my meds.

Actually no one answered it so i posted it again and added to it so that I can understand others better.

 

[AM64]

It is funny how we ascribe results to one president when those results are mostly tied to previous governance. A few examples:
Reagan's economic boom linked to Carter's economic policy. Reagan's debt linked to Tip O'Neill but not vetoed by Ronnie.
Obama phones were an extension of a program enacted under Reagan.
Clinton economy related to dot coms. Clinton fiscal restraint linked to Gingrich.
Obama housing bubble linked to Dodd / Frank under Clinton.

Trump spent a lot. Debt has been increasing exponentially since Bush2. Why did this rapid inflation only come about because of Trump's spending and not other's spending?

If you really spend time studying government spending and fiscal policy, I'd bet you would find that the dynamics are extremely confusing. For example, just defense and domestic spending policies. One person's "peace dividend" likely becomes another's need to rebuild the military. The peace dividend turns into domestic spending or "entitlements" that always add to overall spending ensuring an ever increasing federal spending. We are reactive with very short term planning and thinking vs the long term path that favors real growth, so we are continually spinning our wheels correcting and over-correcting - reacting and overreacting because we lack the political wisdom to develop long term strategy.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You are both right and wrong. Government spending will cause inflation long term, but that bump in inflation from Government spending is not here yet. The current bump is mainly because of increased gasoline/energy costs/ housing costs/rent costs and food costs. Figure out who or what created those price increases and that is where you point your finger for the short term. I feel though that this huge increase in government spending has far worse consequences than inflation.

That isn't necessarily true, and gets into the multiplier effect. Higher government spending will lead to demand-pull inflation, because government spending is a component of aggregate demand. Holding other determinants of aggregate demand constant, an increase in government spending will increase the level of aggregate demand in the economy... and in turn, lead to an increase in the price level. At what rate this happens will vary.

 

[AM64]

Agreed.
AshG mentioned ACA in another discussion with me weeks ago. He says it is problematic. Not good. And yet, when it was even discussed by DJT and others it would be considered for repeal the squealing heard all across AMerica was deafening.

ACA was put in place almost like a poison pill that ensured removing it would be worse than keeping it. The trap was in removing what was originally in place so we couldn't just revert back - at least without a lot of hardship. It's easy to let government assume a program - especially one that includes people who are uninsured because they don't have insurance through the job. Try and take that away and it suddenly means you are taking away an "entitlement" - political suicide. People have found the key to raiding the treasury through congress and they aren't about to give it up, and our "representatives" aren't about to anger the electorate that put them in a cushy and lucrative job.

 

[McDad]

If you really spend time studying government spending and fiscal policy, I'd bet you would find that the dynamics are extremely confusing. For example, just defense and domestic spending policies. One person's "peace dividend" likely becomes another's need to rebuild the military. The peace dividend turns into domestic spending or "entitlements" that always add to overall spending ensuring an ever increasing federal spending. We are reactive with very short term planning and thinking vs the long term path that favors real growth, so we are continually spinning our wheels correcting and over-correcting - reacting and overreacting because we lack the political wisdom to develop long term strategy.

Absolutely. There is an inherent risk in changing political leaders as frequently as we do. We lurch back on forth between extremes of policy and vision for our country. It is exacerbated when politicians are self seeking and put their re election ahead of what's best for America.

This is our reality.

 

[McDad]

ACA was put in place almost like a poison pill that ensured removing it would be worse than keeping it. The trap was in removing what was originally in place so we couldn't just revert back - at least without a lot of hardship. It's easy to let government assume a program - especially one that includes people who are uninsured because they don't have insurance through the job. Try and take that away and it suddenly means you are taking away an "entitlement" - political suicide. People have found the key to raiding the treasury through congress and they aren't about to give it up, and our "representatives" aren't about to anger the electorate that put them in a cushy and lucrative job.

We need a constitutional convention of states where an amendment to the constitution is passed providing an exclusion to every senator, rep, and president, vp from being elected if the government spends more than revenue in any year.

 

[AM64]

What? Supply disruptions don't drive up prices?

Why does virtually our entire supply chain originate in China to begin with? It's easy to look at disruptions while ignoring the real question. BTW, the chip problem is somewhat different than distribution. It has a lot more to do with the supply of parts for rapidly changing technology vs the needs of mature technology that needs stability. For the auto and defense industries (for example) to use more current chips would require modifying electronics that actually don't need change, and would negatively affect the longevity of platforms (like cars and aircraft) where those older components are used. Imagine being unable to repair a 5 year old car because the engine control computer is obsolete. Many of the electronics in autos, aircraft, industrial applications like nuclear power are covered by certification programs - you don't just change them because somebody wants to build smaller and faster cellphones.

 

[volfanhill]

We need a constitutional convention of states where an amendment to the constitution is passed providing an exclusion to every senator, rep, and president, vp from being elected if the government spends more than revenue in any year.

I am of the belief that if they want to spend more then revenue it should take the same constitutional requirements of making an amendment to the constitution. There may be times we would have to spend more in some ungodly emergency. But everybody better be agreeing that it's that big of an emergency.

 

[AM64]

We need a constitutional convention of states where an amendment to the constitution is passed providing an exclusion to every senator, rep, and president, vp from being elected if the government spends more than revenue in any year.

Another thing we dearly need in congress is the requirement that legislation requires something like a 2/3 or 3/5 majority ... always. As long as it's a simple majority we will continue to be politically bipolar. We also need legislation limited to just one item so that attachments aren't inducements or bribes for passage.

 

[Velo Vol]

Why does virtually our entire supply chain originate in China to begin with?

It doesn't all start in China. But a lot comes from Asia because their labour costs are less, obviously.

 

[Redleg68]

That isn't necessarily true, and gets into the multiplier effect. Higher government spending will lead to demand-pull inflation, because government spending is a component of aggregate demand. Holding other determinants of aggregate demand constant, an increase in government spending will increase the level of aggregate demand in the economy... and in turn, lead to an increase in the price level. At what rate this happens will vary.

True, but isn't the problem today is shortages in the housing market and oil prices has jumped way up and we are back to having to import, which puts us in the middle of mid-east issues again. Let me ask you something. This huge push for electric cars. What is going to happen to the electrical grid when a few million EVs are plugged in at close to the same time in the middle of summer.

 

[Orangeburst]

True, but isn't the problem today is shortages in the housing market and oil prices has jumped way up and we are back to having to import, which puts us in the middle of mid-east issues again. Let me ask you something. This huge push for electric cars. What is going to happen to the electrical grid when a few million EVs are plugged in at close to the same time in the middle of summer.

They haven’t thought that far
Some states barely hold on now

 

[McDad]

I am of the belief that if they want to spend more then revenue it should take the same constitutional requirements of making an amendment to the constitution. There may be times we would have to spend more in some ungodly emergency. But everybody better be agreeing that it's that big of an emergency.

I like it.

It will never happen.

 

[NEO]

We have a perfect storm for inflation right now:

Supply chains are totally f’d for the next year.

Gas prices are over 3 dollars a gallon on average again.

Wage increases across the board to low level employees.

Shortage of workers who are holding out for the next stimulus or unemployment match they believe is coming and don’t want to miss.

All of this will leave the average low income worker who just got a few dollar per hour wage living with the exact same purchasing power as they had at a lower wage and it will pull the middle class down and force them to need help which is what the dems want.

 

[BreatheUT]

If you think that post was defending Biden, then you didn't read it very carefully... or at all. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Biden to be made (like I just damn said!). 2021 rising inflation just isn't among them.

Yes, you've been really careful not to comment on this out of control locomotive administration.

 

[hog88]

Well, hold on to your interest rate, because McConnell has sent word he is ready to negotiate the debt ceiling.

We are fooked.

Our kids and grand kids are fooked, we're just being fondled.

 

[hog88]

Look at autos. A lot of US production has been scaled back because plants can't buy enough chips made in Asia. How is that Biden's fault?

50 years of supporting policies that drove manufacturing oversees?

 

[TheDeeble]

Absolutely. There is an inherent risk in changing political leaders as frequently as we do. We lurch back on forth between extremes of policy and vision for our country. It is exacerbated when politicians are self seeking and put their re election ahead of what's best for America.

This is our reality.

Yea. There is no long term plan or goal for the US that everyone can work toward. Just a series of short term plans that try to undo what the last group did. Not a sustainable way to go.

 

[GoVols1998Yeah!]

It doesn't all start in China. But a lot comes from Asia because their labour costs are less, obviously.

We need to have tighter controls on access to U.S. consumers.

 

[volkyries]

50 years of supporting policies that drove manufacturing oversees?

Manufacturing went overseas because it was cheaper to do business there. Corporations left to make more money and take advantage of the lower business costs to boost profits. Yes, some policies made it more expensive to do business in the US (taxes, environmental regulations, etc), but a big chunk of the savings was on the cheap labor rates. Not sure what policy would have helped combat US labor costs that other than driving down wages in the USA which I am sure the working class (most people) didn't want.