mention these things just to call attention to the hidden dimension of CO² emissions: the wildly extravagant lives we lead, thinking all the while that this is just average. — Tate

Yes, the United States is the leader of emissions and is absurd on waste. They’re also the most powerful force against climate action.

Ridiculously stupid— but that’s the state of the world.

that may change the next time they come into power. — Mr Bee

If anything happens it’ll be because real people are organizing on the ground and building structures there. This may be yet another catalyst, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

blame young people. — RogueAI

I don’t necessarily blame anybody. But the DNC deliberately beating back Sanders is certainly more blameworthy than young people not showing up.

In any case, it’s meaningless now. Roe is officially dunzo— We have plenty more judicial dismantling to look forward to for the next 30/40 years.

West Virginia v. EPA is going to kill a lot of the kids that Dobbs will force to be born.

This isn’t meant to be witty— it’s just clearly true. Goes to show how important the 2014 and 2016 elections really were. We’ll be living with the consequences for the next 30 years.

COVID and War and climate change effect supply, which drives up prices. That’s not monetary policy. That’s my point.

naturally this means that prices go up because of the shortages. But note that this case isn't inflation: do notice that prices simply going up don't mean inflation. — ssu

That’s exactly what it means. Purchasing power will decrease, so it’s related.

I’m not denying that pumping a lot of money into the economy has no role to play; it certainly does. But when looking at the current situation it seems that supply issues are playing a bigger role.

You're an avid reader. Read for yourself. It's not too long. Very plainly stated. — creativesoul

You’re referring to the constitution, yes?

It is indeed worth reading. It’s also worth reading about the context of the framing. I recommend Michael Klarman’s excellent book The Framer’s Coup.

You genuinely think that there isn't the link in the central bank money printing and fiscal policies? — ssu

Of course there is.

Fiscal and monetary policy are also very different things.

To be clear:

Monetary policy and fiscal policy play a large role in the economy. That’s obvious. When it comes to explaining inflation, there are also other important factors to consider outside of these policies — like COVID and its effects; climate change and its effects; and geopolitical problems (war).

I can only reiterate what I said before. It looks to me like many economists are attributing the bulk of inflation to too much money, when that’s only one factor and by no means the biggest.

Or take used and new cars. Plenty of inflation there— which also helps drive up the CPI. Is that due to an abundance of money, a shortage of chips, or profiteering? Well, all three of course. But what if you take one factor out — like supply shortage? Well, again look at the CPI data. Control for supply problems: the cost all items, less energy and food, is 6%. But even that is misleading. Why? Because that number is driven up by used and new cars, which is included, and transportation — also affected by both cars and energy (gasoline, oil).

Not including those, and you’re looking at about 4%. “Normal” inflation is around 2%. So theoretically, without supply disruptions, we’re seeing some inflation — but nothing terrible.

Does extra money even explain all of that inflation? No, I don’t think so. You still have issues of corporations (many monopolies, like meat producers) price gouging, passing on extra labor costs (and then some) to consumers, a shift in demand for services over goods after lockdowns, etc.

Inflation due to extra money in the economy is a nice story — and there’s clearly some truth in it — but it’s simply not sufficient to explain what’s happening and, in my view, doesn’t account for more than perhaps a few hundred basis points of the inflation we’re seeing. — Xtrix

This is not only a demand issue. It’s also largely a supply issue. To minimize the supply-side of this situation is ideologically motivated.

Xtrix has left the thread for good for the tenth time, — Olivier5

I’ve never once said I was leaving the thread. Not once.

Supporting Putin is bad for karma, I guess. — Olivier5

I never once said I supported Putin. In fact I’ve said the opposite.

Please try to read more carefully.

Without agreeing on (conforming to) the PNC, ​the principle of explosion reduces discursive reason (e.g. your question) to glossolalia — 180 Proof

I think people get along just fine without these logical principles, and far too much power has been given to them. It’s like arguing that we speak correctly only because we’ve absorbed the rules of grammar. I don’t really subscribe to that point of view, but I know it’s influential.

“Logic is an invention of schoolteachers, not of philosophers.”

We cannot agree on 'what there is' because any determination – ontological commitment – reflects our interests/biases or some domain with which we're engaged. Thus, the history of incommensurable, divergent, metaphysics. I've pursued, therefore, an inquiry based on what we must agree on rationally — 180 Proof

I don't "give up on" anything. — 180 Proof

Fine. We “can’t agree” about being, but supposedly we “must agree on” PNC? Why?

It’s still simply moving the same problem to another topic, regardless of whether “giving up” is accurate or not. That is, determining what’s “impossible.”

There’s also the question of why we should care about agreement.

I responded in that thread.

We cannot agree on 'what there is' because any determination – ontological commitment – reflects our interests/biases — 180 Proof

We don’t have to agree on it. There will be all kinds of interpretations and answers to the question “What is being?” Many will be incompatible.

But we don’t have to agree on the concept of life either. Yet we’re alive. We don’t have to figure out the ultimate meaning of life (or agree on it), yet we’re all living our lives in some way or other.

I've pursued, therefore, an inquiry based on what we must agree on rationally: the Principle of Non-contradiction. (NB: Even dialetheism or paraconsistent logic implicitly accept the PNC axiom in so far as such systems deny it.) From there I'm working through, or working out, an apophatic modal-metaphysics (or negative ontology à la "negative theology"); and once 'what necessarily is not there' (i.e. the impossibles) is determined as a principle? — 180 Proof

“Must” we agree? What’s so great about absolute, universal agreement anyway?

If you can determine what is “necessarily” not there, then why do you give up on determining what is?

Either way, we’re back in the same conundrum: what we determine as the “impossibles” is a matter of interpretation too. If you’re using agreement as a criterion, you’ve only shifted the subject from something (being, existence, thereness) to nothing (non-being, absence, emptiness). Lack of agreement, value and interest-laden interpretation, and biases sweep in here as well.

What’s interesting to me is the question itself and how its been answered, tacitly or explicitly, for thousands of years. Yes, this is the history of philosophy but also (insofar as thought/beliefs/attitudes/outlook shape actions) a history of human behavior— political, religious, scientific, technological, economic, artistic.

I’m not so interested in settling on a necessary, concrete answer or definition — for exactly the reasons you mention. But even if we want such an answer, or want to formulate a new one, wrestling with the current and past evolution of the question (and its answers) will be key.

Žižek is a philosopher-clown who I find is more insightful than ridiculous. — 180 Proof

What insights?

Hedges bores me. — 180 Proof

To each his own. I don’t see what’s boring about him beyond superficialities.

Anyway…I’m getting off thread topic. If you want to respond I’ll let you have last word.

Zizek has always existed in the tradition of Chris Hitchens anyway —i.e., entrainment and posturing. Give me Chomsky and Hedges any day of the week.

The question of all questions is: what is?

Or: what is being? So all questions are questions about being/beings.

This according to some thinkers, anyway. And those I happen to agree with.

Do drugs, or can drugs, engender a frame of mind which is conducive to insight, or even enlightenment? — hypericin

Yes. But the insights tend to be a proverb of some kind — cliched; enlightenment is possible in that drugs can allow you to see things slightly (or greatly) askew, but this is temporary.

Honestly, marijuana, MDMA and mushrooms have provided me with moments of clarity and realization, even of wisdom. But so has meditation, being in love, fasting, and walking in the woods.

What matters, in the end, is what you do— not just on special occasions, but over the long run in your daily life. If you can only be nice to people or have fun when taking some kind of substance, for example, then I would find that problematic. If you take a substance in moderation and it provides a needed reminder of what matters in life, great. We can’t always achieve that “naturally.”

Clearly you support Trump's coup attempt. — Jackson

:roll:

Grow up.

important proceeding. — creativesoul

seriousness and the future implications of all that? — creativesoul

How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber. — Jackson

Yes, and what exactly have you two done about it? Beyond being outraged from what you’re reading/seeing?

Sorry— but there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle. Even picking up trash in the neighborhood accomplishes more.

I’d like to see, at bare minimum, a labor party. But this is getting off topic so I’ll leave it at that.

Is that the kind of difference you want to see? — Tate

I really don’t see the relevance.

Because the outcome is predictable and it’s mostly a waste of time and a media production.

Democrats are the same insofar as their existence leads to the same results, not because of hypotheticals that one can take imaginary comfort in apres coup. — Streetlight

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say our Supreme Court would look different had Trump not been elected— which is indeed a different and important outcome. But yes, technically I can’t prove it.

Trump attempted a violent coup. — Jackson

Fine. This commission is still a farce.

No, this commission. Another chance for ratings. Like the Mueller report and impeachment trials before it. I wouldn’t get caught up in this stuff. They’re all trying to recapture the supposed glory days of Watergate.

They’re nearly all corporatists.

To argue there are profound differences because of this ridiculous media farce really isn’t serious.

is there a political solution to the problem? — Wayfarer

I would take a look at someone like Jane McAlevey. I think she describes one solution very well. It involves organizing. Not lecturing others, but listening and helping them identify and solve problems. Militant unions, a strong labor movement, etc., are going to be part of any solution. That involves real work. It involves, first and foremost, a genuine care for working people. Not contempt and condescension.



Both parties are corporate parties— but asserting they’re the same isn’t exactly true. There are minor differences which we have to acknowledge, however we dislike them. Those differences matter in a superpower like the US, as you both know.

Look at the Supreme Court, to take the obvious example. If Clinton had been elected, we wouldn’t be seeing the end of Roe — which will have very real effects for years to come. As will the upcoming ruling on guns and on restricting the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions. That’s not nothing. That’s not an endorsement of Clinton, of course, but it’s true nevertheless— I think we can all agree?

Given this alone, if things like abortion rights and the environment matter to you, it would be preferable if we didn’t go backwards. That may not sway your vote, but it’s still a difference.

Then you simply don't look at the big picture. Because the response to covid was done in tandem. Both by the Government and by the Federal Reserve. — ssu

Fiscal and monetary policy are very different things. That has nothing to do with the “big picture.” It’s a matter of being clear. They’re very different in how they function, and when we want to go deeper than speaking in generalities, it happens to matter.

That being said— yes, the Fed and congress happened to act together during COVID. Fiscal and monetary policies are still very different things.

During the Great Recession the target of the QE was financial institutions, not consumers. — ssu

This is exactly why getting our terms correct is important. QE is part of monetary policy, which is what the Fed does. It was and remains targeted towards the financial sector.

To argue that “this time” it was directed towards consumers is just confusing what happened. It’s not true. The stimulus that was directed to consumers was FISCAL POLICY. That means the bills passed in congress — the checks sent out directly to citizens, the child tax credit, expanded unemployment benefits, etc. These actions had nothing to do with QE — nothing. Nor the buying of corporate debt.

At least get your own argument right. You’re arguing that the government gave people too much money. It’s what Summers and Manchin were arguing last year.

To that point, I’ll simply repeat what I’ve been saying: this seems to account for very little of the inflation we see — maybe a few basis points. I already explained the evidence for this in my prior response.

Though it’s a neat story, for sure. Stick to it dogmatically if you wish.

Will the economy slump into stagflation? — Tate

If I could answer that, I’d be wealthy indeed.

The idea that an administration uses fiscal policy and totally separately the central bank uses monetary policy and these would be thinking of totally different issues is not the case. — ssu

Sorry, but fiscal policy and monetary policy are very different things. If you want to talk generally about the economy, fine. But when it comes to claims about inflation, getting these terms right actually matters.

Inflation isn't confined to one country and the US affects very much other countries too. — ssu

The claim was that inflation is due to fiscal stimulus. US did far more than Europe; both have inflation. So your response seems to be: it’s still fiscal stimulus because inflation isn’t confined to one country.

Think about this for a minute.

When you give to the American consumer one trillion dollars, that is going to be a lot going into the real economy. And that does create inflation. — ssu

So again we’re back to the fiscal stimulus claim. Okay — yes, I realize that’s the theory.

We had fiscal stimulus in 09 as well. Not as much, but between that and QE, the money supply increased. Inflation was predicted — and there was none.

economic policy would be better. — ssu

Fine. Sounds good.

And how many YEARS you think those disruptions will last? — ssu

I have no idea.

Yes, Russia and Ukraine do give us raw materials and agricultural products, but these are in the end small compared to the global market. — ssu

Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. That causes significant supply disruptions.

But it’s not only the war in Ukraine. Those are contributors to supply disruptions already underway due to COVID.

Or take used and new cars. Plenty of inflation there— which also helps drive up the CPI. Is that due to an abundance of money, a shortage of chips, or profiteering? Well, all three of course. But what if you take one factor out — like supply shortage? Well, again look at the CPI data. Control for supply problems: the cost all items, less energy and food, is 6%. But even that is misleading. Why? Because that number is driven up by used and new cars, which is included, and transportation — also affected by both cars and energy (gasoline, oil).

Not including those, and you’re looking at about 4%. “Normal” inflation is around 2%. So theoretically, without supply disruptions, we’re seeing some inflation — but nothing terrible.

Does extra money even explain all of that inflation? No, I don’t think so. You still have issues of corporations (many monopolies, like meat producers) price gouging, passing on extra labor costs (and then some) to consumers, a shift in demand for services over goods after lockdowns, etc.

Inflation due to extra money in the economy is a nice story — and there’s clearly some truth in it — but it’s simply not sufficient to explain what’s happening and, in my view, doesn’t account for more than perhaps a few hundred basis points of the inflation we’re seeing.

Slaveowners were true capitalists. We know you long for those days of true individual freedom. When they agree with you…

In case it’s not crystal clear: I’m not interested in your opinions about anything, and think you’re a repugnant human being. Please stop trolling this thread.

I'm wondering whether or not we can make and unmake governments whenever we see fit. I'm asking can we make any form of government we desire whenever we desire or if our desires are somewhat irrelevant? — Average

I really can’t give a definitive answer, but for me I think we can choose to create a government we want, which is based on all kinds of things — values, beliefs, desires, etc. Doesn’t happen over night, or even whenever we see fit, but it’s possible. The evidence seems everywhere. What’s the alternative?

What reasoning lead you to this conclusion? — Average

Well…

governments are created by people, — Xtrix

They’re not inevitable. We have choices. We can create democracies and plutocracies and tyrannies. To argue these are somehow inevitable is odd indeed— but if you believe it you’re welcome.

:rofl:

Says the (inadvertent?) corporate apologist who has far more in common with Mussolini and Hitler than anyone here.

Apologies for attacking your plutocratic masters. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

Politicians don’t “choose” anything about interest rates.
— Xtrix
To believe in the independence of the Fed or the ECB on these matters is a bit naive. — ssu

I didn’t say that. But I also don’t say the board of governors are politicians. If you consider them politicians, fine. I think that’s misleading. If you think they make politically motivated decisions — OK. But not saying much. And has nothing to do with fiscal policy decisions.

is simply an assertion. If it were so cut and dry, then Europe shouldn’t be experiencing inflation — according to your own chart. But they are as well.
— Xtrix
I'm not following you. Or do you think the EU didn't have it's own stimulus packages? — ssu

Take a look at your own chart. Yes, they had stimulus packages — and FAR less than the US. So is their inflation still due to that fiscal stimulus?

We had stimulus and QE in ‘09. No inflation.

Again, I think it’s time to let go of Friedman’s ideas. Things are just not so simple.

It would do well to distinguish fiscal and monetary stimulus for the sake of discussion and clarity from here onward. If by stimulus you refer to both, please say so.

(NY TIMES, Oct 18th 2021) Inflation is likely getting a temporary boost from the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that the Biden administration ushered in early this year, new Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco research released on Monday suggested. — ssu

Again, I agree with economists that say the fiscal stimulus (the CARES bill and AR bill) accounted for perhaps 1% of inflation. The monetary “stimulus” (QE) also accounts for inflation — particularly in the markets I mentioned: stocks, bonds, housing. (And cryptocurrency, incidentally.)

This is reflected in core inflation numbers — high, but not very high.

The majority of inflation is accounted for by COVID and Ukraine supply disruptions. Demand has been there as well — but to focus solely on demand, or claim that it’s demand that accounts for most of the inflation we see, is just not supported by the data. Oil prices aren’t soaring because people have more money to bid them up, for example.

Are we the authors of our fate? — Average

Largely yes.

Are our forms of government, such as monarchy, generated necessarily by forces outside of our control or are we able to write history? — Average

I don’t see what one has to do with the other. But governments are created by people, and history is written by people.

Our current form of government — in the US anyway, but elsewhere too — is an oligarchy. More specifically, plutocracy. Even more specifically, corporatocracy. None of this is inevitable.

When NOS agrees with you, it should immediately elicit the desire to do the opposite.

I really am interested in how plutocracy can be abolished or at least minimized — baker

No, you’re not.

Notice I didn’t even bother asking “Why are they pipe dreams?” Why? Because as I said before, I was expecting this childish response. But secondly, you have no idea about most of what I was referring to anyway. For example, to say the repeal of rule 10b-18 is a “pipe dream”? Really? So you’re aware of that specific rule? You’re knowledgeable enough about it to make the judgment that its repeal is a “pipe dream”?

No. You’re not. Of course you’re not. You just wanted an opportunity to show how absurd it is to claim any solution at all. Which was entirely predictable and, as I said, I made the mistake of giving the benefit of the doubt. Believe me, it won’t happen again.

I don't see any realistic solutions — baker

You see no solutions at all. Because you’re interested only in posturing.

I’ll repeat— again — what I said before: my involvement is in unions and in state/local governing (aka “pipe dreams”). I could get into those solutions too — but I’ll save it for someone interested in something beyond posturing.

And this is how you're actually helping those at the top stay there. — baker

:lol: By engaging with disingenuous questions? Probably true — given it’s a waste of my time.

If only I could very cleverly call all work “pipe dreams” on the Internet. That would show ‘em!

But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon. — Xtrix

Sorry, but your "solutions" sound like pipe dreams. — baker

I’m glad you read carefully.

What’s funny is that I was going to put in “Is this a real question or just an excuse to shit on anything offered?” Figured I’d give the benefit of the doubt. I regret that. Should have known better, given your history.

I guess I’ll just repeat myself: there are plenty of solutions. These are some of the ones off the top of my head. My own personal activity has been directed at the local and state level, and towards unionizing. Not at the federal level, where I have no impact whatsoever.

But since you aren’t really interested in any solutions (all “pipe dreams”) and apparently just want an opportunity to display your very-superior-cynicism, I’ll leave it there. My mistake for engaging.

We could be here all day, but solutions are plentiful. Just off the top of my head — and restricted only to the low-hanging fruit:

Ban stock buybacks (specifically SEC rule 10b-18)
Decouple CEO pay and stocks
Wealth tax
Excess profit tax
Maximum wage
Increase corporate tax rate
Increase capital gains taxes
Close tax havens (Bahamas, Caymans, Ireland)
Close tax loopholes (stepped-up basis, etc)
Fund the IRS
Strengthen labor laws and the NLRB
Require worker representation in boardrooms
Pass the PRO act

And on and on. But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon.

Uhhh....yeah. They have. — ssu

No, they haven’t. What I was responding to:

And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. — ssu

Politicians don’t “choose” anything about interest rates.

As far as fiscal policy: yea, they passed stimulus bills. Arguing that

stimulus packages etc. […] got the inflation finally going. — ssu

is simply an assertion. If it were so cut and dry, then Europe shouldn’t be experiencing inflation — according to your own chart. But they are as well.

The effects of stimulus is real, but I agree with economists who say it accounts for about 1% of inflation or so.

does create higher demand, which then creates higher prices. — ssu

Low interest rates create demand too. Cheap borrowed money lead to higher prices.

But this almost completely overlooks supply shocks and corporate choices. This is far more a supply side issue.

True, we can use inflation as an excuse for austerity, for punishing workers and families, etc., which is the most likely outcome. But that’s a political choice.

I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already.
— Xtrix
How the markets react to the monetary policy of the Fed is a result of monetary policy. Markets going down is a consequence, not the other way around. — ssu

Since the asset bubbles I mentioned were created by the Fed’s monetary policy, it’s no surprise they are bursting now. Stocks have even farther to go to trend, in fact.

So I’m not exactly sure why you’re stating this.

Of course the real issue is political. And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. And blame everybody else: the war in Ukraine, the pandemic, climate change, foreigners, hoarders... you name it!!! — ssu

Politicians aren’t choosing anything. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Fed — which has become more and more hawkish in terms of money. Interest rates have already been raised 1.5% this year alone and will likely continue.

Inflation is largely due to supply chain disruptions. There’s nothing the Fed can do about that. What the Fed can do — and we see happening — is reverse what it caused: the inflation of three key markets: stocks, bonds, and housing. All are bubbles; some were superbubbles (stocks).

These bubbles bursting will have some effect on overall inflation— but, again, will do nothing whatsoever for semiconductor shortages, wheat supply stocks due to war, or oil/gas supply chains.