Inflation Scaremongering
Smedley said:
psychological barrier crossed. Downtown SO Exxon today.
I refuse to cross that barrier…I get gas at Morris avenue & Burnett ..that gas station is ridiculous.
Jaytee said:
Smedley said:
psychological barrier crossed. Downtown SO Exxon today.
I refuse to cross that barrier…I get gas at Morris avenue & Burnett ..that gas station is ridiculous.
Well you may need to get yourself a Flintstones car soon, as your options are dwindling. Shell on Valley up to 5.15. Even dumpy Deltas are up to 4.89.
Smedley said:
Well you may need to get yourself a Flintstones car soon, as your options are dwindling. Shell on Valley up to 5.15. Even dumpy Deltas are up to 4.89.
Flinstone cars? These gas prices are an annoying worldwide problem.
You seem really excited about this. More than simply annoyed. Can you no longer afford to drive where you want? Are you so destitute that this is causing you trauma? If not then why all this excitement or commentary?
There are no gasoline subsidies. But there are programs that can alleviate your expenses and hopefully lighten your trauma. Subsidies for utilities, internet connection and phones.
PM me if you need help.
Thanks but I’m good. Just waiting on delivery of my own Flintstones car which is on backorder.
Smedley said:
Well you may need to get yourself a Flintstones car soon, as your options are dwindling. Shell on Valley up to 5.15. Even dumpy Deltas are up to 4.89.
shell has always been the most expensive gas station in maplewood.
RTrent said:
Smedley said:
Well you may need to get yourself a Flintstones car soon, as your options are dwindling. Shell on Valley up to 5.15. Even dumpy Deltas are up to 4.89.
Flinstone cars? These gas prices are an annoying worldwide problem.
You seem really excited about this. More than simply annoyed. Can you no longer afford to drive where you want? Are you so destitute that this is causing you trauma? If not then why all this excitement or commentary?
There are no gasoline subsidies. But there are programs that can alleviate your expenses and hopefully lighten your trauma. Subsidies for utilities, internet connection and phones.
PM me if you need help.
I can't speak for smedley specifically, but yes conservatives seem to be quite excited, even giddy over inflation in general, and specifically gasoline prices. It's their best path to taking back the House and Senate, given how broadly unpopular most of their policies are. And they're probably right, given how irrational the typical voter seems to be. Even if inflation isn't the result of legislative action, and can't be solved by Congress, most voters don't seem to care, and would rather throw a tantrum and take out their frustration on the party in control.
Speaking for myself, I'm hardly excited about inflation, in fact I think it sucks. I am a bit fascinated by seeing a five-handle on gas prices though, for the first time in my nearly half century on this planet.
WRT the politics of it all, I don't think inflation is a function of media scaremongering, as was the initial premise of this thread. I also don't think inflation is transitory; I do think calling inflation "Putin's price hike" is gaslighting; and I don't think "corporate greed" is material to the current round of inflation.
So IMO there are legit reasons why only 28% of voters approve how Biden is handling inflation. You may think the other 72% are all either evil Trumpists or just plain ol' irrational fools, but I would disagree with that assessment.
What do you think Biden could be doing about inflation that he's not currently doing? Or what should he have done earlier?
Smedley said:
So IMO there are legit reasons why only 28% of voters approve how Biden is handling inflation. You may think the other 72% are all either evil Trumpists or just plain ol' irrational fools, but I would disagree with that assessment.
While I agree with Churchill that democracy is the least bad form of government in the long-term, I think it is also the case that Americans are breathtakingly uninformed in matters of governance. So, I don't think that 72% of people have legit reasons for being unhappy with Biden. Certainly it is a huge problem for Democrats, but that doesn't mean that these 72% have anything useful to say in most cases. Some are well-informed. Some are completely uninformed. Others are single-issue voters.
Smedley said:
Speaking for myself, I'm hardly excited about inflation, in fact I think it sucks. I am a bit fascinated by seeing a five-handle on gas prices though, for the first time in my nearly half century on this planet.
WRT the politics of it all, I don't think inflation is a function of media scaremongering, as was the initial premise of this thread. I also don't think inflation is transitory; I do think calling inflation "Putin's price hike" is gaslighting; and I don't think "corporate greed" is material to the current round of inflation.
So IMO there are legit reasons why only 28% of voters approve how Biden is handling inflation. You may think the other 72% are all either evil Trumpists or just plain ol' irrational fools, but I would disagree with that assessment.
first of all, I never claimed "inflation is a function of media scaremongering". What does that even mean?
If you think "corporate greed" is not material, how do you explain record corporate profits?
As for your poll, a question that asks how Biden is handling inflation indicates nothing other than how clueless people are over Biden's power to do anything about it.
What do you think he should do about inflation?
PVW said:
What do you think Biden could be doing about inflation that he's not currently doing? Or what should he have done earlier?
Nothing really now. Biden is saying the right things more or less, meeting with Powell for a photo op, saying it's the #1 priority, etc. But the horse is out of the barn. Treasury Secretary Yellen admitted she was wrong on inflation last year and I think that applies to the whole administration. Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, inflation's fine nope nothing to see here folks. Sometimes the chickens come home to roost.
Smedley said:
Nothing really now. Biden is saying the right things more or less, meeting with Powell for a photo op, saying it's the #1 priority, etc. But the horse is out of the barn. Treasury Secretary Yellen admitted she was wrong on inflation last year and I think that applies to the whole administration. Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, inflation's fine nope nothing to see here folks. Sometimes the chickens come home to roost.
Do you think inflation would have been lower enough to matter politically if there had been no stimulus? I don't, but I also admit I don't have much to base that on, but would be open to any well-grounded discussions on that topic.
It still seems to me that the majority of inflation can be traced to the supply chains still being all messed up from the pandemic and so I think we'd likely still have inflation high enough to be politically dangerous with or without the stimulus.
Well, one plausible argument I could see would be that the fed should have raised interest rates earlier. Not sure if I agree or not, but that seems a plausible argument.
PVW said:
Well, one plausible argument I could see would be that the fed should have raised interest rates earlier. Not sure if I agree or not, but that seems a plausible argument.
Only plausible if the major driver of inflation has been too much demand, which is not clear at all.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Speaking for myself, I'm hardly excited about inflation, in fact I think it sucks. I am a bit fascinated by seeing a five-handle on gas prices though, for the first time in my nearly half century on this planet.
WRT the politics of it all, I don't think inflation is a function of media scaremongering, as was the initial premise of this thread. I also don't think inflation is transitory; I do think calling inflation "Putin's price hike" is gaslighting; and I don't think "corporate greed" is material to the current round of inflation.
So IMO there are legit reasons why only 28% of voters approve how Biden is handling inflation. You may think the other 72% are all either evil Trumpists or just plain ol' irrational fools, but I would disagree with that assessment.
first of all, I never claimed "inflation is a function of media scaremongering". What does that even mean?
If you think "corporate greed" is not material, how do you explain record corporate profits?
As for your poll, a question that asks how Biden is handling inflation indicates nothing other than how clueless people are over Biden's power to do anything about it.
What do you think he should do about inflation?
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Speaking for myself, I'm hardly excited about inflation, in fact I think it sucks. I am a bit fascinated by seeing a five-handle on gas prices though, for the first time in my nearly half century on this planet.
WRT the politics of it all, I don't think inflation is a function of media scaremongering, as was the initial premise of this thread. I also don't think inflation is transitory; I do think calling inflation "Putin's price hike" is gaslighting; and I don't think "corporate greed" is material to the current round of inflation.
So IMO there are legit reasons why only 28% of voters approve how Biden is handling inflation. You may think the other 72% are all either evil Trumpists or just plain ol' irrational fools, but I would disagree with that assessment.
first of all, I never claimed "inflation is a function of media scaremongering". What does that even mean?
If you think "corporate greed" is not material, how do you explain record corporate profits?
As for your poll, a question that asks how Biden is handling inflation indicates nothing other than how clueless people are over Biden's power to do anything about it.
What do you think he should do about inflation?
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
I prefer leaders who can admit to mistakes. This concept of infallibility causes so many problems.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Speaking for myself, I'm hardly excited about inflation, in fact I think it sucks. I am a bit fascinated by seeing a five-handle on gas prices though, for the first time in my nearly half century on this planet.
WRT the politics of it all, I don't think inflation is a function of media scaremongering, as was the initial premise of this thread. I also don't think inflation is transitory; I do think calling inflation "Putin's price hike" is gaslighting; and I don't think "corporate greed" is material to the current round of inflation.
So IMO there are legit reasons why only 28% of voters approve how Biden is handling inflation. You may think the other 72% are all either evil Trumpists or just plain ol' irrational fools, but I would disagree with that assessment.
first of all, I never claimed "inflation is a function of media scaremongering". What does that even mean?
If you think "corporate greed" is not material, how do you explain record corporate profits?
As for your poll, a question that asks how Biden is handling inflation indicates nothing other than how clueless people are over Biden's power to do anything about it.
What do you think he should do about inflation?
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Since about 95% of respondents to that poll probably don't know who Yellen is and what her position is, much less what she said, yeah clueless still seems about right.
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
That's exactly right. Nothing would have changed. When she said she was wrong, she was merely saying that inflation persisted longer than she expected - not that what the administration did was wrong.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
That's exactly right. Nothing would have changed. When she said she was wrong, she was merely saying that inflation persisted longer than she expected - not that what the administration did was wrong.
Well according to you, nobody can do anything about inflation -- not Biden, not the Treasury secretary , not the Fed. So it's odd to me that you apparently "approve" of how Biden is handling inflation. Shouldn't you skip this discussion on here, and if you're asked by a pollster, respond "neutral" or "not applicable"?
What exactly do you approve of?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
That's exactly right. Nothing would have changed. When she said she was wrong, she was merely saying that inflation persisted longer than she expected - not that what the administration did was wrong.
Well according to you, nobody can do anything about inflation -- not Biden, not the Treasury secretary , not the Fed. So it's odd to me that you apparently "approve" of how Biden is handling inflation. Shouldn't you skip this discussion on here, and if you're asked by a pollster, respond "neutral" or "not applicable"?
What exactly do you approve of?
yeah, you're not getting it.
To ask approve or not approve is the wrong question. Neither answer is right. It's like asking if you approve of Biden's handling of the weather.
and you still haven't answered the question of what you think Biden should do.
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
I would argue that what officials say mean something. It sets a tone and a mindset and it can provide confidence (or lack thereof). You're not going to jawbone inflation to zero but to me it means something whether the president and administration figured pooh-pooh it (as they did last year) or take it seriously (as they're doing now).
And there is stuff that they are doing.
If you think what they're doing (and saying) now is pointless, then I guess it doesn't matter whether they did it last year or if they are doing it this year, it's just an academic discussion.
drummerboy said:
and you still haven't answered the question of what you think Biden should do.
Asked and answered.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
That's exactly right. Nothing would have changed. When she said she was wrong, she was merely saying that inflation persisted longer than she expected - not that what the administration did was wrong.
Well according to you, nobody can do anything about inflation -- not Biden, not the Treasury secretary , not the Fed. So it's odd to me that you apparently "approve" of how Biden is handling inflation. Shouldn't you skip this discussion on here, and if you're asked by a pollster, respond "neutral" or "not applicable"?
What exactly do you approve of?
yeah, you're not getting it.
To ask approve or not approve is the wrong question. Neither answer is right. It's like asking if you approve of Biden's handling of the weather.
I trust you've reached out to the pollsters to tell them how dumb they are.
ETA: So wait, seriously what would you say if a pollster called you and asked if you approve or disapprove of Biden't handling of inflation? You wouldn't answer and you'd tell them they're asking the wrong question?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
That's exactly right. Nothing would have changed. When she said she was wrong, she was merely saying that inflation persisted longer than she expected - not that what the administration did was wrong.
Well according to you, nobody can do anything about inflation -- not Biden, not the Treasury secretary , not the Fed. So it's odd to me that you apparently "approve" of how Biden is handling inflation. Shouldn't you skip this discussion on here, and if you're asked by a pollster, respond "neutral" or "not applicable"?
What exactly do you approve of?
yeah, you're not getting it.
To ask approve or not approve is the wrong question. Neither answer is right. It's like asking if you approve of Biden's handling of the weather.
I trust you've reached out to the pollsters to tell them how dumb they are.
you still don't get it. The answers to the poll question do tell us something, just not what you think.
Also, do you not believe that poll questions are sometimes very poorly worded or conceived? Or are they infallible like Nate Silver?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
and you still haven't answered the question of what you think Biden should do.
Asked and answered.
I see no answer to that question in this thread.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary -- the Cabinet member second in line to succeed the President, after the VP --admitted she was wrong about inflation.
Isn't a major administration figure, being wrong about a major issue, a legitimate basis for disapproval? Or is such disapproval "clueless"?
I don't know about you, but I prefer my administration officials to be right about stuff.
Only if it ties to a difference in action. I don't really care what officials says as much as I care about what they do, so for me the relevant question is what the administration would have done differently and how that would have changed things. If the answer is that nothing much would have changed, then no, I don't particularly care.
That's exactly right. Nothing would have changed. When she said she was wrong, she was merely saying that inflation persisted longer than she expected - not that what the administration did was wrong.
Well according to you, nobody can do anything about inflation -- not Biden, not the Treasury secretary , not the Fed. So it's odd to me that you apparently "approve" of how Biden is handling inflation. Shouldn't you skip this discussion on here, and if you're asked by a pollster, respond "neutral" or "not applicable"?
What exactly do you approve of?
yeah, you're not getting it.
To ask approve or not approve is the wrong question. Neither answer is right. It's like asking if you approve of Biden's handling of the weather.
I trust you've reached out to the pollsters to tell them how dumb they are.
you still don't get it. The answers to the poll question do tell us something, just not what you think.
Also, do you not believe that poll questions are sometimes very poorly worded or conceived? Or are they infallible like Nate Silver?
it = your point of view
You're right on that one.
Smedley said:
I would argue that what officials say mean something. It sets a tone and a mindset and it can provide confidence (or lack thereof). You're not going to jawbone inflation to zero but to me it means something whether the president and administration figured pooh-pooh it (as they did last year) or take it seriously (as they're doing now).
And there is stuff that they are doing.
If you think what they're doing (and saying) now is pointless, then I guess it doesn't matter whether they did it last year or if they are doing it this year, it's just an academic discussion.
To the extent that tone and mindset are meaningful, I'd say that the admin was right to downplay inflation. And yet inflation happened anyway, so perhaps tone and mindset don't count for much after all. I'll leave this conversation to those invested in the academic aspects of it then.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
That station has never had a psychological price barrier.