Inflation Scaremongering

drummerboy said:

preach it Atrios!

Speaking of confirmation bias …

The accusation of confirmation bias only applies if you can show where my research is wrong or that I'm ignoring countering data.

Where your research is wrong: PCE hasn’t been on a year-long downward trend.

Where you’re ignoring countering data: Base effects.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

preach it Atrios!

Speaking of confirmation bias …

The accusation of confirmation bias only applies if you can show where my research is wrong or that I'm ignoring countering data.

Where your research is wrong: PCE hasn’t been on a year-long downward trend.

Where you’re ignoring countering data: Base effects.

sez you

and I know what a base effect is

also worth squeezing in:

the exception proves the rule

also, the atrios post has nothing to do with whether inflation is moderating or not, so - whut?


Hot take -- Americans care more about rising gas prices specifically than inflation in general. 8% inflation with moderate gas prices would be less politically dangerous than 5% inflation with high gas prices.


drummerboy said:

sez you …

I hope you got some sleep.


PVW said:

Hot take -- Americans care more about rising gas prices specifically than inflation in general. 8% inflation with moderate gas prices would be less politically dangerous than 5% inflation with high gas prices.

Interesting thought. 

And there's not a helluva lot that government can do to ameliorate gas prices, especially in the current supply environment.


jimmurphy said:

PVW said:

Hot take -- Americans care more about rising gas prices specifically than inflation in general. 8% inflation with moderate gas prices would be less politically dangerous than 5% inflation with high gas prices.

Interesting thought. 

And there's not a helluva lot that government can do to ameliorate gas prices, especially in the current supply environment.

Sanders wanted to ban fracking for oil and gas entirely, both in 2016 and 2020. The pain at the pump would have been a lot worse had fracking been banned entirely, as well as the cost of natural gas to heat your home. Alternative sources wouldn't have been able to replace oil and gas as fast as Sanders wanted to eliminate fracking. At least Hilary wanted to continue drilling for natural gas as a bridge to alternative energy. 

Biden still villifies the oil and gas industry, while asking them to produce and refine more oil. 

eta - Biden won't even meet with executives of the oil and gas companies. He lets his cabinet members meet wth them.

 


I should add to the above that Biden and his cabinet want to ban the export of oil and refined products. Biden just doesn't understand how the oil industry works. U.S. exports of crude oil add to the worldwide supply of oil. Most of the of the oil produced in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana  is light sweet crude. U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast use heavy sour crude. What happens is that U.S. producers of light sweet crude trade it for heavy sour crude, that can be used in U.S. refineries. If Biden were to ban exports of U.S. oil, the U.S. refineries wouldn't be able to refine as much as they do now. 

Biden just doesn't understand the global oil market. 


So from an abstract, ideal policy POV, gas is clearly still too cheap even now. We need to transition off energy sources that are net positive in their carbon output, and basic market theory tells us that the best way to get people to consume less of something is for it to cost more.

But in the real world where people live, we're still very much dependent on oil and gas for.. pretty much everything. Telling your $15/hour worker to just suck it up isn't a winning political strategy, and in order to do things like orient government policy toward transitioning off fossil fuels you have to win elections.

To engage in a bit of thread crossing, I wish Democrats would act more progressively but talk more moderately, eg in this case don't be so showy about demonizing oil and gas but put a lot more effort into electrifying everything the federal government runs and encourage states to do the same without drawing a lot of attention to it. Talk about energy independence, about how we're aggressively pursuing electrical independence to protect the American consumer from being blackmailed by Russia, don't talk about "green jobs" but about "jobs", etc. Talk less, do more, and when you talk frame it very strongly as common sense middle America.


PVW said:

So from an abstract, ideal policy POV, gas is clearly still too cheap even now. We need to transition off energy sources that are net positive in their carbon output, and basic market theory tells us that the best way to get people to consume less of something is for it to cost more.

But in the real world where people live, we're still very much dependent on oil and gas for.. pretty much everything. Telling your $15/hour worker to just suck it up isn't a winning political strategy, and in order to do things like orient government policy toward transitioning off fossil fuels you have to win elections.

To engage in a bit of thread crossing, I wish Democrats would act more progressively but talk more moderately, eg in this case don't be so showy about demonizing oil and gas but put a lot more effort into electrifying everything the federal government runs and encourage states to do the same without drawing a lot of attention to it. Talk about energy independence, about how we're aggressively pursuing electrical independence to protect the American consumer from being blackmailed by Russia, don't talk about "green jobs" but about "jobs", etc. Talk less, do more, and when you talk frame it very strongly as common sense middle America.

because the typical moderate Democrat is owned by business interests, talk is all they are prepared to do. 


PVW said:

So from an abstract, ideal policy POV, gas is clearly still too cheap even now. We need to transition off energy sources that are net positive in their carbon output, and basic market theory tells us that the best way to get people to consume less of something is for it to cost more.

But in the real world where people live, we're still very much dependent on oil and gas for.. pretty much everything. Telling your $15/hour worker to just suck it up isn't a winning political strategy, and in order to do things like orient government policy toward transitioning off fossil fuels you have to win elections.

To engage in a bit of thread crossing, I wish Democrats would act more progressively but talk more moderately, eg in this case don't be so showy about demonizing oil and gas but put a lot more effort into electrifying everything the federal government runs and encourage states to do the same without drawing a lot of attention to it. Talk about energy independence, about how we're aggressively pursuing electrical independence to protect the American consumer from being blackmailed by Russia, don't talk about "green jobs" but about "jobs", etc. Talk less, do more, and when you talk frame it very strongly as common sense middle America.

Hear, hear.


The assumption that these people care about ordinary Americans is where the thinking goes sideways.


terp said:

The assumption that these people care about ordinary Americans is where the thinking goes sideways.

I'm curious what you would consider to be "caring about ordinary Americans".


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.