Inflation Scaremongering
That is factually correct, but not true…
Famous quotes that should be submitted to the Smithsonian so future generations can see how this generation royally **** up their future…
I don't know about anyone else, but headlines labeling 3.5% inflation as "hot" seem like scaremongering to me.
ml1 said:
I don't know about anyone else, but headlines labeling 3.5% inflation as "hot" seem like scaremongering to me.
Same here. "Still above target" but way down from a few months ago, and lower than other developed countries (Europe)(i think), would be more accurate and more informative imo. (Remembering the early 1980s, among others.)
ml1 said:
I don't know about anyone else, but headlines labeling 3.5% inflation as "hot" seem like scaremongering to me.
of course it is. and it depends on how you decide to report it
NYT coverage looks fine to me. Yesterday's CPI report showed inflation is stickier than many had expected which means the Fed is less likely to cut rates anytime soon -- seven months before an election that's not good news for the incumbent.
I don't see how any of that would be at all controversial or objectionable but sometimes I forget how deep partisanship runs.
What would have been your headline? Let me guess: "Today’s data shows inflation has fallen over 60% from its peak" (from Biden's tweet yesterday)
Smedley said:
NYT coverage looks fine to me. Yesterday's CPI report showed inflation is stickier than many had expected which means the Fed is less likely to cut rates anytime soon -- seven months before an election that's not good news for the incumbent.
I don't see how any of that would be at all controversial or objectionable but sometimes I forget how deep partisanship runs.
What would have been your headline? Let me guess: "Today’s data shows inflation has fallen over 60% from its peak" (from Biden's tweet yesterday)
I'd just write that inflation didn't decline as the Fed had expected.
Do you really think 3.5% inflation is running "hot?"
The reason inflation is a problem for Biden isn't so much that it hasn't declined yet to the arbitrary 2.0 target. It's that people write headlines calling 3.5% "hot."
In historical context the current number is fairly low. I'm old enough to remember two years of double digit inflation. Now that is hot inflation.
And just so you know, the 2% inflation target originated when a New Zealand politician pulled that number out of his **** 35 years ago.
ml1 said:
And just so you know, the 2% inflation target originated when a New Zealand politician pulled that number out of his **** 35 years ago.
what is your recommended number and why is it better than 2%?
ml1 said:
The reason inflation is a problem for Biden isn't so much that it hasn't declined yet to the arbitrary 2.0 target. It's that people write headlines calling 3.5% "hot."
So the reason why inflation is a problem for Biden isn't actually day-to-day prices people pay at grocery stores, restaurants etc vs four years ago - instead it's the media's fault?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
The reason inflation is a problem for Biden isn't so much that it hasn't declined yet to the arbitrary 2.0 target. It's that people write headlines calling 3.5% "hot."
So the reason why inflation is a problem for Biden isn't actually day-to-day prices people pay at grocery stores, restaurants etc vs four years ago - instead it's the media's fault?
considering that the president doesn't control inflation, yes.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
And just so you know, the 2% inflation target originated when a New Zealand politician pulled that number out of his **** 35 years ago.
what is your recommended number and why is it better than 2%?
I'm not an expert but if wages are keeping up with inflation as they are now, I don't see why 3.5% isn't a good target.
Does there really need to be one hard number? Can't the target shift based on overall economic performance?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
And just so you know, the 2% inflation target originated when a New Zealand politician pulled that number out of his **** 35 years ago.
what is your recommended number and why is it better than 2%?
many economists think that the 2% target kept unemployment artificially high for many years, causing unnecessary economic hardship for tens of millions of people and probably costing them trillions of dollars in potential income.
ml1 said:
I'm not an expert but if wages are keeping up with inflation as they are now, I don't see why 3.5% isn't a good target.
Does there really need to be one hard number? Can't the target shift based on overall economic performance?
I’m not an economist but I don’t think your ideas would work.
A lot of the problem with inflation is that it can feed on itself, ie inflation creates more inflation. And runaway inflation is a very very very bad scenario. Like, destroyer of societies and toppler of governments bad.
So I agree with you that 3.5% inflation by itself isn’t the worst thing ever. But 3.5% + the Fed being fine with 3.5% resets expectations…which means 6% is more likely, and then 6% might become 10% and then 20%. And then it’s goodnight Irene.
It’s roughly analogous to the Covid response imo. There never really was mass deadly contagion in the US with hordes of people dying in the hallways of emergency rooms and the like. That was the feared worst case scenario - and our government took reasonable steps to avert that worst case scenario, ie lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, etc.
The Fed has raised rates and is holding those increases (at least for now) — to try to lower inflation from 3.5%, and (arguably more importantly) to guard against any worst-case scenario.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
I'm not an expert but if wages are keeping up with inflation as they are now, I don't see why 3.5% isn't a good target.
Does there really need to be one hard number? Can't the target shift based on overall economic performance?
I’m not an economist but I don’t think your ideas would work.
A lot of the problem with inflation is that it can feed on itself, ie inflation creates more inflation. And runaway inflation is a very very very bad scenario. Like, destroyer of societies and toppler of governments bad.
So I agree with you that 3.5% inflation by itself isn’t the worst thing ever. But 3.5% + the Fed being fine with 3.5% resets expectations…which means 6% is more likely, and then 6% might become 10% and then 20%. And then it’s goodnight Irene.
It’s roughly analogous to the Covid response imo. There never really was mass deadly contagion in the US with hordes of people dying in the hallways of emergency rooms and the like. That was the feared worst case scenario - and our government took reasonable steps to avert that worst case scenario, ie lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, etc.
The Fed has raised rates and is holding those increases (at least for now) — to try to lower inflation from 3.5%, and (arguably more importantly) to guard against any worst-case scenario.
except for the fact that the fed's actions have little to nothing to do with holding down inflation, you're correct.
i.e. you're wrong.
Except for the fact that your tinfoil hat opinion is about the furthest thing from a “fact”, you’re correct.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
I'm not an expert but if wages are keeping up with inflation as they are now, I don't see why 3.5% isn't a good target.
Does there really need to be one hard number? Can't the target shift based on overall economic performance?
I’m not an economist but I don’t think your ideas would work.
A lot of the problem with inflation is that it can feed on itself, ie inflation creates more inflation. And runaway inflation is a very very very bad scenario. Like, destroyer of societies and toppler of governments bad.
So I agree with you that 3.5% inflation by itself isn’t the worst thing ever. But 3.5% + the Fed being fine with 3.5% resets expectations…which means 6% is more likely, and then 6% might become 10% and then 20%. And then it’s goodnight Irene.
It’s roughly analogous to the Covid response imo. There never really was mass deadly contagion in the US with hordes of people dying in the hallways of emergency rooms and the like. That was the feared worst case scenario - and our government took reasonable steps to avert that worst case scenario, ie lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, etc.
The Fed has raised rates and is holding those increases (at least for now) — to try to lower inflation from 3.5%, and (arguably more importantly) to guard against any worst-case scenario.
none of what you are suggesting is happening. Inflation is not spiraling upward.
Thus my reaction to the news coverage and the laying of blame on Biden.
Yes, I am aware that inflation is not spiraling upward. The Fed raising rates 11 times in 2022-23 may have had a little something to do with that.
And if Biden shoulders no blame whatsoever for inflation as you insist, he also deserves no credit for low unemployment or a high stock market. Right? After all, those economic metrics are similarly outside POTUS control.
So scratch a strong economy off the list of reasons to vote for Biden.
Smedley said:
Yes, I am aware that inflation is not spiraling upward. The Fed raising rates 11 times in 2022-23 may have had a little something to do with that.
And if Biden shoulders no blame whatsoever for inflation as you insist, he also deserves no credit for low unemployment or a high stock market. Right? After all, those economic metrics are similarly outside POTUS control.
So scratch a strong economy off the list of reasons to vote for Biden.
this is a silly response. We both know politics requires Biden to take credit for good economic news precisely because he's being blamed for inflation.
In a more rational world these economic indicators wouldn't be laid at the feet of presidential candidates and we be talking about their policy ideas.
But that's not the world we live in where millions of people blame Joe Biden for the price of groceries.
Which isn't being helped by NY Times headlines hyping inflation and hanging it on the president.
I think there's a good case to be made that Biden's various economic packages and stimulus have had something to do with the good economy.
Much stronger than either blaming him for inflation or for crediting the fed for bringing it down.
Famous opening statement…”I am no economist”…
I remember inflation taking off during Covid, trump was asking his “experts” about using uv lights and bleach …and there was no toilet paper to clean up the mess he left behind.
Speaking of media bias, here's an interesting situation.
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
Smedley said:
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
I'm a more-than-occasional listener and your description isn't accurate.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
I'm a more-than-occasional listener and your description isn't accurate.
Ok well I think a 25 year npr veteran's view trumps both of ours.
what specifically about the essay do you find fault with?
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
I'm a more-than-occasional listener and your description isn't accurate.
Ok well I think a 25 year npr veteran's view trumps both of ours.
what specifically about the essay do you find fault with?
I was disagreeing with your description. I wasn't trying to debate the merits of the author's essay with you.
Well my description aligns with what the author writes about, only he goes into great detail. So by disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with him, even if you choose to sidestep addressing or even reading what he wrote.
I can take bias. What I can’t take are media outlets whose news reports and opinion are perforated with holes after I do some poking. NPR passes that test easily.
nohero said:
I was disagreeing with your description. I wasn't trying to debate the merits of the author's essay with you.
Smedley said:
Well my description aligns with what the author writes about, only he goes into great detail. So by disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with him, even if you choose to sidestep addressing or even reading what he wrote.
I think my comments have been pretty clear. You wrote something about your own opinion of NPR, and I commented on that. What Uri Berliner wrote (which I did read) is irrelevant to that.
One way to view an article’s references to “secret flights” (secret, as in the government won’t divulge which commercial flights they are), “national security ‘vulnerabilities’” (“vulnerabilities,” as in a partial quote of “operational vulnerabilities,” and national security, as in repercussions for border security) and “undocumented immigrants” (undocumented, as in no case-settling documents) is that they’re factually correct but not true.