Joe Biden 2021

[washparkhorn 9974]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the Laffer curve as a general concept seems sound.  Now, deriving any usefulness out of it is a mighty tall hill to climb.

I saved this some time ago to remind myself how wrong I was about the Bush tax cuts:

Why the Laffer Curve is garbage

CT VIEWPOINTS 

by JOSH ELLIOTT

JANUARY 18, 2018

Legislators and the voting public have consistently been persuaded by a false premise that if we reduce our tax rates on the wealthy and large corporations, our economy will improve. The rationale goes: By decreasing taxes on these two groups, our gross domestic product will increase due to investment in research and development, bolstered business infrastructure, new job opportunities, better pay and improved business climate which welcomes capital.

This flawed ideology, touted by Arthur Laffer in his book “The Laffer Curve,” rests on theories that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny.

The Laffer Curve simply wears a thin veneer of economic theory. Laffer argues that if we implement a zero percent tax rate, we will raise no revenue. Alternatively, if we tax at 100 percent, we won’t generate any revenue either. There is supposedly some sweet spot, between zero percent and 100 percent for optimal tax receipts.

This model rests on the rational actor model, that people exclusively act in their economic interests at all times and everyone has equal access to the same information. Not only have numerous studies and authors debunked these economic underpinnings, but the model itself is an unreliable predictor of economic outcomes.

There has never been a conclusive study that demonstrates a connection between lowered tax rates on the wealthy and GDP growth or increased tax receipts. During the 1940s and the 1970s, the top marginal tax rate was anywhere between 70 percent and 94 percent. In this same period, we experienced the largest GDP growth our country has ever seen, and we were able to invest in the future of our children, economy and environment.

Spoiler

 

After the 1980s, when the top marginal tax rate began its steady decline, we haven’t seen nearly the GDP gains that we saw during our post-World War II boom. Currently, our top marginal tax rate rests at 39.6 percent.

To understand why The Laffer Curve is garbage economics, we need to look past first order consequences. Rather, we need to try to determine the second and third level effects of the given cause.

Let’s say the top tax rate is a punishing 99 percent of income over $5 million, but all other aspects of the tax code are intact. These income earners are unlikely to take a dollar over that $5 million, but the excess money doesn’t simply evaporate – it came to them through profits the business.

There are two places where this money could go: back into the business or the hands of employees. Shareholders benefit either way, through increased capital reserve or infrastructure investment or happier, better-paid labor. That is one very important purpose of a strong progressive tax structure – it incentivizes those on the top to take less for themselves and invest in their business.

Adjusting income tax rates does not completely remediate the problem. Capital earners pay nearly half of what top income earners pay. It is these capital earners who most distort our economic and political systems. As a result of this tax schema, the share of the economic pie the wealthy command is metastasizing. We need to revisit how we tax capital, too.

Ultimately, the longer term issue is this: The wealthy can hire lobbyists, funnel money to fund supply-side doctrine in our higher education system, and claim complete control of the political system by expending limitless dark money. Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money” is a scary look into how multi-billionaire mega-donors have been perverting the system for decades.

As a state legislator, I receive a weekly supply of laissez-faire doctrine from the Connecticut Business & Industry Association and Yankee Institute. Yet, it is on me to educate myself on economic theory.

With our current trajectory, I worry that our economic and democratic systems are going to break. It may take deep societal fissures before we can harness the will to appropriately tax our wealthy again. There is no reason to believe that we can’t have bread lines again in this country, nor is it unreasonable to believe that if enough people feel that government isn’t working for them, social turbulence will boil over into increased crime or over-reliance on strongmen.

It is important for people to understand exactly why the supply-side doctrine of “give money to rich people” is simply a deception. While the vast majority of us are working longer hours for less pay, burdened by higher tax rates, with the vanishing hope of retiring in comfort, Apple is paying a corporate tax rate of zero percent, CEOs are paying a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries, and conglomerates are amassing at ever-faster rates. When we force the next generation to take on a lifetime’s worth of debt simply to be able to enter the workforce, we have essentially resurrected indentured servitude.

We are exactly where our grandparents were before the Great Depression. While people can sit back and claim to be apolitical, apoliticism is still a form of politicism. We need to act now and institute a tax structure that lifts up our lower and middle class, and grows our economic pie so it can be distributed equitably.

 

State Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden,  represents District 88 in the Connecticut House of Representatives.

https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/

[cactusflinthead 27628]

 

[Firemans4Horn 18535]

2/3 of American’s support the 1.9T package. Only 47% of republican’s against it. 
 

Stop wasting time with fucking means testing and get checks in the mail.

 

Get Biden in front of a camera and say “67% of American’s support $2,000 and 61% support a $15 minimum wage. These are two popular initiatives that we, The Democrats, are implementing. If you’re a Republican voter and your house rep/seanator votes against them call and ask them why” 

[Firemans4Horn 18535]

 

man the lag is terrible today

Edited February 3, 2021 by Firemans4Horn

[elfenix 34782]

as patchy is my congresscritter, and calling him would be as useless as 3D goggles, which centrist dem should i harangue?

[jimmyjazz 47334]

14 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I saved this some time ago to remind myself how wrong I was about the Bush tax cuts:

Why the Laffer Curve is garbage

CT VIEWPOINTS 

by JOSH ELLIOTT

JANUARY 18, 2018

Legislators and the voting public have consistently been persuaded by a false premise that if we reduce our tax rates on the wealthy and large corporations, our economy will improve. The rationale goes: By decreasing taxes on these two groups, our gross domestic product will increase due to investment in research and development, bolstered business infrastructure, new job opportunities, better pay and improved business climate which welcomes capital.

This flawed ideology, touted by Arthur Laffer in his book “The Laffer Curve,” rests on theories that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny.

The Laffer Curve simply wears a thin veneer of economic theory. Laffer argues that if we implement a zero percent tax rate, we will raise no revenue. Alternatively, if we tax at 100 percent, we won’t generate any revenue either. There is supposedly some sweet spot, between zero percent and 100 percent for optimal tax receipts.

This model rests on the rational actor model, that people exclusively act in their economic interests at all times and everyone has equal access to the same information. Not only have numerous studies and authors debunked these economic underpinnings, but the model itself is an unreliable predictor of economic outcomes.

There has never been a conclusive study that demonstrates a connection between lowered tax rates on the wealthy and GDP growth or increased tax receipts. During the 1940s and the 1970s, the top marginal tax rate was anywhere between 70 percent and 94 percent. In this same period, we experienced the largest GDP growth our country has ever seen, and we were able to invest in the future of our children, economy and environment.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

After the 1980s, when the top marginal tax rate began its steady decline, we haven’t seen nearly the GDP gains that we saw during our post-World War II boom. Currently, our top marginal tax rate rests at 39.6 percent.

To understand why The Laffer Curve is garbage economics, we need to look past first order consequences. Rather, we need to try to determine the second and third level effects of the given cause.

Let’s say the top tax rate is a punishing 99 percent of income over $5 million, but all other aspects of the tax code are intact. These income earners are unlikely to take a dollar over that $5 million, but the excess money doesn’t simply evaporate – it came to them through profits the business.

There are two places where this money could go: back into the business or the hands of employees. Shareholders benefit either way, through increased capital reserve or infrastructure investment or happier, better-paid labor. That is one very important purpose of a strong progressive tax structure – it incentivizes those on the top to take less for themselves and invest in their business.

Adjusting income tax rates does not completely remediate the problem. Capital earners pay nearly half of what top income earners pay. It is these capital earners who most distort our economic and political systems. As a result of this tax schema, the share of the economic pie the wealthy command is metastasizing. We need to revisit how we tax capital, too.

Ultimately, the longer term issue is this: The wealthy can hire lobbyists, funnel money to fund supply-side doctrine in our higher education system, and claim complete control of the political system by expending limitless dark money. Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money” is a scary look into how multi-billionaire mega-donors have been perverting the system for decades.

As a state legislator, I receive a weekly supply of laissez-faire doctrine from the Connecticut Business & Industry Association and Yankee Institute. Yet, it is on me to educate myself on economic theory.

With our current trajectory, I worry that our economic and democratic systems are going to break. It may take deep societal fissures before we can harness the will to appropriately tax our wealthy again. There is no reason to believe that we can’t have bread lines again in this country, nor is it unreasonable to believe that if enough people feel that government isn’t working for them, social turbulence will boil over into increased crime or over-reliance on strongmen.

It is important for people to understand exactly why the supply-side doctrine of “give money to rich people” is simply a deception. While the vast majority of us are working longer hours for less pay, burdened by higher tax rates, with the vanishing hope of retiring in comfort, Apple is paying a corporate tax rate of zero percent, CEOs are paying a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries, and conglomerates are amassing at ever-faster rates. When we force the next generation to take on a lifetime’s worth of debt simply to be able to enter the workforce, we have essentially resurrected indentured servitude.

We are exactly where our grandparents were before the Great Depression. While people can sit back and claim to be apolitical, apoliticism is still a form of politicism. We need to act now and institute a tax structure that lifts up our lower and middle class, and grows our economic pie so it can be distributed equitably.

 

State Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden,  represents District 88 in the Connecticut House of Representatives.

https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/

That's a flawed analysis.  The idea that there is a sweet spot for maximum tax revenue doesn't depend on "rational actors" whatsoever.  I mean, we know the two end points -- no tax revenue at both 0% and 100% tax rates, and we know by experience that there is positive revenue at least somewhere in between.  Therefore, there is a maximum.

We just don't really know how to identify the tax rate(s) to achieve that maximum.  It's almost a distinction without a difference, but the concept itself is not fundamentally flawed.  It's 100% correct.

[bad_teammate 13568]

19 minutes ago, elfenix said:

as patchy is my congresscritter, and calling him would be as useless as 3D goggles, which centrist dem should i harangue?

Manchin or Sinema

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

They’re gonna fuck this up again

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

Everyone please call Democratic Congressmen and Senators right now to scream about this.

Find Your Representative | house.gov

Contact Joe Manchin

Contact Kyrsten Sinema

 

[tantric superman 4668]

Isn't the response to them demanding a higher cutoff point simply agreeing as long as the pool of money stays the same -- the people who do get checks get more?  I don't care if the poorer 1/2 get twice as much.

 

[hayden_horn 11403]

23 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Isn't the response to them demanding a higher cutoff point simply agreeing as long as the pool of money stays the same -- the people who do get checks get more?  I don't care if the poorer 1/2 get twice as much.

 

in principle, i agree, but means testing for stimulus based on last year's tax return during an unparalleled pandemic that has cost millions of people their jobs - a person's 2019 w-2 and reported income is worth fuckall for so many people. i'm fortunate that i am still working, but i've lost several coworkers in restructuring directly related to covid-19. they may have mad more than $75k in 2019, but that doesn't mean shit now.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Everyone please call Democratic Congressmen and Senators right now to scream about this.

Find Your Representative | house.gov

Contact Joe Manchin

Contact Kyrsten Sinema

 

Okay, I called Pete Sessions even though it won't do any good but also called several of the Democratic Congresspersons and left messages on their DC machines including Katie Porter just because she's awesome and decided to give Warren a call just for some added emphasis. I'll work my way through the rest of them but it's a long list. Is there a deadline before it won't do any good?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

37 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

in principle, i agree, but means testing for stimulus based on last year's tax return during an unparalleled pandemic that has cost millions of people their jobs - a person's 2019 w-2 and reported income is worth fuckall for so many people. i'm fortunate that i am still working, but i've lost several coworkers in restructuring directly related to covid-19. they may have mad more than $75k in 2019, but that doesn't mean shit now.

Yep. If they want to pull some of it back, then make it subject to income tax. 

[Js1 87291]

Axios said Biden told Dem senators on the call yesterday they aren’t lowering the threshold from $75k but of course that doesn’t make headlines 

[bad_teammate 13568]

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Axios said Biden told Dem senators on the call yesterday they aren’t lowering the threshold from $75k but of course that doesn’t make headlines 

Still good to yell.

[Js1 87291]

Also good news - the organization resolution passed. Dems have the chairs.

The resolution also says in the event of a death, resignation or vacancy by a Dem member of the Senate, Dems retain control until and unless the GOP gets a 51st member. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Still good to yell.

I kept my message brief but did encourage them to hold firm and stick with the big package plan and not whittle away at it. I also added that their fight was important for all Americans  to see that policy is the change you want to see in the world and we support that change for the better. Since my other post, I've called Manchin, Sinema, Hoyer, and am working my way down the list in Congress, leaving messages on machines. I probably need to just craft a copy/paste email, but I like to leave the voice messages, too.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Axios said Biden told Dem senators on the call yesterday they aren’t lowering the threshold from $75k but of course that doesn’t make headlines 

$75k is way too low.

No platform for means testing stimulus, only pavement.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Ok the threat is over. Trump is cooling his fat cankle heels in Florida and has zero real power even if millions of dipshits still worship this orange mushroom dick.

Soon the arrests need to start coming. This criminal and his criminal enterprise almost overthrew the American government, came pretty damn close, and now it’s time to pay the piper. No half measures. Arrests. Prosecution and serious Jail time. No quarter. 

[bad_teammate 13568]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Also good news - the organization resolution passed. Dems have the chairs.

The resolution also says in the event of a death, resignation or vacancy by a Dem member of the Senate, Dems retain control until and unless the GOP gets a 51st member. 

this is good because the average Democratic Senator age is 102

[cactusflinthead 27628]

I'll put this here. Good as any.

 

 

[TexasEd 8269]

5 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

2/3 of American’s support the 1.9T package. Only 47% of republican’s against it. 
 

Stop wasting time with fucking means testing and get checks in the mail.

 

Get Biden in front of a camera and say “67% of American’s support $2,000 and 61% support a $15 minimum wage. These are two popular initiatives that we, The Democrats, are implementing Americans want. If you’re a Republican voter and your house rep/senator votes  plans to vote against them call and ask them why” 

FIFY This is a unifying message.  The voters get it. It's also a pre-emptive strike.

[washparkhorn 9974]

Nice roundup from AP. Joe Biden's Go Big rollout is built around keeping promises made in the campaign. Good.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-personal-taxes-cedric-richmond-coronavirus-pandemic-9cb3f71cbd53f0bcece36268b4a81ed3

For the conservatives just checking in on reality:

• Spoiler

   

  •  Joe Biden did not promise much - at all.
  • That pissed off progressives, who held their tongues and supported Biden enthusiastically.
  • Go Big is too damn small, using CBO measurement tools for fiscal management. 
  • Go Big is not entirely the truth. It is small to progressives - and enormous to the economics-naive  always-trumpers and their ilk.
  • The centrists don't know which way to turn -
    • side with trumpers to appear more all-american stupid, or
    • look at the economic measurement tools from the CBO and recognize more stimulus will be needed.  
  • The neoliberal lads on the right should look at CBO measurements and think like a conservative. 
    • conservatives recognize decay as a risk to the status quo
    • repair. 
  • at the present, the boat is taking on more water than the bilge can pump out due to austerity measures in place since the 1980's. 
    • Fix the bilge pumps or there will be no more boat - from an economics perspective.
  • progressives say follow the science and the data. 
  • I cannot stress this enough - means testing is completely inappropriate for this type of stimulus.
    • The economy needs enough spice flow to refill all channels taken down with Covid.
    • It is the flow of spice - the velocity of money - that is broken.
  • TLDR: Take your damn stimulus and spend it like you would have pre-Covid, if you can.
    • And get vaccinated when it is your turn and wear your damn masks.
    • There will be businesses that never come back from this massive hole in the economy.
      • Look at the large migration office workers to at-home work. It is much cheaper and more time efficient.
      • There will be lot of displacement and help will be needed.
      • Investment in the community that supplies employees and customers pays rewards for all - especially those at the tippy top.
      • The nation's wealth rises upwards. Always has; always will.  
  • Personally, I would subsidize the small businesses you value the most and those who are most threatened, if you have excess and want to invest in your community.
  • Stimulus should be given to all - so all the channels have additional money velocity. 

   

  Hook 'em

Edited February 4, 2021 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9974]

8 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Isn't the response to them demanding a higher cutoff point simply agreeing as long as the pool of money stays the same -- the people who do get checks get more?  I don't care if the poorer 1/2 get twice as much.

 

Money velocity is the big problem with the economy at the present due to covid. We need all channels refilled. If they aren't, we need to then figure out what to do with the huge unemployment and underemployment that will result.  

This stimulus package is for firing up the economic engine and finding out what still works and what doesn't. 

[tantric superman 4668]

5 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Money velocity is the big problem with the economy at the present due to covid. We need all channels refilled. If they aren't, we need to then figure out what to do with the huge unemployment and underemployment that will result.  

This stimulus package is for firing up the economic engine and finding out what still works and what doesn't. 

If there is data to support lesser money velocity if 1/2 the recipients get twice the money, that makes sense.  But do we have that data? 

[wildcat09 29601]

Someone's really pushing these trial balloons:

 

Bernie needs to nix this shit hard.

 

[Red Five 41787]

That's 50k across the board? 50k in NYC is a little different than in Kansas. 

[Js1 87291]

I don't see anything from Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or anyone within the administration quoted on this article. 

I think I'm sick of this shit already - WaPo, Politico, NYT just WANT to make a story out of it so they can go full on "Biden betrays promises to Americans!" - they are all so upset the Biden admin is boring af and not giving them eyeballs. 

The article says "they're listening to proposals" - yeah, and? Biden also "listened" to Senate Republicans for 2 hours about their proposal, told them it's too small and a non-starter and then told Senate Democrats the next day he wasn't going to lower the $75k threshold.  And then Joe Manchin comes out after and says $1.9T is a perfectly fine number for the bill. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Js1

[Js1 87291]

I wonder if Biden and Senate Dems will go for Romney's new proposal -

Permanently provides families $4200/year for children under 6 and $3000/year for children 6-17 in direct cash payments by zeroing out TANFF and CDCC.  Phases out at $200k for single parents and $400k for households. 

This + using Romneycare as the model for Obamacare would somehow end up with Mitt Romney having the most impact on modern American social policy. 

[LurkingHorn 1093]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I wonder if Biden and Senate Dems will go for Romney's new proposal -

Permanently provides families $4200/year for children under 6 and $3000/year for children 6-17 in direct cash payments by zeroing out TANFF and CDCC.  Phases out at $200k for single parents and $400k for households. 

This + using Romneycare as the model for Obamacare would somehow end up with Mitt Romney having the most impact on modern American social policy. 

That's a very intriguing proposal. Googled to find more info and came across this:

Quote

According to an analysis from the centrist Niskanen Center think tank, which has vocally backed child allowance proposals from both parties, the deficit-neutral Romney plan would be highly progressive. They estimate that poverty as they measure it would fall by nearly 14 percent across the board (lifting 5.1 million people out), and by one-third for children.

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I wonder if Biden and Senate Dems will go for Romney's new proposal -

Permanently provides families $4200/year for children under 6 and $3000/year for children 6-17 in direct cash payments by zeroing out TANFF and CDCC.  Phases out at $200k for single parents and $400k for households. 

This + using Romneycare as the model for Obamacare would somehow end up with Mitt Romney having the most impact on modern American social policy. 

Romney's is better than Biden's for sure.

lol it's absolutely hilarious that Mitt Romney is like the policy god of america

[Js1 87291]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Romney's is better than Biden's for sure.

lol it's absolutely hilarious that Mitt Romney is like the policy god of america

Biden's is/was a 1 year proposal for $3600/child under 6 and $3000/child 6-17.  

I think he and Senate Democrats will 100% take Romney's proposal for permanent direct payments, even if it means getting rid of TANF and CDCC, when it gets brought up in the amendment vote-a-rama.  Then it would actually be "bipartisan" and make Joe Manchin happy. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Js1

[Thrawn 540]

Just do away with the income requirements. Then collect it all back from those of us that make above $100k household at tax season.

I promise I will take my half of the check and immediately spend it on several nice bottles of bourbon. I’m sure my wife will spend her half on some arts and crafts bullshit.

The money will immediately hit the economy and the government will get it back from us in the end. So they will break even. But, because I will have several bottles of bourbon to show for it, I will call it a win/win. Even if technically I come out behind.

[Hank Kingsley 21812]

 

[Js1 87291]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Also saw that Bernie's foreign policy guy is headed to State.  

[Hank Kingsley 21812]

Yep. Better things are possible. 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21812]

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

If Biden is thinking, "I'm about to be dead. If I do stuff younger people like they'll build statues of me and I'll be a legend!" then that is marvelous.

[EuroHorn 3295]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

If there is data to support lesser money velocity if 1/2 the recipients get twice the money, that makes sense.  But do we have that data? 

The only thing keeping inflation from sky rocketing is that the velocity of money has been kept in check. But yea, let’s increase the velocity and supply of money and see spending power go down by half 

[Homercles 10206]

All these clowns talking about how trump got more done in four years than anyone...when, provided they stand and hold up, Biden has already erased most of it via ECs and the wheels of government are actually appearing to turn at a rapid pace.  

[David Dennison 19570]

6 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The only thing keeping inflation from sky rocketing is that the velocity of money has been kept in check. But yea, let’s increase the velocity and supply of money and see spending power go down by half 

When was the last time spending power in the United States was reduced by half?

[bad_teammate 13568]

11 minutes ago, Homercles said:

All these clowns talking about how trump got more done in four years than anyone...when, provided they stand and hold up, Biden has already erased most of it via ECs and the wheels of government are actually appearing to turn at a rapid pace.  

Yeah it's a low bar to clear, but Biden is absolutely dominating Donnie.

However... Biden isn't providing the entertainment

[Anastasis 23718]

32 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

Bravo Joe. A step very much in the right direction. I hope that "offensive military actions" is not something that we have to parse.

[washparkhorn 9974]

37 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The only thing keeping inflation from sky rocketing is that the velocity of money has been kept in check. But yea, let’s increase the velocity and supply of money and see spending power go down by half 

I assume you are trolling, because the Eurohorn I knew in the past would never spout such bullshit as a sincerely held belief.

(Remember, we are fighting as a nation against deceleration of the economy, not inflation.)

GDP - Blue

Money supply - Black

Inflation rate - Red

 

I would be happy to take this to the thread of your choice, @EuroHorn

Edited February 4, 2021 by washparkhorn

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Should be no means testing at all: Give $4200 to every household no matter income, or whatever is decided.

[wildcat09 29601]

Every time Republicans blow up the economy and create enormous deflationary pressure, they immediately start fearmongering about the runaway inflation that is sure to result from any attempt to counter the economic ruin they've created. The fact that all of the evidence runs contrary to their theory never seems to cause them to reconsider, though. It's the weirdest thing.

[EuroHorn 3295]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I assume you are trolling, because the Eurohorn I knew in the past would never spout such bullshit as a sincerely held belief.

(Remember, we are fighting as a nation against deceleration of the economy, not inflation.)

GDP - Blue

Money supply - Black

Inflation rate - Red

 

I would be happy to take this to the thread of your choice, @EuroHorn

So you think increasing the velocity of money won’t cause inflation?  
 

I never said we are under inflation now.  But if the velocity of money increases then we will be.  Especially given the amount of money that’s being held in reserve at banks 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by EuroHorn

[washparkhorn 9974]

2 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

So you think increasing the velocity of money won’t cause inflation?  

What is an ideal inflation rate to you?  Serious question.

[EuroHorn 3295]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

What is an ideal inflation rate to you?  Serious question.

Who cares. I was just pointing out the basics of inflation.
 

Quote

The classical theory of inflation, as espoused by the philosopher David Hume and other early thinkers, only considered money growth, which is the increase in the money stock supplied by the government, to be the main cause of inflation, but money growth is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for inflation. The velocity of money must also be considered, since there can be no inflation unless the money is spent. For instance, if the money supply has expanded, but the people take it home and stuff it in their mattresses, then it will have no effect on inflation.

You just need to add this line to your graph above.  Then you can explain why inflation is kept in check 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

Edited February 4, 2021 by EuroHorn

[washparkhorn 9974]

4 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Who cares.

Millions of Americans care.

2% is the Fed Target for inflation and we are struggling to get there. We are at 1.4% despite a 20%+ increase in dollars.  That is a money velocity issue and it bodes poorly for the American or the World economies.

Disinflationary/deflationary headwinds remain strong. 

And deflation is much more difficult to manage than inflation - econ 101.

Good day.