2021 - Is inflation finally back in the conversation?

[tbone_ 14027]

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/1970-stagflation.asp#:~:text=Stagflation%20in%20the%201970s%20combined,above%2021%25%20to%20reduce%20inflation.

[tbone_ 14027]

Over the long term I think you are correct. But in the short term there definitely can be painful disassociations.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

edit: I posted my reply before your last comment.  I agree there might be some short term pain.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Snake Diggity

[B00M 6280]

I didn’t say anything about the tea party’s true motives. It was just relevant, humorous reference point in time. It was nearly impossible then and it’s truly impossible to balance the budget today. 

and I don’t care if it makes sense to you or what you think the future holds, our annual debt servicing is dramatically increasing and significantly eating into the budget. Look it up for yourself 

[52-80 19104]

17 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

We're inching close to "if you don't love it, leave it".

What about “if you threaten to leave it, make good on your word” ?

[Snake Diggity 4614]

51 minutes ago, B00M said:

I didn’t say anything about the tea party’s true motives. It was just relevant, humorous reference point in time. It was nearly impossible then and it’s truly impossible to balance the budget today. 

and I don’t care if it makes sense to you or what you think the future holds, our annual debt servicing is dramatically increasing and significantly eating into the budget. Look it up for yourself 

I’ve “looked it up for myself”.  I don’t put myself forward as some kind of expert but you’re gonna have to put out a better argument than “I don’t care if it makes sense to you, we’re fucked”.  

In fiscal 2021, the average interest rate on federal debt was a record-low 1.605%.  Interest as a percent of gdp is about 60% of what it was in 1991.  Rates will have to stay as high as they are now for quite awhile before rates start causing a debt service crisis. 

[tbone_ 14027]

We're inching close to "if you don't love it, leave it".

I’ve never understood this. Well, I mean I do understand it - it’s an overly simplistic logical crutch that feels good to say and rally around.

But the reality is fuck you. I was born here same as you. And so was that guy and that girl and probably all those other people who you disagree with. We all have exact same right to an opinion about what this country should be as you. You don’t get exclusivity of mantra just because you think your opinion is more right.

You know what you get? One vote. Same as me. So fuck off with that love it or leave it shit.

/rant over

[52-80 19104]

4 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

As it relates to tax policy, I’d be fine with a flat tax with no deductions of any kind, provided there was a massive tax on large estates (something like 90% on everything over $10,000,000).  As it stands we have a progressive tax structure the allows wealthy people to end up paying a lower effective tax rate than poor people.  That’s insane.

I think the amount we spend on education and healthcare is stupidly low.  I believe it would be pretty easy to balance our budget and fund the things I value without hurting the economy if we were able to keep politicians from being for sale, although I don’t know how that can change.

Taxes function as incentives. No deductions of any kind makes for a rigid society. There are legitimate and agreeable reasons to give  tax advantage (first time homebuyer credit, tax free retirement plans, child credit, etc). They simply need to be reevaluated on a more frequent basis, to eliminate grandfathered advantages past their due life. 

The progressive tax structure does not confer an advantage to wealthy people to pay lower effective rate. A Nevadan with straight $100k earned income vs $1,000k earned income as salary, with no deductions, what are their effective rates?

How can the current budget be “easily” balanced. Without arguing at all whether current spending is high or low, its already contributing to a large deficit. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

2 hours ago, B00M said:

MLB laughs at your salary cap argument. 

I wager you’d have immense difficulty balancing the US budget while funding the things you care about without wrecking our economy. If it was going to happen, the time to try to balance our budget was when the Tea Party was a thing. With todays elevated interest rates, mandatory spending + Debt Payments = 100% of tax revenue. Every dollar toward discretionary spending is deficit spending. In other words, with a balanced federal budget, even if you spend $0 on US Defense, you have $0 for additional healthcare and education spending. Actually it’s even worse, you still need to find like $900B to cut. 

Without a massive technological break thru and productivity bump from something like AI, there will be extreme financial pain in our lifetimes. 
 

 

 

I vote to Increase taxes and cut spending. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26323]

5 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

As it relates to the topic of this thread, I don’t think the majority of the inflation we have seen over the last 2-3 years can be attributed to government spending.  The last stimulus package that was passed in 2021 was unnecessary but the inflation we’ve seen has been more a result of supply shocks resulting from geopolitical instability and the pandemic than simply oversupply of dollars and too much govt spending.

 the supply shock was the match that lit the fire, but two decades of debt-financed tax cuts certainly qualifies as spending in my book and contributed materially to the current climate.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Snake Diggity 4614]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

This isn’t a bad take in that the supply shock was the match that lit the fire, but two decades of free money and debt-financed tax cuts certainly qualifies as spending in my book.

I find it hard to believe there’s a 20 year lag on primary causes of inflation.

Fiscal overstimulus and deficit spending certainly contributed to inflation.  But if it weren’t for the other factors (Russia, pandemic), I doubt we’d be seeing inflation “back in the conversation”.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

31 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

How can the current budget be “easily” balanced. Without arguing at all whether current spending is high or low, its already contributing to a large deficit. 

Your question demands an oversimplified answer (and yes I know you’re just repeating my own words).  Roll spending back to 2018 levels (4109B).  Tax at 2022 levels (4174B).  That budget would balance.  Any expenditures above that have to be paid for with equivalent receipts (I.e., tax increases).  Any further back and forth about the viability of that becomes a much deeper argument.

[jimmyjazz 45589]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

What about “if you threaten to leave it, make good on your word” ?

I couldn't give a damn.  That's a lot less egregious than having some asshat insinuate that my vote doesn't and shouldn't count.  

[52-80 19104]

1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

Your question demands an oversimplified answer (and yes I know you’re just repeating my own words).  Roll spending back to 2018 levels (4109B).  Tax at 2022 levels (4174B).  That budget would balance.  Any expenditures above that have to be paid for with equivalent receipts (I.e., tax increases).  Any further back and forth about the viability of that becomes a much deeper argument.

im just poking claims of it being easy because my own prior reflexive prejudice was that defense was the great big elephant and and cutting that would solve everything, as if everything else was comparatively dimunitive

turns out, medicare is almost dollar to dollar the same as defense.  medicaid is another 1x on top of that.  income security is another 1x on top of top -- which itself is different from social security, which is the largest single category of spending. 

i dont know what the "right" mix is, and this doesnt mean defense isnt too large (US is still far more involved than i prefer), but i dont think theres an easy and obvious trim here.  what is obvious is this exceeds govt intake, and for the quality of life that the US provides, its tax rates are too generous. 

 

and this picture here, superficially, the corporate income tax looks laughably small

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

im just poking claims of it being easy because my own prior reflexive prejudice was that defense was the great big elephant and and cutting that would solve everything, as if everything else was comparatively dimunitive

turns out, medicare is almost dollar to dollar the same as defense.  medicaid is another 1x on top of that.  income security is another 1x on top of top -- which itself is different from social security, which is the largest single category of spending. 

i dont know what the "right" mix is, and this doesnt mean defense isnt too large (US is still far more involved than i prefer), but i dont think theres an easy and obvious trim here.  what is obvious is this exceeds govt intake, and for the quality of life that the US provides, its tax rates are too generous. 

 

and this picture here, superficially, the corporate income tax looks laughably small

I’ve known for awhile that DoD isn’t the behemoth it was rumored to be.  But I like that SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are tied to separate revenue streams.  To me it would make the average person a lot more aware if each department’s budget was tied to separate tax broken out on people’s checks.  If it was broken out like this:

DoD tax

HHS (Medicare/Medicaid) tax

Treasury tax

Social Security tax

Dept of Education tax

All others tax 

DoD, HHS, Treasury, SS, and DoE make up 87% of the federal budget.  I think people would be a lot more receptive to paying taxes and more sensitive to the budget deficit (Treasury tax).

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

On 5/13/2023 at 5:41 PM, Snake Diggity said:

This thread is off topic like a motherfucker.

Every now and then the CR leaks. 

[Captainant 27485]

19 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Taxes function as incentives. No deductions of any kind makes for a rigid society. There are legitimate and agreeable reasons to give  tax advantage (first time homebuyer credit, tax free retirement plans, child credit, etc). They simply need to be reevaluated on a more frequent basis, to eliminate grandfathered advantages past their due life. 

The progressive tax structure does not confer an advantage to wealthy people to pay lower effective rate. A Nevadan with straight $100k earned income vs $1,000k earned income as salary, with no deductions, what are their effective rates?

How can the current budget be “easily” balanced. Without arguing at all whether current spending is high or low, its already contributing to a large deficit. 

You're too zoomed in and focused on the individual when you're talking about how "taxes function". Macroeconomically, taxes also reduce the money supply by returning dollars back to the original issuer.

In 2017 when the TCAJ cut corporate and millionaire+ taxes, we saw a surge in stock price and earnings and a surge in secondary and tertiary borrowing off that new value. The money supply EXPLODED! And funny enough, the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and now we have a worse debt crunch for very serious and fine people like fatty and cheese to concern troll over and use as bait to argue for further social cuts. 

Lower taxes on the greatest holders of capital means that there's gonna be more money flowing around because of their outsized ability to affect economic trends. Hell, Elon was able to spike TSLA up 10x and then take out loans on that increased value and STILL HOLD the original shares! Everything is leveraged to the tits, everywhere. Cutting school lunches and public heating ain't gonna make the capital holders reduce their leverage

Edited May 15, 2023 by Captainant

[bluto 4895]

20 hours ago, tbone_ said:

I’ve never understood this. Well, I mean I do understand it - it’s an overly simplistic logical crutch that feels good to say and rally around.

But the reality is fuck you. I was born here same as you. And so was that guy and that girl and probably all those other people who you disagree with. We all have exact same right to an opinion about what this country should be as you. You don’t get exclusivity of mantra just because you think your opinion is more right.

You know what you get? One vote. Same as me. So fuck off with that love it or leave it shit.

/rant over

When some water head has thrown that around in regard to some common sense approach to a problem that doesn’t fit their political stance… why the fuck should I have to leave it, what’s wrong with wanting change and improvement and voting/working for that. Feels like Michael Bolton in office space, why the hell should I have to change my name. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Cutting school lunches and public heating ain't gonna make the capital holders reduce their leverage

Everyone should get everything for free or it's not fair.

Kindergarten thinking.

[Captainant 27485]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Everyone should get everything for free or it's not fair.

Kindergarten thinking.

Don't know how you got from what I posted to your version, but whatever you say, rittenhouse trial meme man

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Everyone should get everything for free or it's not fair.

Kindergarten thinking.

Especially since Elno can just borrow against his wealth!!11!

[Snake Diggity 4614]

36 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Especially since Elno can just borrow against his wealth!!11!

 

2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Everyone should get everything for free or it's not fair.

Kindergarten thinking.

Do you both deny that access to increased capital is a compounding competitive advantage?

Do you believe that wealthy people have earned a competitive advantage by simple virtue of their wealth, and that advantage should be able to be passed down to their descendants?

Edited May 15, 2023 by Snake Diggity

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

8 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Do you believe that wealthy people have earned a competitive advantage by simple virtue of their wealth, and that advantage should be able to be passed down to their descendants?

I make choices that will benefit my son.  Others make poor decisions that do not benefit their children. Do you believe he should be punished by my behavior and others rewarded for their bad behavior?

[fattyflattie 4636]

14 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Do you believe that wealthy people have earned a competitive advantage by simple virtue of their wealth, and that advantage should be able to be passed down to their descendants?

Absolutely. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Captainant 27485]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

I make choices that will benefit my son.  Others make poor decisions that do not benefit their children. Do you believe he should be punished by my behavior and others rewarded for their bad behavior?

I don't believe that someone being poor indicates that they are lower down the hierarchy from me and deserving of scorn, for one.

I do believe that others getting help to be successful does not take away from my own success.

 

The bolded is just pure fucking faff and bullshit. In what world does someone receiving welfare constitute a punishment for your child? You have an impressively trained grievance and victimhood complex.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I make choices that will benefit my son.  Others make poor decisions that do not benefit their children. Do you believe he should be punished by my behavior and others rewarded for their bad behavior?

You didn’t answer my question but I’ll answer yours.

Being born without a competitive advantage isn’t a punishment, it’s equality.  I certainly believe there should be limits to the unearned advantages one child should receive over another.  

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Absolutely. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

Not surprising at all, but ignorant, shameful, and pathetic nonetheless.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

 I certainly believe there should be limits to the unearned advantages one child should receive over another.  

You also believe you could easily establish a budget to reduce the deficit.   So why should we care what you believe?  I believe things, too.  See, listen to me!

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You also believe you could easily establish a budget to reduce the deficit.   So why should we care what you believe?  I believe things, too.  See, listen to me!

Yeah but the difference is, you are universally recognized as a fucking moron (except in the fishing thread).

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, Snake Diggity said:

Yeah but the difference is, you are universally recognized as a fucking moron (except in the fishing thread).

Only by idiots in the CR.  If not, I'd probably not have 2x the rep you do.   Hrrr drrr, inheritance is bad and RaCiSt!!1  Fuck outta here. 

[Snake Diggity 4614]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Only by idiots in the CR.  If not, I'd probably not have 2x the rep you do.   Hrrr drrr, inheritance is bad and RaCiSt!!1  Fuck outta here. 

Who said shit about race?  You’re a fucking witless cliche.

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, Snake Diggity said:

Who said shit about race?  You’re a fucking witless cliche.

Sorry I jumped ahead to your next argument.  

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Sorry I jumped ahead to your next argument.  

Cool.  Nice rep smack.  Maybe post your paycheck next.

[Bozo_Casanova 26323]

23 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

I find it hard to believe there’s a 20 year lag on primary causes of inflation.

Fiscal overstimulus and deficit spending certainly contributed to inflation.  But if it weren’t for the other factors (Russia, pandemic), I doubt we’d be seeing inflation “back in the conversation”.

This is maybe beyond the scope of the thread, but I agree in part - until Russia+Pandemic+Supply Shock, consumption kept up with the money supply enough to keep inflation in check. That said, when those things happened we suddenly found ourselves in a tight spot - needing to constrain the money supply and looking up at a mountain of debt, at the very moment when stimulus would help keep us out of recession. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

14 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

You didn’t answer my question but I’ll answer yours.

Sorry. 

To answer your question I believe that if people make choices they should benefit from those choices. You can call it an "advantage" but I disagree with the term. 

 

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Cool.  Nice rep smack.  Maybe post your paycheck next.

Oh I don't know.  I do pretty well, but I'm not sure how I'd stack up against someone who could easily budget and fix one of the biggest issues out country has faced since ever.  That's got to be a pretty big brain, considering how no one has gotten it right.  Someone that intelligent has to be pulling in beaucuop bucks. 

[Captainant 27485]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is maybe beyond the scope of the thread, but I agree in part - until Russia+Pandemic+Supply Shock, consumption kept up with the money supply enough to keep inflation in check. That said, when those things happened we suddenly found ourselves in a tight spot - needing to constrain the money supply and looking up at a mountain of debt, at the very moment when stimulus would help keep us out of recession. 

It's almost like dumping the majority of our stimulus capacity into the economy during a hot period (the 2017 TCAJ Act) left us limited and bad options when we actually needed to pull the ripcord!

But man, wasn't that a fun few quarters of growth?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In what world does someone receiving welfare constitute a punishment for your child?

I don't and I disagree with the premise of the question. Regardless we are discussing tax policy & it's effect on inflation. Welfare and other spending have an effect on inflation because we are in debt as a nation. 

 

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You have an impressively trained grievance and victimhood complex.

You talk quite a bit. How much extra do you send to the government every year or are you just virtue signaling? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26323]

Just now, Captainant said:

It's almost like dumping the majority of our stimulus capacity into the economy during a hot period (the 2017 TCAJ Act) left us limited and bad options when we actually needed to pull the ripcord!

But man, wasn't that a fun few quarters of growth?

exactly. As it turns out, cocaine is not food. 

[Snake Diggity 4614]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Sorry. 

To answer your question I believe that if people make choices they should benefit from those choices. You can call it an "advantage" but I disagree with the term. 

 

Hmm.  I wonder how you would define the word “advantage”.  It also seems like you think the benefit of your choices should extend beyond you to other people.  So you’re not about benefitting the individual, you’re about benefitting a community of people.  Only, you want to define the community as only to include you and your descendants.  I understand the sentiment but I think it’s really fucked up that you’re willing to sentence innocent children to a harder path.  Especially considering how needless that is.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I don't know.  I do pretty well, but I'm not sure how I'd stack up against someone who could easily budget and fix one of the biggest issues out country has faced since ever.  That's got to be a pretty big brain, considering how no one has gotten it right.  Someone that intelligent has to be pulling in beaucuop bucks. 

That’s right, bitch.

[fattyflattie 4636]

4 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

 I understand the sentiment but I think it’s really fucked up that you’re willing to sentence innocent children to a harder path.

Their parents can do something about that.  Pretty simple really.  Unless we are talking about orphaned children, and then you're talking statistical anomalies.  

3 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

That’s right, bitch.

Lol.  I'd expect you to be really sure about that, too.  Like everything else you've been so nails on. 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

4 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

So you’re not about benefitting the individual, you’re about benefitting a community of people.

On the contrary, I believe that your positive actions benefit the community better. Creating business, for example, benefit people directly. 

7 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I think it’s really fucked up that you’re willing to sentence innocent children to a harder path.

I would argue that keeping families reliant on the government has done more generational damage than "the wealthy" have ever done.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Their parents can do something about that.  Pretty simple really.  Unless we are talking about orphaned children, and then you're talking statistical anomalies.  

Lol.  I'd expect you to be really sure about that, too.  Like everything else you've been so nails on. 

 

That’s right, bitch.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

On the contrary, I believe that your positive actions benefit the community better. Creating business, for example, benefit people directly. 

I would argue that keeping families reliant on the government has done more generational damage than "the wealthy" have ever done.

Ah, yes, trickle-down economics.  The tried and proven way to sustained economic prosperity for all.  LoLz.

 Of course!  Please weave me the tale of the child born into poverty who is worse off from receiving healthcare, food, and education.

[fattyflattie 4636]

4 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

That’s right, bitch.

Here's what I know.  Sorry for the kids your pining for.  But mine will have an "advantage".  And theirs, too.  

[Snake Diggity 4614]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Here's what I know.  Sorry for the kids your pining for.  But mine will have an "advantage".  And theirs, too.  

That’s really shitty of you.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, Snake Diggity said:

That’s really shitty of you.

Yeah, my kids will probably hate me for it.   

[52-80 19104]

15 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

(A) It also seems like you think the benefit of your choices should extend beyond you to other people.  So you’re not about benefitting the individual, you’re about benefitting a community of people.  Only, you want to define the community as only to include you and your descendants. 

(B) I understand the sentiment but I think it’s really fucked up that you’re willing to sentence innocent children to a harder path. 

Please explain to me, as if I was a CR poster, how one point follows the other.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, my kids will probably hate me for it.   

That’s funny.  If by the unlikely chance your kids break the cycle and end up as halfway decent human beings, they probably will look back on the worldview you espouse and think “man, my dad was a piece of shit”.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, Snake Diggity said:

That’s funny.  If by the unlikely chance your kids break the cycle and end up as halfway decent human beings, they probably will look back on the worldview you espouse and think “man, my dad was a piece of shit”.

Doubt it.  Maybe if they become CR posters, but by then, I'm dead and wife fell for a shitheel. 

Should I not be forcing them to watch Gordon Gecko clips?