Recession it is...

[Aloha Hoosier]

Cmon man. He hasn't been in Washington that long. Nixon was President when he became a Senator.

What?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

you're right about the 7 appointed people, just like 9 appointed dictators answerable to no one ever.

wrong about inflation, just like the rest of the sheep.

we have inflation, because those driving it have no effective competition, or are controlled by the same entities that control their competition, thus can behave as monopolies/oligopolies.

we have inflation, because no one or thing is stopping it.

not rocket science.

Whatever you wrote there, few read it and no one took it seriously. You’re an old guy, right? Why do you write like a 12 year old that got into her mother’s Twitter account?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

And people wonder why The Economist hasn’t been taken seriously for a while

The silver linings of a recession

Lower inflation and greener energy are worth the price of a short downturn

www.economist.com

Lower inflation and greener energy are worth the price of a short downturn​

 

[Sope Creek]

Yeah I often wonder how they came up with some of their ideas. You have a person working and they are paying into SS so they are paying back a certain amount of what they are getting and they want to penalize that person. I guess they want to kick the old folks (me) out of the work force to make room for the next generation.

Another one I've never understood is getting penalized for not taking Medicare on time. Why would you penalize a person for not enrolling in a program where they (government) are losing money. In other words, the monthly premium for Medicare does not cover the cost associated with providing it.

My guess is that was the thinking re: the social security penalty. But that was then and this is now.

Re: Medicare, my guess is that the thinking was/is that Medicare is supposed to be like insurance . . . you can't get it only when you need it.

 

[Sope Creek]

And people wonder why The Economist hasn’t been taken seriously for a while

The silver linings of a recession

Lower inflation and greener energy are worth the price of a short downturn

www.economist.com

Lower inflation and greener energy are worth the price of a short downturn​

You're channeling your John Maynard Keynes . . . when he said that in the long run we're all dead.

So which isn't worth it . . . lower inflation or greener energy? Just curious . . . .

 

[NPT]

What?

I think he's just being sarcastic.

 

[TomEric4756]

And people wonder why The Economist hasn’t been taken seriously for a while

The silver linings of a recession

Lower inflation and greener energy are worth the price of a short downturn

www.economist.com

Lower inflation and greener energy are worth the price of a short downturn​

Yes The Economist hasn’t believed in Scotland’s Adam Smith’s invisible hand (free market economies) for some time now.

Even Keynes didn’t believe in command economies. He wanted to regulate the excesses of free markets.

Less available energy means less economic activity … less economic activity is the gateway to a dystopian future as there must be less of everything. Less available energy (scarcity) is evidenced by higher prices.

Germany tried the path to 100% renewable energy and did a u-turn. Solar and Wind powered kW have higher capital costs per kW. Commanding higher energy prices to recoup the capital investment will price out billions of consumers from the lifestyles they enjoy today.

 

[Lucy01]

I think he's just being sarcastic.

I wish you’d give me that benefit of doubt🤔

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're channeling your John Maynard Keynes . . . when he said that in the long run we're all dead.

So which isn't worth it . . . lower inflation or greener energy? Just curious . . . .

Lol.

Green energy does not cause inflation. Energy ignorance and dogma contributes to inflation. We have an abundance of energy ignorance.

 

[NPT]

I wish you’d give me that benefit of doubt🤔

Oh I know most of yours are snark and readily admit that I chuckle at a lot of them.

 

[Lucy01]

Oh I know most of yours are snark and readily admit that I chuckle at a lot of them.

😁

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I still think it's a political winner to do away with the $1 for every $2 earned penalty on early social security recipients. No reason for it when the economy is hurting for workers. And if there gets to be a surplus of unemployed folks, reinstate the penalty . . . maybe if unemployment hits 5% or 6%.

SS can’t take the hit. Used to be that SS benefits all were reduced with earned income in excess of certain levels. . Congress eliminated that. Now just early benefits are offset. I’m good with that.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

You're channeling your John Maynard Keynes . . . when he said that in the long run we're all dead.

So which isn't worth it . . . lower inflation or greener energy? Just curious . . . .

it’s pathetic gaslighting from a supposed magazine about economics to make such a dumb statement.

It has to do with less energy consumption because we’re in a recession. not greener energy. Greener energy was a major cause of this downturn. the economist doesn’t seems to care about the current and future malaise because “Green”.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I still think it's a political winner to do away with the $1 for every $2 earned penalty on early social security recipients. No reason for it when the economy is hurting for workers. And if there gets to be a surplus of unemployed folks, reinstate the penalty . . . maybe if unemployment hits 5% or 6%.

what SS penalty are you talking about?

as for the economy hurting for workers, any time an employer feels the need the need to raise the wages he's offering, said employer thinks there's not enough workers.

the need to increase wages to get people to work for them, is employers' definition of not enough workers.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yeah I often wonder how they came up with some of their ideas. You have a person working and they are paying into SS so they are paying back a certain amount of what they are getting and they want to penalize that person. I guess they want to kick the old folks (me) out of the work force to make room for the next generation.

Another one I've never understood is getting penalized for not taking Medicare on time. Why would you penalize a person for not enrolling in a program where they (government) are losing money. In other words, the monthly premium for Medicare does not cover the cost associated with providing it.

if someone 65 has employer health insurance and can prove it, there is no penalty for not taking medicare at 65.

what the govt doesn't want, and obviously so, is those eligible for medicare who don't have any other insurance, not taking, thus not paying into, medicare, until they get sick or injured, then wanting to sign up for it.

no insurance system can work, if those benefiting from it can wait until they get sick or injured, and then pick it up.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yes The Economist hasn’t believed in Scotland’s Adam Smith’s invisible hand (free market economies) for some time now.

Even Keynes didn’t believe in command economies. He wanted to regulate the excesses of free markets.

Less available energy means less economic activity … less economic activity is the gateway to a dystopian future as there must be less of everything. Less available energy (scarcity) is evidenced by higher prices.

Germany tried the path to 100% renewable energy and did a u-turn. Solar and Wind powered kW have higher capital costs per kW. Commanding higher energy prices to recoup the capital investment will price out billions of consumers from the lifestyles they enjoy today.

"Solar and Wind powered kW have higher capital costs per kW".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

higher than what? where's your accounting for that statement.

and yes, any new energy source will have initial capital start up costs. DUH!

that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue them, or that the long term gains don't exceed the initial short term down side.

as for your statement,

"Less available energy means less economic activity … less economic activity is the gateway to a dystopian future as there must be less of everything. Less available energy (scarcity) is evidenced by higher prices".

that's just ridiculous made up gibberish, you also can't account for.

there is no energy shortage in the US, thus any increases in energy prices are not driven by supply, are they.



pricing 101,

a company is going to charge as much as they can for their product or service, until there is some opposing force, such as market competition, or loss of volume eclipsing larger margin gains.

the industries driving inflation don't have market competition holding prices down, and don't see volume losses eclipsing margin gains.

this isn't rocket science.

no one needs to be an economist to know a seller will charge all he can for a good or service, until some opposing market force forces otherwise.

current inflation is 100% driven by said lack of opposing market forces to drive prices back down.

in other words, effective monopolization of industries has eliminated competitive pricing forces.

has absolutely nothing to do with anything else.

that said, there always are, and will be, shortages in this or that product or service that will cause a price increase for said product or service while said shortage is present, but that isn't the case for most price gouging/price fixing going on today.

there are no shortages today in most things driving today's higher prices.

most of today's price increases, are price gouging/price fixing due to "effective" monopolization, and absence of market competition.