It's the Economy, Stupid (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Famously expressed by James Carville. This is actually a follow-up to @Isaac's post "Supply Chain Problems - How Bad is This Going to Get? You can hardly buy anything for a reasonable price". The supply chain "problem", is only one aspect of the numerous swirling components making-up the economy. What prompted this post, was Tucker Carlson's critique that the Biden administration is targeting blue collar men. Tucker Carlson in his monologues is prone to hyperbole and sarcasm. In this instance he has gone overboard, which severely undercuts his theme which is a major turn-off. Nevertheless, Carlson makes significant points, which he finally focuses on around the 9 minute mark. That is the Biden administration is purposely making it difficult to return to work. The labor participation rate has been in slow decline, meaning that people who could work, are not returning to work for a variety of reasons. One side effect, the Biden administration is creating the logistics nightmare. For added amusement see the conspiracy angle here.

The graph below has tabs were you can manually select the time period from 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, max.

The number of job openings is increasing, but not the labor participation rate. Why aren't people returning to work? On area, the supply chain problem, moving cargo from the ships to the retail establishments.

Another graph to show the producer price index, which is now skyrocketing as a reflection of the disruptions the economy is experiencing.

 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,976
I had a real case of sticker shock yesterday at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. One of the twins is moving into an apartment and being a good grandmother I decided to buy all the little things that make cooking easy. Things like a can opener, vegetable peeler, metal and rubber spatulas, big serving spoons, measuring cups and spoons cake pans and cookie sheets, pie plate, baking dish, whisk, wooden spoon, baster, French press, and a few more "little" things The cart was barely more than half full and the only thing that cost more than $20 was the French Press at $24 but it doesn't take pods so the coffee it makes is about 1/3 the price of what a Keurig would cost. and the machine itself is about 1/6th the cost so it's not like we (the other twin and I) were buying expensive stuff. The total came to about $350 dollars and I had $60 in coupons. Most of the stuff I bought was metal and things that I had bought only two years abo for myself - I replaced a bunch of 30 year old baking pans at that time. I bought new baking pans for $7 each. Yesterday they were $12. The can opener was $16, my last one purchased about 4 years ago was under $10. It seemed like everything was 50- 100% more than I expected. Granted, it is not often that you completely outfit a kitchen but this was crazy. Plus, there were not the usual choices of different brands and qualities.

While there I tried to find a couple of pillow cases because I had two that were getting threadbare. The prices ranged from $10 - $50 EACH for standard size and there was only one option at $10, the rest were $20+ EACH for a pillowcase. And the cream color I like was sold out in all styles. They had white and less popular colors only.
 

conception_native_0123

Well-known member
Local time
Today, 16:05
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
1,826
you know what I've noticed? I've noticed that Steve usually just posts complaints about politics. when do you find time to work Steve!? =)
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
you know what I've noticed? I've noticed that Steve usually just posts complaints about politics. when do you find time to work Steve!? =)
Note the fine print under my name. My posts are educational. Look at all those graphs, economic data, and insightful analysis.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Harris's nonsensical word-salad concerning inflation.
  • The first obvious concern, she sidesteps the question. She never acknowledges that the administration made a mistake concerning the supposed transitory nature of inflation. Too bad these reporters never seem to ask the "tough" follow-up questions to ask the respondent to explain there response in the face of evidence that contradicts what they are avoiding to explain.
  • The deeper concern, the one I'm most concerned about, Harris says "We need solutions". That is a future effort, not a real-time policy proposal to address the issue now. That is deflection in the hopes that the listener won't realize that the administration is essentially doing nothing now.
As an editorial follow-up to: "We need solutions". Many to the Democratic top dogs, like Biden and Pelosi (falsely) assert that they are capitalists. That would imply letting the free-mark rip to achieve the "solutions". Yet when Democrats speak of "solutions", what they mean (without actually publicly saying it) is for the government to control of the economy. Given that, Harris's comment on needing solutions implies that the Biden admistration has not developed a government program (plan) to deal with today's economic realities.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,976
Are you surprised by the nonsense? Nothing the Democrats say has to make sense. They just need to sound sincere and feeling because they're the "good" and "caring" people. They really care about what happens to us. I know your city is crumbling and your children can't read and write and I've been in office for 40 years but we're really close now. Just one more term. And stupid people line up and vote for them. For at least 20 years, I've been bringing a list with the names of the incumbents into the voting booth with me. So, that unless there actually is an incumbent that has done a good job, I vote for the candidate from a different party. It is my way of enforcing term limits. If they're all going to lie to me and once they get elected, join the gravy train and get rich by indulging in insider trading and collecting personal favors, I may as well try to make their terms as short as possible.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,976

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 21:05
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,305
Apparently Pelosi's stock trades are public so if you want to trade on her insider knowledge, you can.
Could you then be accused of third-party insider trading? I am being facetious, of course.

I know the rules for insider trading seem to be different for members of congress compared with the general public. Slap wrists verses jail time.
 

oleronesoftwares

Passionate Learner
Local time
Today, 14:05
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,159
I vote for the candidate from a different party. It is my way of enforcing term limits
This approach might make a voter feel powerful, but it's better to have a system that gives more power to the system and less power to politicians.

Most countries need a national conference to be called where aggrieved groups can table their grievances and a new approach to governance can be agreed upon
 

oleronesoftwares

Passionate Learner
Local time
Today, 14:05
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,159
Once stock information becomes public, the concept of insider trading essentially becomes void.
(There may still be some obscure situations were insider trading would still apply.)
insider trading occurs more when stock information is public, because most times not all information is public, hence the existence of insider trading based on the non public information.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,976
Congress has knowledge of what legislation they are proposing and which companies will benefit and which will not AND they trade on that information. Members of Congress and their spouses and minor children should not be allowed to trade individual stocks. They can hold funds or have blind trusts. Congress was not supposed to be a lifetime career. The original idea was to serve your country for a term or two and then go home. Now, middle class citizens go in and somehow come out as millionaires. We pay them a lot, but not that much.
 

oleronesoftwares

Passionate Learner
Local time
Today, 14:05
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,159
Congress has knowledge of what legislation they are proposing and which companies will benefit and which will not AND they trade on that information. Members of Congress and their spouses and minor children should not be allowed to trade individual stocks.
if this and more restrictions are placed on government officials, it will deter greed and the craving to remain in power for several terms, some congress members have nothing more to offer their people, yet they keep on getting re-elected.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
While casually listening to the Fox News channel, Jon Hilsenrath made a footnote comment that was extremely eyebrow raising. In response to a question concerning the ability of China to become the worlds number one economic powerhouse, Hilesenrath simply brushed-off that question as incredibly "dumb". Hilesenrath (paraphrased) "How can an autocratic communist regime overtake the a dynamic innovative capitalistic system of the US?" A very arrogant jingoistic remark that seems to ignore that the Biden administration is dismantling the US free-market system.

From the "big" picture perspective, Hilesenrath's remarks mimics Fox New's incessant mantra of "we have to condemn China" (so Hilesenrath should not take the full blame.). China may well deserve to be condemned, but you can't dismiss the fact that China (legally and illegally) has played the capitalistic game better than the US. China also has three times the population of the US. That means that if China can achieve living standards equivalent to the US, their GDP will be three times that of the US. In a sense, the ability of China to overtake the US is a given.

Unbelievably, the Biden administration is also facilitating the capability of China to eventually overtake the US. The quick explanation: first, Biden administration is paying people to stay home and not work. Second, the government is imposing financial policies that: a)force companies to increase their wages and b)promote inflation. These have the effect of making the US less competitive from the perspective of capitalism.

As a final observation, the Biden administration is pushing anti-American "woke" culture racist policies. This corrupts both the business community and the school system. China in the meantime seems not hobbled by these distractions. In conclusion, Democratic party control of our political/economic systems is crippling the free-market system which will essentially guarantee that China will eventually become the worlds largest economic powerhouse.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,976
Corporations have no morals. They do not make moral decisions. They make financial decisions that benefit the company's bottom line. If a US company wants to use cheap foreign labor, that is a financial decision rather than a moral one. The "free" press should do their best to shame the company for such immoral actions but more importantly, the Congress should not pass laws that allow corporations to benefit from screwing the American public. Once the Congress allows a corporation to benefit financially to the detriment of America and Americans, it has lost its way and needs to be replaced. An example is "protecting" the American public from chemical additives to Apple Juice. So, the American producers remove the additive but the Chinese imports are under no such restriction so the American producers are driven out of business and the Chinese producers profit and continue to poison the apple juice our children drink because American companies have no morals. They want cheap apple juice. They don't much care if it is positioning our children. Is this really rational? Why are the people we send to Congress completely incapable of considering "unexpected consequences" of their actions? Instead of building the law to control manufacture, maybe it should focus on the tail end of the supply chain. If you say that you can't sell or distribute apple juice with dangerous additives, then it doesn't matter who makes it. Companies can make it and give it away (maybe, but how would they "distribute" it) but that doesn't benefit their bottom line so it actually presents little danger. So many far reaching laws are based on the "Interstate Commerce" provisions of the Constitution but apparently not the right ones.

It has always confused me that we have to have so many laws regarding stealing. What is ambiguous about "Thou Shall not Steal". I don't care what it is. Whether it is dirt from your side yard or a diamond neckless or software you patented, shouldn't make any difference. But I guess that's because I'm not a lawyer and so I can't make money out of making the law overly complex and unintelligible to the average person.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Corporations have no morals.
You are correct and that is the way it should be, unless there are certain special circumstances (such as selling food containing arsenic). There is also the old joke: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” attributed to Lenin.

As a "pure" free-market principle trade with China should be allowed, the US consumer gets a higher standard of living and those manufacturing the products in China (exported to the US) get employment (initially at dirt poor salaries). As time progresses, the Chinese slowly become richer (the US gets poorer as we are exporting capital to China) so that China and the US would eventually become "equal" in trade. At this time, what I just wrote could be viewed as utopian since the process is still ongoing and the final outcome is unknown.

The concern with the China trade is that the Communist regime still remains in power. To borrow a (misapplied) trigger concept from Marx, the workers have not risen-up to demand democracy in China as their standard of living has improved. From that perspective, China/US trade is not moving towards the utopian goal of China and the US being equal. Consequently, we may be nearing a decision point where the US government must interfere in free-market trade with China. For example, the US is dependent on many products manufactured by China. If China cuts the US off, we would be in trouble. The topic of rare earth minerals has been discussed on this forum. From the free-market perspective, it would be unfortunate for the US government to intervene, but it may be necessary.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 17:05
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Corporations have no morals.
The quote below just surfaced today from Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. We need more CEOs to have the moral courage to reject political subversion of the free market system.
"Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not 'woke.' It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper," he said.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom