[Dan2020]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

Paul Volcker was a Democrat installed by Jimmy Carter. He was the guy who CREATED the inflation that you say he solved.

I guess it must have been sheer coincidence that the moment Volker's boss became Ronald Reagan, he suddenly found religion and realized that all he needed to do to solve the 20% inflation he'd created under Carter was to quit printing money. Well, either coincidence or he just wanted to keep his job.

And yes, it's true -- if you're not paying your bills with fake money, it's a sure bet you're going into debt if you don't have enough real money. Sorry, but that seems like a poor reason to go back into the counterfeiting business to me. Maybe if Tip O'Neil had cooperated with Reagan's plan to live within our means, we could have had low inflation without tripling the debt.

First, it was Carter not Reagan who appointed Volcker a full 14 months before Reagan became president. Carter knew that Volcker would raise rates sharply probably causing a recession but told his counselors who advised against the appointment to let him worry about the politics.
The Federal Funds rate was 11 percent when Carter appointed Volcker in August 1979. By the time Reagan took office in January 1981, Volcker had pushed the rate to 20 percent (the prime was 21 percent) and rates never went higher. So contrary to the mythology, Carter took the political risks not Reagan
Carter took on bruising political fights with Congress to end price fixing by airlines (1978) and trucking companies and railroads (1980). He opened the auto and steel industries to more intense competition (1980), as well as oil, natural gas, and electricity (1978) with the same anti-inflationary results. These were political fights in Congress against powerful interests that Reagan never had to take on.
In the election year of 1980, Carter also broke the U.S. auto cartel —- the Big Three —- by refusing to protect American car makers from foreign imports even though the trade laws gave him a politically attractive way to do so. Ford, Chrysler and the auto workers wanted him to limit this competition, but Carter refused. This is why many working class Democrats in Michigan jumped to support Reagan in 1980
It also was Carter not Reagan who battled for two years to pass legislation that gradually expanded competition in natural gas, oil, and electricity. U.S. inflation was fueled by rising energy prices between 1972 and 1979 linked to OPEC and instability in the Middle East. The public blamed Carter for high prices while Reagan benefited from their long decline after 1980.
When people repeat the myth about the courageous steps Ronald Reagan took to fight inflation, don’t buy it. Instead tell them about Carter’s record for which you can cite data from the Fed itself and legislative chapter and verse.

[Dan2020]

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Dan2020

First, it was Carter not Reagan who appointed Volcker a full 14 months before Reagan became president. .

Maybe you need to re-read my post, since that was exactly what I said in the first sentence.

We had 20% inflation under Carter, with Volcker at the Fed. We had 5% inflation and dropping under Reagan, with Volcker at the Fed. I don't need to study the Fed's lies to understand who solved inflation -- I lived it.

But the important point has nothing to do with politics.

My point is that the answer to the OP's question was demonstrated 30 years ago -- STOP PRINTING FAKE MONEY. If you want to believe the biggest inflator in US history was also the genius who solved the conundrum, then be my guest, so long as you also understand:

INFLATION ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE IS THE RESULT OF CREATING TOO MUCH FIAT MONEY.

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

Anybody around here old enough to remember the Carter inflation?

Every night, there was some genius PhD guy on your TV, wringing his hands and acting like 20% inflation was just some kind of bad weather: "Nobody knows for sure where it comes from or what to do about it. Oh, there's lots of theories..."

And then Reagan came in and said, "Well, I'll be darned -- somebody left the magic money machine running over at the FED! Lemme just shut that stupid thing off, and things will get back to normal in no time!"

18 months later, it was over.

Funny thing, though. The genius PhD guys never did connect the dots between the Gooberment printing massive piles of money, and the money being worth less. So they invented "Modern Monetary Theory", which basically says the best way to guarantee government freebees for everyone is to crank up the magic money machine! Our last three genius FED chair-guys&gals have been big proponents of "MMT".

And son-of-a-gun, umpteen-trillion-dollars later, we've got inflation again! Whodathunkit!

As Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it".

I think you might have hit on something, although most will not understand

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Dan2020

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

Well, that's one theory. Here's another (figures from "thebalance.com"):

--Tip O'Neil took the deficit from $74 billion to $155 billion, over Reagan's objections.
--Bush 41 took it to $290 billion to fight a new forever war in Iraq that everybody demanded, for no reason anyone can think of today.
--Newt Gingrich beat it back down to a $238B SURPLUS, with Clinton fighting all the way, until he jumped to the front of the parade and took the credit.
--Bush 43 took the deficit from -238 billion to 459 billion to fight a new forever war in Afghanistan, after they murdered 3000 Americans in New York.
--Boehner forced Obama to accept a sequester bill, which cut the Obama deficit from 1.3 TRILLION in 2011 to $585 billion on the day he left.
--Trump doubled it back to 1.08 trillion before Covid, and then spent another 2.7 trillion to fight a bioweapon attack on the country.
-- Biden used Covid as an excuse to add another $2.1 trillion, after the crises was over.

But I guess these days, everyone is entitled to their own facts, so what were we arguing about, again? Oh, yeah.. inflation. Here's how that fits in.

The 4.8 trillion dollars the last two Presidents spent on Covid has to some from somewhere, and there aren't enough suckers in the world to lend us that much dough. So the FED "buys" the "debt", which is a silly way of saying it puts fake dollars represented by 1's and 0's into various bank computers. Since the FED gives these fake dollars away for free, the banks have no incentive to pay you for your savings. And they have lots of fake dollars to lend, which winds up in the economy causing inflation.

But here's the simple explanation:

Inflation is always and everywhere the result of printing too much money.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Aces4

AND conveniently left out was the fact that if Biden’s budget for the fiscal year 2022 is passed, the deficit will surge to $30 trillion. $30,000,000,000,000. !!!

The national debt is already at $28.4 trilliion. It will soon exceed $30 trillion regardless of what budget is approved.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

And then Reagan came in and said, "Well, I'll be darned -- somebody left the magic money machine running over at the FED! Lemme just shut that stupid thing off, and things will get back to normal in no time!"

18 months later, it was over.

As Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it".

"Well, I'll be darned -- somebody left the magic money machine running over at the FED! Lemme just shut that stupid thing off, and things will get back to normal in no time!"

Ummm, factual history shows that the National Debt about tripled in this supposedly "magical" period you reference. I do agree with your last statement however.

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by sail33or

Inflation is a matter of degree. Venezuelan type INFLATION or past U.S. type Inflation. I happen to believe that we are headed to the 200% type.

Because, if you have not noticed, there is a war on Fossil Fuels. There is even a Cabinet Level Position (John Kerry) whose sole job is to fight and eliminate Fossil Fuels.

These people are not scientists or engineers and do not know how imbedded Fossil Fuels are into the World's economy. Shut Pipelines down, restrict oil in any way and (I believe) energy will rise to levels never seen before. There will be countries "bidding" for Natural Gas and Oil. Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia will laugh all the way to the Bank as THEY increase their prices to everyone. Once the US gets so far behind, a new administration will have to pay the NEW WORLD Price for Oil as Air Craft Carriers, Airplanes and Diesel Trucks will NEVER run on electric power. Yes, Oil at prices Never seen before and thus everything at prices NEVER seen before. Believe it or Not. Just trying to explain the way things are going.

I guess we can compare this to the privately owned electrical grid in Texas where it's failure costs citizens, hundreds and thousands of dollars. Stealing people's private property, via eminent domain for pipelines, so corporations can increase their profit is not the American way, IMHO. Plus gas and oil prices aren't controlled by the US, as they are a global commodity. Maybe we can do the Saudis another favor by killing another person they don't like, sell them more weapons, and get favorable standing with them?

Yeah, let's not covert to solar, wind and cleaner fuels, as we always have Mars to colonize.

[Boomer]

I am old enough to remember getting a 10% mortgage and being glad to get such an excellent rate. And not long after that, we bought a 17% CD -- even though I was a young adult at the time, I knew something was not right.

There is nothing esoteric about my observations of varying states of the economy throughout my adult life, but it looks to me like this whole century has been a mess -- in so many ways.

The Fed's fear of inflation, resulting in giving away money with insanely cheap, unsupported mortgages, brought us the housing crisis.

We have not seen a 5% CD since around 2005. The banks don't need us anymore. They are in cahoots with the Fed.

The stock market feels like a house of cards. Our parents could back up their pensions (remember those?) with CDs that paid a decent rate, but now we have to be in the market for any hope of ROI.

A big percentage of the corporate tax cut has gone -- and will go -- into stock-buybacks -- good for CEOs and good for stockholders (maybe) but not so good for employees and cap ex. Even though my favorite long holdings have done that, too, I don't like it -- because it feels fake.

The housing market feels fake, too. It is bloated. Across the country, houses are being bid up far beyond their worth. If this housing market does not breathe soon, it is going to bite all of us in the butt. The housing market has a way of affecting almost the entire economy.

You know that a lot of homeowners see the equity in their houses as wealth. If banks start dishing out HELOCs willy-nilly, this mess will get even bigger. We are a nation of instant gratification seeking amnesiacs.

I say the rate needs to be gently raised to slooooooow this collision-course train dooooooown.

Boomer -- not an econ major -- just an observer (a very concerned observer)

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

I guess we can compare this to the privately owned electrical grid in Texas where it's failure costs citizens, hundreds and thousands of dollars. Stealing people's private property, via eminent domain for pipelines, so corporations can increase their profit is not the American way, IMHO. Plus gas and oil prices aren't controlled by the US, as they are a global commodity. Maybe we can do the Saudis another favor by killing another person they don't like, sell them more weapons, and get favorable standing with them?

Yeah, let's not covert to solar, wind and cleaner fuels, as we always have Mars to colonize.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I was actually there in Texas on the day Houston experienced a 10 degree day and a million homes were destroyed by broken water pipes. My CLOSING was supposed to be on that day! Instead, I spent it with a small generator, running around like a mad man with drop lights and space heaters, trying to keep my house in a sell-able condition.

And why was I forced to do this in the "Energy Capital of the World"? I can tell you this -- it had nothing to do with Texas' "private" grid.

It was because the electricity for the 4th largest city in the country is provided by a NUCLEAR GENERATOR THAT COULDN'T SURVIVE A 10 DEGREE DAY. The cooling water froze so they had to shut it down! How stupid do you have to be to get your energy (in the middle of the oil patch!) from a power plant that becomes a bomb if you don't shut it down on a 10 degree day?

But the rest of the Texas grid might have been able to pick up the slack if 25% of the oil-fired capacity hadn't already been replaced with WINDMILLS in West Texas THAT ALSO FAILED (in the Permian Basin, for crying out loud!)!

As one who lived it, I can testify that the dumba-situde of relying on "alternate clean sources of energy" in the middle of the oil patch is what caused the Texas power disaster!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

If inflation was such a concern, the treasury long bond would be much higher, instead of going lower, nearing pandemic lows. Debt is deflationary, as increased mandatory payments reduces discretionary income which reduces demand pull inflation. But the distorted economic environment at the moment is pandemic related, and therefore, extremely little historical precedence for reopening or reclosing with variants, etc. More subtle is that technology advancement is deflationary as well. Technology advancements has increased human productivity so much at that fewer employees are needed, resulting in an increased labor competition for higher salaried jobs, of which there are fewer and fewer. I have lived that world for the last 40 years, both as a programmer eliminating jobs, and a job seeker trying to maintain employment and grow my income, and save for retirement.

So that brings us to the pandemic where the labor market has been turned upside down, with many boomers retiring, many technology advancements, many forced to close businesses having to rehire employees, and never assume that they are the same employees in very transient independent workforce employees who work hourly, with labor skills. Rehiring will take time through any hr process, and we have professional friends who have found the HR processes broken as well from the pandemic.

So yes, there will be labor inefficiencies and labor inflation passing through the system, which will be offset with more technology spending for more automation, which will keep a lid on accelerating inflation. . . but the future is uncertain, and will always be uncertain, so accelerating inflation may or may not occur, even if your quant forecast has an R squared of greater than 90% with pandemic history on this magnitude included,

And I am looking to change jobs for a better opportunity with job openings galore and lack of experience and talent applicants so that I get a better lifestyle balance with less salary. . .

twitter guy

[dewilson58]

Grab a cup of coffee, or a beer, or a cry towel.......here's a view:


Prices of everything; a house in Phoenix, a Ford F-150, a plane ticket to New York, have all gone up. That much is true.

Unfortunately pretty much everything else about inflation—a red hot topic these days—is conjecture. And that’s vexing, not just for the dismal scientists (aka economists), but for all of us, because whether or not prices are really rising, by how much and for how long, has massive implications in our lives. Or as Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, says: “Inflation is one of the mysteries of economic study and thought. A difficult thing to gauge and forecast and get right. That’s why the risks are high.”

*

The current debate over inflation really revolves around two questions: First, is this current spate of inflation, just that, a spate—or to use Wall Street’s buzzword of the moment, “transitory,”—or not? (Just to give you an idea of how buzzy, when I Google the word “transitory” the search engine suggests “inflation” after it.) And second, transitory (aka temporary) inflation or not, what does it suggest for the economy and markets?


Before I get into that, let me lay out what’s going on with prices right now. First, know that inflation, which peaked in 1980 at an annualized rate of 13.55%, has been tame for quite some time, specifically 4% or less for nearly 30 years. Which means that anyone 40 years old or younger has no experience with inflation other than maybe from an Econ 101 textbook. Obviously that could be a problem.
*

As an aside I remember President Ford in 1974 trying to jawbone inflation down with his "Whip Inflation Now" campaign, which featured “Win” buttons, earrings and even ugly sweaters. None of this worked and it took draconian measures by Fed Chair Paul Volcker (raising rates and targeting money supply, as described by Former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, William Poole) to eventually tame inflation and keep it under wraps for all those years.
*

Until now perhaps. Last week the Labor Department reported that consumer prices (the CPI, or consumer price index) rose 5% in May, the fastest annual rate in nearly 13 years—which was when the economy was overheating from the housing boom which subsequently went bust and sent the economy off a cliff and into the Great Recession. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, was up 3.8%, the biggest increase since May 1992. (For the record, the likelihood of the economy tanking right now is de minimis.)


Used car and truck prices are a major driver of inflation, climbing 7.3% last month and 29.7% over the past year. New car prices are up too, which have pushed up shares of Ford and GM a remarkable 40% plus this year. Clearly Americans want to buy vehicles to go on vacation and get back to work. And Yahoo Finance’s Janna Herron reports that rents are rising at their fastest pace in 15 years.


To be sure, not all prices are climbing. As Yahoo Finance’s Rick Newman points out, prices are not up much at all for health care, education and are basically flat for technology, including computers, smartphones and internet service (an important point which we’ll get back to.)


But that’s the counterpoint really. Americans are obsessed with cars, housing is critical and many of us are experiencing sticker shock booking travel this summer. Higher prices are front and center. Wall Street too is in a tizzy about inflation, and concerns about it and more importantly Federal Reserve policy in response to inflation (see below), sent stocks lower with the S&P 500 down 1.91% this week, its worst week since February.


Given this backdrop, the tension (such as it is) was high when the Fed met this week to deliver its forecast and for Chair Jay Powell to answer questions from the media. Or at least so said hedge fund honcho Paul Tudor Jones, who characterized the proceedings on CNBC as “the most important meeting in [Chairman] Jay Powell’s career, certainly the most important Fed meeting of the past four or five years.” Jones was critical of the Fed, which he believes is now stimulating the economy unnecessarily by keeping interest rates low and by buying financial assets. Unnecessarily, Jones says, because the economy is already running hot and needs no support. The Fed (which is in the transitory camp when it comes to inflation) risks overheating the economy by creating runaway inflation, according to PTJ.


Now I don’t see eye to eye with Jones on this, though I should point out, he's a billionaire from investing in financial markets, and let’s just say I’m not. I should also point out that Jones, 66, is in fact old enough to remember inflation, never mind that as a young man he called the 1987 stock market crash. So we should all ignore Jones at our peril.


As for what the Fed put forth this past Wednesday, well it wasn’t much, signaling an expectation of raising interest rates twice by the end of 2023 (yes, that is down the road.) And Powell, who’s become much more adept at not rippling the waters these days after some rougher forays earlier in his tenure, didn’t drop any bombshells in the presser.


Which brings us to the question of why the Federal Reserve isn’t so concerned about inflation and thinks it is mostly—here’s that word again—transitory. To answer that, we need to first address why prices are rising right now, which can be summed up in one very familiar abbreviation: COVID-19. When COVID hit last spring the economy collapsed, which crushed demand in sectors like leisure, travel and retail. Now the economy is roaring back to life and businesses can raise prices, certainly over 2020 levels.


“We clearly should’ve expected it,” says William Spriggs, chief economist at the AFL-CIO and a professor of economics at Howard University. “You can’t shut down the economy and think you turn on the switch [without some inflation].”


“We had a pandemic that forced an artificial shutdown of the economy in a way that even the collapse of the financial system and the housing market didn’t, and we had a snapback at a rate we’ve never seen before—not because of the fundamentals driving recovery but because of government,” says Joel Naroff, president and chief economist of Naroff Economics.


COVID had other secondary effects on the economy though, besides just ultimately producing a snapback. For one thing, the pandemic throttled supply chains, specifically the shipping of parts and components from one part of the globe to another. It also confused managers about how much to produce and therefore how many parts to order.


A prime example here is what happened to the chip (semiconductor) and auto industries which I wrote about last month. Car makers thought no one would buy vehicles during the pandemic and pared back their orders with chipmakers, (which were having a tough time shipping their chips anyway.) Turned out the car guys were wrong, millions of people wanted cars and trucks, but the automakers didn’t have enough chips for their cars and had to curb production. Fewer vehicles and strong demand led to higher new car prices, which cascaded to used car prices then to car rental rates. Net net, all the friction and slowness of getting things delivered now adds to costs which causes companies to raise prices.


Another secondary effect of COVID which has been inflationary comes from employment, which I got into a bit last week. We all know millions were thrown out of work by COVID last year, many of whom were backstopped by government payments that could add up to $600 a week (state and federal.) These folks have been none too keen on coming back to work for minimum wage, or $290 a week. So to lure them back employers are having to pay more, which puts more money in people's pockets which allows stores for example to raise prices.


Anti-inflation forces


But here’s the big-time question: If COVID was temporary, and therefore its effects are temporary and inflation is one of its effects then doesn’t it follow, ipso facto, that inflation is (OK I’ll say it again), transitory?


I say yes, (with a bit of a caveat.) And most economists, like Claudia Sahm, a senior fellow at the Jain Family Institute and a former Federal Reserve economist, agree. “‘Transitory’ has become a buzzword,” she says. “It is important to be more concrete about what we mean by that. We’re probably going to see in the next few months inflation numbers that are bigger than average, but as long as they keep stepping down, that’s the sign of it being transitory. If we didn’t see any sign of inflation stepping down some, it would’ve started feeling like ‘Houston, we have a problem.’”


To buttress my argument beyond that above "if-then" syllogism, let’s take a look at why inflation has been so low for the past three decades.
To me this is mostly obvious. Prices have been tamped down by the greatest anti-inflation force of our lifetime, that being technology, specifically the explosion of consumer technology. Think about it. The first wave of technology, a good example would be IBM mainframes, saved big companies money in back-office functions, savings which they mostly kept for themselves (higher profits) and their shareholders. But the four great landmark events in the advent of consumer technology; the introduction of the PC in 1974 (MITS Altair), the Netscape IPO of 1995, Google search in 1998, and the launch of the iPhone in 2007 (I remember Steve Jobs demoing it to me like it was yesterday), greatly accelerated, broadened and deepened this deflationary trend.


Not only has technology been pushing down the cost of everything from drilling for oil, to manufacturing clothes to farming, and allowing for the creation of groundbreaking (and deflationary) competitors like Uber, Airbnb and Netflix, but it also let consumers find—on their phones—the most affordable trip to Hawaii, the least expensive haircut or the best deal on Nikes.


So technology has reduced the cost of almost everything and will continue to do so the rest of our lifetime. Bottom line: Unless something terrible happens, the power of technology will outweigh and outlive COVID.


There is one mitigating factor and that is globalism, which is connected to both technology and COVID. Let me briefly explain.


After World War II, most of humanity has become more and more connected in terms of trade, communication, travel, etc. (See supply chain above.) Technology of course was a major enabler here; better ships, planes and faster internet, all of which as it grew more potent, accelerated globalism. Another element was the introduction of political constructs like the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. (I think of the Clinton administration and China joining the WTO in 2001 as perhaps the high-water marks of globalization.)


Like its technological cousin, globalism has deflationary effects particularly on the labor front as companies could more and more easily find lowest cost countries to produce goods and source materials. And like technology, globalization seemed inexorable, which it was, until it wasn’t. Political winds, manifested by the likes of Brexit and leaders like Putin, Xi Jinping, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Duterte and of course Donald Trump have caused globalism to wane and anti-globalism and nationalism to wax.


The internet too, once seen as only a great connector, has also become a global divider, as the world increasingly fractures into Chinese, U.S. and European walled digital zones when it comes to social media and search for example. Security risks, privacy, spying and hacking of course divide us further here too.

*


COVID plays a role in rethinking globalism as it exposes vulnerabilities in the supply chain. Companies that were rethinking their manufacturing in China but considering another country, are now wondering if it just makes sense to repatriate the whole shebang. Supply chains that were optimized for cost only are being rethought with security and reliability being factored in and that costs money.


How significant is this decline in globalization and how permanent is it? Good questions. But my point here is whether or not "globalism disrupted" is transitory (!) or not, it could push prices up, (in the short and intermediate run at least), as cost is sacrificed for predictability. Longer term I say Americans are a resourceful people. We’ll figure out how to make cost effective stuff in the U.S. It’s also likely that globalism will trend upward again, though perhaps not as unfettered as it once was.


More downward pressure on pricing could come from shifts in employment practices. Mark Zandi points out that “the work-from-anywhere dynamic could depress wage growth and prices. If I don’t need to work in New York anymore and could live in Tampa, it stands to reason my wage could get cut or I won’t get the same wage increase in the future.”


And so what is Zandi’s take on transitory? “What we’re observing now is prices going back to pre-pandemic,” he says. “The price spikes we’re experiencing now will continue for the next few months through summer but certainly by the end of year, this time next year, they will have disappeared. I do think underlying inflation will be higher post-pandemic than pre-pandemic, but that’s a feature not a bug.”


I don’t disagree. To me it’s simple: The technology wave I’ve described above is bigger than COVID and bigger than the rise and fall of globalism. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I believe inflation will be transitory, certainly in the long run. (Though I’m well aware of what John Maynard Keynes said about the long run.)

*

Commentary by Andy Serwer is editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I was actually there in Texas on the day Houston experienced a 10 degree day and a million homes were destroyed by broken water pipes. My CLOSING was supposed to be on that day! Instead, I spent it with a small generator, running around like a mad man with drop lights and space heaters, trying to keep my house in a sell-able condition.

And why was I forced to do this in the "Energy Capital of the World"? I can tell you this -- it had nothing to do with Texas' "private" grid.

It was because the electricity for the 4th largest city in the country is provided by a NUCLEAR GENERATOR THAT COULDN'T SURVIVE A 10 DEGREE DAY. The cooling water froze so they had to shut it down! How stupid do you have to be to get your energy (in the middle of the oil patch!) from a power plant that becomes a bomb if you don't shut it down on a 10 degree day?

But the rest of the Texas grid might have been able to pick up the slack if 25% of the oil-fired capacity hadn't already been replaced with WINDMILLS in West Texas THAT ALSO FAILED (in the Permian Basin, for crying out loud!)!

As one who lived it, I can testify that the dumba-situde of relying on "alternate clean sources of energy" in the middle of the oil patch is what caused the Texas power disaster!

" it had nothing to do with Texas' "private" grid."


Actually, it had everything to do with Texas' arrogant "private grid" model. Power companies are incentivized into maximizing profits, by foregoing common sense maintenance & construction practices (for both green and gas plants), like many other countries around the world (along with northern U.S. states), that get a lot colder than Texas has ever seen and have no problems with their wind turbines. Also being the only state without reciprocal agreements to share power should something happen, it left an already vulnerable grid without an easy way to solve a short term weather issue.


A couple of links that provide some actual facts.

Access Denied

Fact check: The causes for Texas’ blackout go well beyond wind turbines | Reuters

[Blueblaze]

Whew, that's deep, Mr. Dewilson58!

Funny, though, in that entire essay you never once touched on the number of dollars in circulation. In fact, you sounded exactly like those guys on the TV in the Carter years with all their theories about where inflation comes from.

A few of us who are old enough to remember, might not have understood those complicated theories, but we noticed one thing -- when Reagan said he was going to quit printing money, and either allowed or ordered his Fed Chair, Paul Volcker to actually do it -- inflation ceased.

Cause and effect.

If fact, if you read the history of inflation, it's always the same -- too much money, the money is worth less. You can study the Dutch tulip inflation -- too many tulips. You can study the Spanish Conquest inflation -- too much gold from the New World. You can study the Weimar Republic inflation (which my father-in law experienced first-hand in Germany) -- to many Marks being pushed around in wheelbarrows to buy a loaf of bread. It's always the same:

Inflation always and everywhere is the result of creating too much money -- exactly like Milton Friedman was screaming from the roof tops in the 70's!

According to UScurrency.gov, there was a grand total of 2 trillion dollars of physical currency in circulation at the beginning of 2020.

Your government, which ordinarily spends a couple of trillion a year all by itself, just dumped 4.5 trillion dollars on the economy to pay working young people to hide from a manufactured disease that only kills old people. AND THEY'RE STILL DOING IT!

You don't need an economics degree to figure out why inflation is out of control and people are buying up all the hard assets -- like Villages Real Estate -- that they can get their hands on. You just need to open your eyes.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

Whew, that's deep, Mr. Dewilson58!

Funny, though, in that entire essay you never once touched on the number of dollars in circulation. In fact, you sounded exactly like those guys on the TV in the Carter years with all their theories about where inflation comes from.

A few of us who are old enough to remember, might not have understood those complicated theories, but we noticed one thing -- when Reagan said he was going to quit printing money, and either allowed or ordered his Fed Chair, Paul Volcker to actually do it -- inflation ceased.

Cause and effect.

If fact, if you read the history of inflation, it's always the same -- too much money, the money is worth less. You can study the Dutch tulip inflation -- too many tulips. You can study the Spanish Conquest inflation -- too much gold from the New World. You can study the Weimar Republic inflation (which my father-in law experienced first-hand in Germany) -- to many Marks being pushed around in wheelbarrows to buy a loaf of bread. It's always the same:

Inflation always and everywhere is the result of creating too much money -- exactly like Milton Friedman was screaming from the roof tops in the 70's!

According to UScurrency.gov, there was a grand total of 2 trillion dollars of physical currency in circulation at the beginning of 2020.

Your government, which ordinarily spends a couple of trillion a year all by itself, just dumped 4.5 trillion dollars on the economy to pay working young people to hide from a manufactured disease that only kills old people. AND THEY'RE STILL DOING IT!

You don't need an economics degree to figure out why inflation is out of control and people are buying up all the hard assets -- like Villages Real Estate -- that they can get their hands on. You just need to open your eyes.

Quit saying YOU, I did not write the article, just sharing.
If YOU read the entire article, YOU would see this.