Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Al_U_Card]

??? Are you saying inflation is fake like global warming, or that the CPI isn't accurate for everybody? There are actually several different CPI's for different groups of people, and they are averages for the entire country, not for specific people.

CPI (and therefore the "official" inflation rate) has changed a couple of times. These modernizations have ensured a low % inflation rate over the last several decades. If food and gasoline are not included, can any rate apply to our real world economy?

[PeterAlan]

... China helping with the North Korea situation.

Is it just me that thinks that China's involvement, including Kim Jong-Un's two recent visits for discussions, may have had a lot more to do with producing North Korea's current stance than anything done by the Trump administration? I suspect that "helping" is a significant understatement.

[PeterAlan]

Trump's stated intent is to create "reciprocal" trade agreements, i.e., ideally no tariffs on either side. But until that can be achieved, the US can use tariffs to equalize the trade deficits.

I'm not sure I understand what "equalizing" trade deficits means unless they're all zero. But let's hypothesise the improbable situation where the US reaches a zero trade deficit with the rest of the world. Why would adopting "no tariffs on either side" (removing any residual prior ones) then result in stabilising that zero deficit?

[Al_U_Card]

??? Are you saying inflation is fake like global warming, or that the CPI isn't accurate for everybody? There are actually several different CPI's for different groups of people, and they are averages for the entire country, not for specific people.

BTW the globe has warmed since the 1600's but the contribution of anthropogenically generated CO2 to that warming is insignificant and Trump has realized this and is withdrawing the US from the bogus aspects of mitigation efforts because they are inconsequential despite being extremely expensive. Part of his platform and one of its best and most efficient.

[hrothgar]

BTW the globe has warmed since the 1600's but the contribution of anthropogenically generated CO2 to that warming is insignificant and Trump has realized this and is withdrawing the US from the bogus aspects of mitigation efforts because they are inconsequential despite being extremely expensive. Part of his platform and one of its best and most efficient.

 

Please exile the LaRouchie back to his thread

[ldrews]

I'm not sure I understand what "equalizing" trade deficits means unless they're all zero. But let's hypothesise the improbable situation where the US reaches a zero trade deficit with the rest of the world. Why would adopting "no tariffs on either side" (removing any residual prior ones) then result in stabilising that zero deficit?

 

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

[PeterAlan]

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

I'll agree with you that it's desirable to remove "the distortions and complications of tariffs" (welcome to the party, though I'm under the impression you're a late arrival). But if equilibrium is reached only in the presence of tariffs, it will be disturbed if those tariffs are removed; otherwise the tariffs have had no effect.

[y66]

Inflation? A chimera created to fool the rubes. The CPI has lost all relation to the needs of real people which explains the current dire economic conditions (middle class heading south .... and not for vacation) and the lack of criticism of FR monetary policy if running the printing presses could be called a policy. :(

In what way is the CPI now measuring changes in the prices of goods and services that real people consume differently than, say, 30 years ago and what is your estimate of the change in the cost of living for real people since, say, January 1988? Is it also your opinion that these guys at MIT are mismeasuring changes in the prices of stuff that real people consume too?

[Winstonm]

I wonder why Fredo has such a sudden fondness for saving Chinese phone companies and Chinese jobs?

 

China Contributing $500 Million to Trump-Linked Project in Indonesia

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/china-contributing-500-million-trump-linked-project-indonesia/

 

Never mind.

[ldrews]

I'll agree with you that it's desirable to remove "the distortions and complications of tariffs" (welcome to the party, though I'm under the impression you're a late arrival). But if equilibrium is reached only in the presence of tariffs, it will be disturbed if those tariffs are removed; otherwise the tariffs have had no effect.

 

Don't know why you think I am a late arrival; I have been a limited government libertarian for 50 years.

[WellSpyder]

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

I know economics "experts" tend not to be held in very high regard by others, but I really think you would do better to take some notice of the more or less universally held view among economists that zero trade deficits are neither a particularly likely nor a particularly desirable state of affairs.

[johnu]

I wonder why Fredo has such a sudden fondness for saving Chinese phone companies and Chinese jobs?

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/china-contributing-500-million-trump-linked-project-indonesia/

 

Never mind.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66

 

What most people don't know is that Comrade Dennison drained the swamp immediately after the inauguration. The old swamp was too small and too shallow and constantly overflowing. With the help of Trump Swamp Design and Construction (no relation to POTUS) the current swamp has been increased in surface area by 10X and the bottom cleaned and dredged so it is 3X deeper. Everybody knows that if the swamp overflows and clogs the pipes, it overflows into the White House.

 

Of course, Comrade Dennison is a modest man and didn't want to publicize his magnificent accomplishment. I would like to remind everybody that not only is there no collusion, but there isn't any bribery, and did anybody know there was a word spelled "emoluments"?

 

In closing, I would like to state that Comrade Dennison is a man of impeccable integrity and cannot be bought although he can be leased or rented by calling 1-800-RentaPotus.

[PeterAlan]

Don't know why you think I am a late arrival; I have been a limited government libertarian for 50 years.

It must be that I had failed to realise that the support you had previously expressed for these tariffs was entirely directed at and conditional on the goal of achieving zero trade deficits, however chimerical that may be, and had nothing to do with support for US protectionism - or indeed with "national security", which I understand to be the pretext for them.

[ldrews]

It must be that I had failed to realise that the support you had previously expressed for these tariffs was entirely directed at and conditional on the goal of achieving zero trade deficits, however chimerical that may be, and had nothing to do with support for US protectionism - or indeed with "national security", which I understand to be the pretext for them.

 

It seems to me that one of the differences in the conversations stems from whether you believe the world is a collection of friendly family members or a collection of competing nations. Those are not mutually exclusive but do give rise to different premises. I hold to the latter view.

 

From the view of competing nations, it is important to be able to effectively compete, economically and militarily. The steel and aluminum industries are considered essential to the ability to compete militarily and so must be supported/protected/encouraged via tariffs. So "national security" is not just a "pretext", it is primary factor.

[Al_U_Card]

In what way is the CPI now measuring changes in the prices of goods and services that real people consume differently than, say, 30 years ago and what is your estimate of the change in the cost of living for real people since, say, January 1988? Is it also your opinion that these guys at MIT are mismeasuring changes in the prices of stuff that real people consume too?

I readily accept that changes can and should be made to any system to limit inaccuracy and improve precision. Like all good quality control efforts, the net result should be comparable to the original otherwise sources of bias will be introduced and when that bias consistently favours one narrative, questions should be raised (same goes for the temperature records) The MIT data are interesting and require further study. Thanks for the link.

 

A summary of the methodology. Forbes

 

Changes made and their effect on the "real"(?) inflation rate. Shadowstats

 

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/alt-cpi-home2.gif?hl=ad&t=1525976255

 

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif?hl=ad&t=1525976255

[WellSpyder]

Like all good quality control efforts, the net result should be comparable to the original otherwise sources of bias will be introduced and when that bias consistently favours one narrative, questions should be raised (same goes for the temperature records)

Thanks for posting these charts, Al. I know quite a lot about the construction of price indices so am well able to understand that it does not make much sense, for instance, to try to measure today's inflation rate by looking at what is happening to the price of items that were the chief components of consumption in 1980. I know much less about the construction of temperature records, etc, but if the charts that you like posting on those issues are comparable to these CPI charts then I know how little weight to give to them.

[barmar]

It seems to me that one of the differences in the conversations stems from whether you believe the world is a collection of friendly family members or a collection of competing nations. Those are not mutually exclusive but do give rise to different premises. I hold to the latter view.

The view should be more like a collection of corporations, each with their own specialties. They trade the fruits of their labors with each other, and everyone benefits.

 

Yes, there can be some overlap in their products, so there will be competition between those parties to sell to everyone else. This is all part of the free market, which is not a bad thing.

 

Protectionism returns us to a time where every country was on their own. This was reasonable before technology made global trade cheap. Now it makes no sense.

 

There was a time when most people grew their own food and made their own clothes. A typical person owned about two changes of clothing, and maybe one nice suit for church.

[y66]

I readily accept that changes can and should be made to any system to limit inaccuracy and improve precision. Like all good quality control efforts, the net result should be comparable to the original otherwise sources of bias will be introduced and when that bias consistently favours one narrative, questions should be raised (same goes for the temperature records) The MIT data are interesting and require further study. Thanks for the link.

 

A summary of the methodology. Forbes

 

Changes made and their effect on the "real"(?) inflation rate. Shadowstats

 

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/alt-cpi-home2.gif?hl=ad&t=1525976255

 

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif?hl=ad&t=1525976255

In The intellectual cesspool of the inflation truthers, Matt O'Brien at WaPo notes:

 

Shadow Stats says that it applies the old methods to the new data to get the "real" inflation rate, which is supposedly in the double digits. But that's not true. It quietly admits that it's not recalculating anything. It's just taking the official inflation numbers and adding a semi-arbitrary constant to them.

 

That's not a method. It's a punchline.

Perianne Boring's Forbes piece is the worst thing I've ever read in Forbes. Putting you back on ignore bro.

[Winstonm]

The view should be more like a collection of corporations, each with their own specialties. They trade the fruits of their labors with each other, and everyone benefits.

 

Yes, there can be some overlap in their products, so there will be competition between those parties to sell to everyone else. This is all part of the free market, which is not a bad thing.

 

Protectionism returns us to a time where every country was on their own. This was reasonable before technology made global trade cheap. Now it makes no sense.

 

There was a time when most people grew their own food and made their own clothes. A typical person owned about two changes of clothing, and maybe one nice suit for church.

 

To make that worldview work, small-government libertarians resort to a fictionalized utopia, a variation of whataboutism mixed with the True Scot fallacy. It is amazing how much some people discount governments' actions that were positives in their own lives, like banking systems, public education, fair housing practices, safe food, safe water, safe drugs, operating sewers, national defense, all types of policing, relatively honest investment systems and on and on - none perfect but all much safer because of the power of the government.

[Winstonm]

In The intellectual cesspool of the inflation truthers, Matt O'Brien at WaPo notes:

 

 

Perianne Boring's Forbes piece is the worst thing I've ever read in Forbes. Putting you back on ignore bro.

 

Funny, when you start with a preconceived notion - the government is evil, climate change is a hoax, a giant cabal controls the world - it is easy to find supporting nonsense to re-enforce the nonsense that is nonsense to accept in the first place.

 

Better to start with a clean slate and try to uncover evidence of reality - and let your opinions follow the evidence.

 

(Note: when 97% means that 3% disagree, it does not mean that 3%=97% so that something is unsettled. It means that science is working as it always does.)

[ldrews]

The view should be more like a collection of corporations, each with their own specialties. They trade the fruits of their labors with each other, and everyone benefits.

 

Yes, there can be some overlap in their products, so there will be competition between those parties to sell to everyone else. This is all part of the free market, which is not a bad thing.

 

Protectionism returns us to a time where every country was on their own. This was reasonable before technology made global trade cheap. Now it makes no sense.

 

There was a time when most people grew their own food and made their own clothes. A typical person owned about two changes of clothing, and maybe one nice suit for church.

 

Except that you ignore the use of force by one of the corporations to seize the other. In a world of angels no laws are needed. In a world of humans they are required.

 

"Free markets" exist only as long as everyone behaves. Unfortunately that seems to be the exception.

[hrothgar]

 

"Free markets" exist only as long as everyone behaves. Unfortunately that seems to be the exception.

 

Please note: Economists have established a whole bunch of conditions that are necessary for free markets to work in an efficient manner.

 

"Everyone behaves" is not one of them.

[ldrews]

Please note: Economists have established a whole bunch of conditions that are necessary for free markets to work in an efficient manner.

 

"Everyone behaves" is not one of them.

 

I fail to see how, if I put a gun to your head, we would have anything resembling a "free market".

[Winstonm]

Please note: Economists have established a whole bunch of conditions that are necessary for free markets to work in an efficient manner.

 

"Everyone behaves" is not one of them.

 

It works in the novel... B-)

[Winstonm]

Oh, look, another Dennison "accomplishment"!

 

Democrats flipped another seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Tuesday night, bringing the total number of state legislative flips to 41 since Donald Trump’s inauguration.