Inflation Hits a 39 Year High

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 67
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@rbelivb
It is so obvious when a certain topic starts getting pumped by the conservative think tanks for strategic reasons. All of a sudden all of the conservatives are talking about "inflation" - before that it was "wokeness" - before that "CRT" - and so on. Talking points arise all at once, in a very clearly coordinated way, and at strategically chosen points in time
The fact that you can make a post like this reveals only your own bias, not mine. It shouldn’t be shocking that people of all political stripes talk about current events and the issues that are currently in the news. If those issues are “carefully chosen” it’s not by Fox News. Inflation has hit a multi decade high so it’s strange that you think I shouldn’t talk about it because a news channel that I don’t watch and don’t like is presumably talking about it as well. 

Does it bother you that the buzzwords you will be repeating in 6 months from now are currently being carefully planned and agreed upon in a discussion somewhere of some conservative advocacy group you know nothing about?
It doesn’t bother me because it isn’t true. I’m not a conservative and my exposure to conservative media comes only through a format that also exposes me to liberal media. 


I could make this exact accusation, that people line up for their talking points an issues like pigs to a trough, of liberals. And unlike you, I’ll provide some empirical evidence. But I don’t really believe that this is what’s happening. Figuring out what becomes a political issue and what doesn’t is complicated https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@dfss9788
I just hope home prices keep skyrocketing then I'm going to cash out and be a lazy bum until I'm dead
The home prices thing is incredibly depressing. I know rock bottom interest rates make the sticker price less scary than it looks, but being able to buy a home is extremely important in convincing young people to have kids, which is something we desperately need 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
but being able to buy a home is extremely important in convincing young people to have kids, which is something we desperately need 

Not really. Most kids in America are born to single moms. they deserve better.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,626
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%), more than three times the share of children around the world who do so (7%). The study, which analyzed how people’s living arrangements differ by religion, also found that U.S. children from Christian and religiously unaffiliated families are about equally likely to live in this type of arrangement.
In comparison, 3% of children in China, 4% of children in Nigeria and 5% of children in India live in single-parent households. In neighboring Canada, the share is 15%.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Well it’s important in getting responsible people to breed 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Well it’s important in getting responsible people to breed 
Which ultimately means less kids since there are more unfit parents in America than anywhere else on the planet as FLRW laid out.

40% of babies are born out of wedlock today. About half of all marriages end in divorce.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with you that the statistics are pretty bleak but not quite as bad as they appear on the surface, a lot of those children are born to cohabitating/common law marriages, and have both parents in their lives. the divorce stats are inflated by second, third, and fourth marriages. First time marriages only divorce about 30% of the time. But I agree that things have definitely gone off the rails quite a bit, especially for working class people 
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@FLRW
Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%), more than three times the share of children around the world who do so (7%). The study, which analyzed how people’s living arrangements differ by religion, also found that U.S. children from Christian and religiously unaffiliated families are about equally likely to live in this type of arrangement.
In comparison, 3% of children in China, 4% of children in Nigeria and 5% of children in India live in single-parent households. In neighboring Canada, the share is 15%.
Not sure where those stats are from so I can’t see the numbers for all countries, but it would seem that this could be a government-manufactured problem.

First-world countries like Canada and US have more welfare for single mothers than Nigeria.

Seeing as this is a problem that has drastically grown since the 60s here (which accompanied the “War on Poverty”), I’d reckon that is probably a primary contributor to single parenthood.

Stopping the subsidizing of bad behavior at the least would curtail the issue of single parenthood/poverty. Now as for getting smarter, more responsible people to have kids… that seems a little tougher
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@thett3
convincing young people to have kids, which is something we desperately need
Whaaaaaaaaat? I thought the plan was to correct the overpopulation problem by normalizing abortions and making wealth and income inequality so bad that hardly anybody can have kids and have a good life too. Don't worry, the missing children will simply be replaced by immigrants whose children will hop on the conveyor belt of genetic annihilation that is western society once their conservative values are destroyed with the public school system. 
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,557
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
Just took the time to read that insightful and well-researched Tablet article. My question is:  what lead to the dramatic acceleration in wokeism in print media in the last 10 years? Off topic, I know…

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
Your guess is as good as mine. My guess would be social media but I have no clue
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,557
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
Ah, right. It could conceivably have gone from college academia to students to social media to mainstream media. I think even the article itself alludes to the influence of social media. Also, there’s the college students of yesterday becoming the professionals of today contributing to the phenomenon…
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
It's a magnificent irony. Amid all the affection and adulation for Ronald Reagan, one of his greatest achievements is all but overlooked. He helped subdue double-digit inflation, setting the stage for the prolonged economic expansions of the 1980s and 1990s. High inflation largely brought Reagan to power; and low inflation made his presidency popular and successful.

We forget now how much inflation once frightened Americans. In 1979, Daniel Yankelovich _ a leading student of post-World War II public opinion _ wrote this: "For the public today, inflation has the kind of dominance that no other issue has had since World War II. The closest contenders are the Cold War fears of the early 1950s and perhaps the last years of the Vietnam War."

What unnerved people was not merely that inflation was high (13.3 percent in 1979) but that it was rising (in 1976, it was 4.9 percent) at an unpredictable pace and that no one could stop it. President Carter had fumbled with a host of confusing policies _ including wage-price guidelines _ to little avail. Carter seemed to have lost control of events, an impression reinforced by his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis.

In the last monthly report before the election, the Consumer Price Index rose 1 percent; prices were 12.7 percent higher than a year earlier. On Election Day, 59 percent of Reagan's supporters said that inflation was a "determining issue for them," according to the New York Times/CBS exit poll.

When Reagan asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" he was referring mainly to inflation. Since 1976, the economy had created 10.6-million jobs. In 1980, the unemployment rate (7.1 percent) was lower than in 1976 (7.7 percent), though it had jumped sharply from 1979 (5.8 percent). But people detested inflation's stress and uncertainty. They couldn't know whether their salaries and savings would keep pace with rampaging prices. Interest rates seemed astronomical. In 1980, 30-year fixed mortgages averaged 12.7 percent. All this sapped Americans' confidence.

By 1982, inflation was down to 3.8 percent. On an annual basis, it has never again topped 6.1 percent (1990). From 1969 to 1981 (12 years), there were four recessions. In the 1973-75 recession, monthly unemployment reached 9 percent; in 1981-82 it hit 10.8 percent. Since 1982, there have been two recessions (1990-91, 2001). The highest monthly unemployment rate was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

The suppression of double-digit inflation liberated the economy from stop-go policies: bursts of expansion followed by punishing slumps. It restored a sense of order and predictability. It made government _ here's a giant paradox of the Reagan era _ seem competent again. All of Reagan's optimistic rhetoric and his 1984 campaign slogan ("It's morning again in America") would have rung hollow with 12 percent inflation.

None of this has merited much attention. In its 10,820-word obituary, the New York Times mentioned inflation four times. The Wall Street Journal's retrospective of "Reaganomics" virtually ignored inflation.

There are reasons. One is Reagan's murky role in reducing inflation. He was not the principal agent. The Federal Reserve, then headed by Paul Volcker, was. Volcker pushed interest rates skyward, triggering a devastating recession that was calculated, through gluts of goods and unemployed workers, to depress wage and price increases.

On paper, the Fed is "independent." In practice, it can never be entirely. Volcker has written: "No central bank (the Fed) can _ or should, in my judgment _ conduct policies for long that are out of keeping with basic, continuing objectives of the political system."

There was much criticism of Volcker's Fed. But not from Reagan. In private meetings with Volcker and others, he favored tight money. In public, he supported Volcker by muting any criticism. The Fed could proceed with the wrenching _ and necessary _ job of purging inflationary expectations. Reagan provided the essential political cover.

Inflation also gets neglected because it doesn't fit anyone's political agenda. To the right, Reaganomics means lower taxes and smaller government. But Reagan didn't shrink government, and lower inflation, not lower taxes, mainly revived the economy. To the left, Reaganomics means smaller (and meaner) government, irresponsible tax cuts and big, destructive budget deficits. But Reagan didn't shrink government, and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson started persistent (though smaller) deficits, which in any case didn't destroy the economy.

No other major leader would have then done what Reagan did. "The President stands almost alone among Washington's current politicians in his instinctive comprehension that inflation is a profoundly destructive phenomenon," wrote David Stockman, Reagan' first budget director, in an otherwise critical 1986 book. Giving "Volcker the political latitude to do what had to be done . . . was a genuine achievement." More than genuine, it was magnificent.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol, typical leftist sheep goes full retard ad-hom when presented with a historical fact on how double digit inflation was handled.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
your article doesn't really say what reagan did to stop inflation. the article mentions that the federal reserved increased intersest rates, but the article admits that's not reagan's doing so much. the article tries to claw back and give him credit, but doesnt' say what he did. if anything, lowering taxes and boosting the economy was bad for inflation, and if it actually went down, it was despite reagan, not because of him. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
So fucking what? I don't give a flying fuck about Reagan or what credit goes to who, and neither should you. If you want to stop inflation, read the article and apply the solution to today, or be ready to live in another era of Carter administration inflation.

Solutions belong exclusively to no president. They either work or they do not. This is the problem with all the radical leftists. They think presidents like Trump OWN all the solutions, so they never use them. Nobody OWNS solutions like "remain in Mexico" or "consolidate crony government to a manageable level"

It either works or it does not.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
You really believe that? You don't think govt printing trillions of  worthless dollars backed by nothing every year has anything to do with it? 

lets visualize 1 trillion dollars and then multiply that by the current 30 trillion the govt has printed that you and all unborn children for generations to come owe plus interest.


The current GDP to debt ratio is now 130%
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Lol, typical leftist sheep goes full retard ad-hom 
I wonder if you know what ad-hom is.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I don't give a flying fuck about Reagan or what credit goes to who, and neither should you. If you want to stop inflation, read the article and apply the solution to today, or be ready to live in another era of Carter administration inflation.

This whole "attack the man" so we can drown out solutions that historically worked needs to fucking stop.

It's the very reason why we have Biden and the inflation bullshit here today, because retards can't separate sound policies and solutions from people they don't like. It's some seriously myopic association rejecting policies because of ad homs that keeps society from being better.

It's now the norm in liberal dystopialand to present a historical solution that worked to stop double digit inflation, and the IMMEDIATE response is "reaganmanbad"

Fucking retards.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
 Amid all the affection and adulation for Ronald Reagan, one of his greatest achievements is all but overlooked.
Don't glorify a corrupt shitstain on US history then. Plenty of people, me included loathe Reagan and easily put him worse President of all time, Nixon does push past him though for me personally just because Nixon's style of corruption and particular aspects of his right-wing policies are more overtly disturbing for me. He also was worse at being corrupt if that's a thing to take into account.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
There you go, doubling down on the retarded ad-homs instead of fixing the country. You deserve the shit you live in.

Presents proven solution..."reaganmanbad reeeeeeeeeeeee"

Enjoy your dystopia you created with your ad-hom primal thought process.

It's the mental equivalent of an 8 year old holding tiny hands over the ears and screaming "la-la-la" as loud as possible.

RM's knee-jerk ad-hom responses are good examples of troublingly popular reactions to a rational discussion about real solutions we need today, and that social behavior should be shamed without end.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
 You deserve the shit you live in.
Well, you're someone who believes everyone deserves the shit they live in, so it's a given in your outlook.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The one who went 'lalala' and screamed insults was you.

I insulted Reagan, not you. You don't even understand what happened here but I accept that, it's not about your politics it's about your style of debating. There's a reason you stay out of the formal 1v1 arena on these matters except for 2 rare occasions over several years of using this website.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I insulted Reagan

The post wasn't about Reagan. It was about how double digit inflation was solved. You are the one who read a post that was CLEARLY describing anti-inflation policies and then retardedly decided the post was all about "Reagan" and then childishly posted a bunch of irrelevant ad-hom links that had NOTHING to do with inflation policies. GTFO with the pointedly fake sincerity. Nobody is going to fall for your con.

It's rare to ever see you argue anything here in good faith. It far too often has to be about people and not ideas.

If I wanted to engage in a gossip fuckcircle about people instead of ideas with you I would have streamed "The View" for 12 hours straight. But I'd rather just point out your ridiculous behavior and talk with the adults about policies and ideas instead of gossiping over long dead people, as if you (or anyone sane for that matter) would ever think seriously "cloning Reagan" or whatever dumb thesis was behind the 3 ad-hom hit pieces you linked as a contribution to the thread was in any way shape or form a realistic and good faith solution to today's inflation problems.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Well done, you reduced inflation by being a bad president in every other way in exchange. Opportunity cost? Worth...
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
@Greyparrot
In the spirit of Christmas I am demanding that the two of you end your feud 
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
you're doin a good job debating rationalmadman but you still shoouldn't have posted an article that was all about praising raeagan, when the one thing it mentioned was done by the federal reserve and not reagan. all the reagan stuff was irrelevant. you should have just argued that interest rates need to be used, and left your reagan adoration for another debate. it's also another story about what would happen to your beloved stock market if interest rates go up. gonna have to pick between having inflation subdued and keeping the stock market propped up eventually. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
but you still shoouldn't have posted an article that was all about praising raeagan,

Setting aside your penchant for hero worship when discussing economic policies,
How did Reagan fuck up the fed policy that stopped inflation? Explain in detail please.

If he didn't fuck it up, given the trend of most politicians in both parties to mismanage policies regarding inflation and  other economic policies, shouldn't he be praised for not doing the expected action of a politician and fuck it up? 

I think most people are fucktards for not giving Bill Clinton credit for not fucking up sound economic policies while he was in office. That's the high standard bar of achievement for all government servants today. Can they leave things the fuck alone and let individuals prosper?

If you read the article carefully, that's exactly what it said about Reagan. He had an opportunity to fuck it up, and he didn't. That's why we made it through those dark Carter years, because unlike Carter, Reagan knew the inherent dangers of government meddling and the high risks of government fucking up things just by micromanaging everything like the old Soviet era "BIG GOVERNMENT" central planning that ultimately led to the economic collapse of the great socialist nation.

That deserves high praise today in a world where the norm is an expectation of unregulated and unrestricted government meddling fucking up left and right with no end in sight.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't say he fucked it up, I just said ur article didn't do much to explain how he helped... It was empty praise