RayR
  • RayR
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
3 years ago
THE BIG LIE! 🤥

The Inflation Reduction Act Price Jumps From $385 Billion to Over $1 Trillion

Penn Wharton revised its estimate of the cost of the inflation reduction act significantly higher based on Biden's actual implementation of the deal.

MISH APR 27, 2023

https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-inflation-reduction-act-price-jumps-from-385-billion-to-over-1-trillion 
HockeyDad
3 years ago
“Reduction” is kinda a living term like the constitution is a living document.
ZRX1200
3 years ago
But we’re crashing the dollar so it’s a moot point!!!
RayR
  • RayR
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
3 years ago
At least all those GREEN millionaires and billionaires will be sitting pretty because of BIDEN FACISM.
RayR
  • RayR
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
3 years ago
More on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act

I thought this was hilarious seeing one of Lyin' Biden's Green New Deal Climate propagandists backed up against the wall spouting non-answers and gibberish. Well done Sen. John Kennedy...well done sir.

$50 Trillion For What? Kennedy Dumbfounds Biden Climate Peddler In Fiery Exchange Over 'Carbon Neutrality'

BY TYLER DURDEN

Biden Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk highlighted the absurdity of the climate grift this week during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, when Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) couldn't get a straight answer out of him over the cost of going 'carbon neutral.'

In a tense exchange, Kennedy repeatedly attempted to get Turk to give a straightforward answer to just how much American taxpayers will have to pay to achieve the Biden administration's goal of reaching US carbon neutrality by 2050.

When Kennedy asked whether some of the "experts" Turk referred to earlier were correct in a $50 trillion estimate, Turk nodded his head, and said "It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it."

"f we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" Kennedy replied. The conversation continued (transcription via the Daily Caller)

Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…”

Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.”

Turk: “So, first of all, it’s a net cost. It’s what, um, benefits we’re having from getting our act together and reducing all of those costs and climate benefits…”

Kennedy: “Let me ask you. Maybe I’m not being clear. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?”

Turk: “This is a global problem, so we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything to, uh…”

Kennedy: “How much of we do our part is it going to reduce global temperatures?”

Turk: “So, we’re 13% of global emissions…”

Kennedy: “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?”

More...

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/50-trillion-what-kennedy-dumbfounds-biden-climate-peddler-fiery-exchange-over-carbon 


HockeyDad
3 years ago

At least all those GREEN millionaires and billionaires will be sitting pretty because of BIDEN FACISM.

RayR wrote:




I resemble that remark! I got in green energy in 2009. I could envision the gold mine we were building. Fast forward 14 years and we’ve got kids in school on antidepressants because they think the world is going to end because of climate change!
HockeyDad
3 years ago
If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures?

I know the answer that the Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk did not know…..It will reduce world temperatures by zero degrees! I also know the solution….we need to spend another 50 trillion!
RayR
  • RayR
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
3 years ago

If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures?

I know the answer that the Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk did not know…..It will reduce world temperatures by zero degrees! I also know the solution….we need to spend another 50 trillion!

HockeyDad wrote:



I'm glad you lowered your morality and intellect temporarily HD so you could see things more clearly through the eyes of a bureaucrat. It's a cross we must sometimes bear to understand our enemy's strategy.
To the bureaucrat and low-life politician, failure is its own reward, failure is just another excuse to pillage and spend more stolen loot on exactly what failed the first time or even the second or third time.
MACS
3 years ago

But we’re crashing the dollar so it’s a moot point!!!

ZRX1200 wrote:



And you absolutely cannot convince me this isn't being done on purpose. We're f**ked 6 ways to Sunday.
HockeyDad
3 years ago
You just have to recognize that you can fight the government from your double-wide all you want but they still make the laws and are the largest consumer. You can also choose to come alongside the government and get on board and get a mansion on a hill.

You will enjoy your electric car.
ZRX1200
3 years ago
Get your spot on the bench for the guy with the wrench!
Brewha
3 years ago


You will enjoy your electric car.

HockeyDad wrote:



+1

RayR
  • RayR
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
3 years ago

You just have to recognize that you can fight the government from your double-wide all you want but they still make the laws and are the largest consumer. You can also choose to come alongside the government and get on board and get a mansion on a hill.

You will enjoy your electric car.

HockeyDad wrote:



Don't forget that you'll cook your food (bugs probably) and heat your home with electricity too and like it.
Them fossil fuels have got to go.
HockeyDad
3 years ago

Don't forget that you'll cook your food (bugs probably) and heat your home with electricity too and like it.
Them fossil fuels have got to go.

RayR wrote:




About those bugs….there are rules for thee.
rfenst
3 years ago

And you absolutely cannot convince me this isn't being done on purpose. We're f**ked 6 ways to Sunday.

MACS wrote:


Why do you think that with such certainty? Here is an opinion based in part on different economist's beliefs. Not saying he is right. Not saying he is wrong. No way to know for sure until enough time passes and we can look backwards on this one. It's just a prediction game with insufficient data and equations before an event occurs. On the other hand, economics can be dead-on accurate about certain things when the data is known. BTW, he did win the Nobel Prize in Economics, if that even matters...



What’s Driving Dollar Doomsaying?


By Paul Krugman
NYT Opinion

You’re reading the Paul Krugman newsletter, for Times subscribers only. A guide to U.S. politics and the economy — from the mainstream to the wonkish.

Talk of “de-dollarization” and its dire consequences for the U.S. economy seems to be all over the place lately. Somehow, my previous efforts to dampen the frenzy haven’t worked.

Where’s this coming from? Much of it is from the usual suspects, such as the crypto cult, people for whom Bitcoin is the answer regardless of the question. Some of it, I think, is coming from Putin sympathizers, who want us to believe that America will be punished for, as they see it, “weaponizing” the dollar against the invasion of — I mean, special military operation in — Ukraine.

Elon Musk is among those warning that weaponizing the dollar will destroy its reserve currency status, because of course he is.

But what inspired me to write about the subject (again) is that lately more sober voices, who should know better, are sounding the alarm. International relations experts like Fareed Zakaria warn that the dollar is a superpower we’re in danger of losing. Even economic analysts like Michael Pettis, whom I’ve found to be a valuable source of insights on China, seem to believe that dollar dominance is the only reason America can run persistent large trade deficits.

All of this is very odd. Even if you believe that the dollar’s dominance is in imminent danger — which you shouldn’t — a look at what that dominance actually entails makes it clear that the importance of controlling the world’s reserve currency is greatly overrated.

What do we mean by saying that the dollar is a dominant currency? There’s a very nice summary in the first few pages of a 2021 paper by Gita Gopinath, now a top official at the International Monetary Fund, and Jeremy Stein. As they note, much of world trade is invoiced and settled in U.S. dollars; many banks based outside the United States nonetheless offer dollar-denominated deposits; many non-U.S. corporations borrow in dollars; central banks hold a large share of their reserves in dollar assets; and maybe (the evidence here is weaker) interest rates are lower, other things equal, when you borrow in dollars than when you borrow in other currencies.

This is all very impressive. But how much of it redounds to the benefit of the U.S. economy? Why, exactly, should America care whether a contract between Chinese exporters and Brazilian importers is written in dollars as opposed to yuan or reais?

A lot of what’s written about this subject begins with the assertion that the special role of the dollar gives America a unique ability to run a large balance of payments deficits, year after year, presumably because the dollar’s status forces other countries to accept our money. But even a quick look at the data shows that this claim is false. Yes, America has run persistent deficits, but so have other countries. We’re not even at the top of the league table.

Let’s look at the balance of payments on current accounts — the trade balance broadly defined, so as to include services and investment income, such as interest payments, as well as trade in goods. And let’s look at advanced economies that have their own currencies — that is, leave out members of the euro area. Here’s what we get for the decade before Covid struck:

(graph)

It turns out that there are multiple nations able to run persistent deficits, and several have run bigger deficits relative to the size of their economies than we have. Britain, which has the deepest deficits, used to own a globally dominant currency — but the pound sterling stopped playing any important international role generations ago. The Australian dollar and the Canadian dollar have never been widely used outside their issuing nations.

So where does the idea that dollar dominance gives us a special ability to run deficits come from? I guess it’s just something that sounds as if it should be true, which I’ll come back to in a minute. But first, are there any other ways in which America gains special advantages from the dollar’s dominance?

Well, it’s possible that the worldwide use of the dollar creates the perception that dollar bonds are safe assets, so that America can borrow more cheaply than other nations. It’s hard to tell, because there are multiple factors affecting interest rates — and U.S. borrowing costs are not, in fact, noticeably lower than those of other advanced countries. If there’s any effect, however, it must be small. I won’t go through the arithmetic, but I can’t see any way that, considering all this together, dollar dominance is worth more to America than a fraction of 1 percent of G.D.P.

Why, then, are people making such a big deal over the possible end of dollar dominance? The answer, I believe, is that global currency issues come across as glamorous and mysterious, so people imagine that they must be important — and yes, some people like to talk about them because they think it makes them sound sophisticated. You have to actually work with the numbers to appreciate how little is really at stake.

Which means that I’m almost reluctant to add that reports of the dollar’s coming demise are also probably greatly exaggerated. The aforementioned paper by Gopinath and Stein offers a detailed analysis of one channel through which the dollar maintains its dominance, adding to a long literature that includes, among other things, some old papers by yours truly. The bottom line in most of this analysis is that the dollar is widely used because it’s widely used — that all of the various roles the dollar plays create a web of self-reinforcement, keeping the dollar pre-eminent.

The point is that tugging on one or two strands of this web isn’t likely to cause it to unravel. Even if some governments express a desire to see payments conducted in other currencies, it’s not at all clear they can make that happen, since we’re mostly talking about private-sector decisions. And even if they can make partial de-dollarization stick, all the other advantages of the dollar as a banking and borrowing currency will remain.

So ignore all the dollar doomers out there. Or better yet, consider what their hyping of a nonissue says about their own judgment.
RayR
  • RayR
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
3 years ago
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009, but nobody still understands why. 😕



"Upon Krugman's award of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, many in the economic community voiced disapproval. Peter Boettke stated "the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner [...] today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated."[79] Economist Bill Anderson deemed the announcement indicative "that outright political partisanship is not a deterrent to winning."[80] Russell Roberts of George Mason University called it "just another reminder that those of us who believe in liberty are in for a long time in the intellectual wilderness."[81] Robert Higgs stated Krugman’s selection made a travesty of the prize and constitutes "an insult to the few excellent economists [...] who have received the prize in the past." Higgs wrote: "For economists who would like the Nobel Prize to mean something, today is a very sad day."[72]

In a 2010 video blog, investment broker and financial-economic commentator Peter Schiff stated "if they ever took away Nobel Prizes for something that shows a complete lack of understanding of economics, certainly Paul Krugman would be the first candidate where the commission asked for their Nobel Prize back.".

Praised by Austrians

While noting the many differences with Paul Krugman, James Miller has pointed out that many bloggers who promote the Austrian point of view commend Krugman's older, lesser-known book, Pop Internationalism. The book is a collection of 13 essays highlighting the benefits of free trade and showing the fallacies of protectionism. After all, Krugman won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to "new trade theory," not for his continuing calls for massive stimulus spending and raising taxes on the rich, nor for accusing conservatives of being monsters bent on impoverishing the whole country.

Krugman's basic premise throughout the book is that free and globalized trade is not something a wealthy country such as the United States should fear, but rather something it should embrace. Protectionist fears of free trade such as "massive unemployment" and "trade deficits" are unjustified according to Krugman, because:
“what drives trade is comparative rather than absolute advantage. Maintaining productivity growth and technological progress is extremely important; but it is important for its own sake, not because it is necessary to keep up with international competition. ”

Krugman points out that the idea of a country adopting an industrial policy to help certain "high-value" industries to be competitive in the world economy is superfluous. "Why," Krugman asks, "weren't private markets already doing their job?" He goes on to state that "the productivity of the average American worker is determined by a complex array of factors, most of them unreachable by any government policy."

To top off his embrace of market efficiency over government policy, he even goes on to acknowledge that government intervention to improve competitiveness can ultimately lead to "misallocations of resources." That is not a far cry from the inflation-induced "malinvestments" that the likes of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard have warned about for the past century.

Throughout Pop Internationalism, Paul Krugman makes a great case for how free trade and the global economy raise the living standards of both wealthy and impoverished nations. Despite the book's flaws, writes Miller, Krugman does a great job at dismissing unfounded fears about free trade.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman 



There must be two Paul Krugmans',. One once believed in free trade and free markets and was against government interventions and there's the other Keynesian smuck we know now, probably a doppelganger that murdered the other.

"Krugman won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to "new trade theory," not for his continuing calls for massive stimulus spending and raising taxes on the rich, nor for accusing conservatives of being monsters bent on impoverishing the whole country"
ZRX1200
3 years ago
Paul Krugman 🤣🤣🤣
rfenst
2 years ago
Where’s the Recession We Were Promised?

The economy and the jobs market turned out to be far less sensitive to interest rates than economists thought, at least so far

WSJ

The 2023 recession is missing in action. At the end of last year, economists were more convinced than they’ve ever been that recession was on the way, but it refused to arrive. Now investors, economists and Federal Reserve policy makers are giving up on the idea, expecting the economy to be (a bit) stronger and stock prices and bond yields to be higher.

Why aren’t we in recession? Is it still on the way? And could it be that the recession forecasts perversely helped us avoid recession?

The recession didn’t arrive because we had two pieces of surprising good news. First, energy prices dropped, helping support demand, as Europe secured supplies to replace Russian gas more easily than expected.

Second, the economy and the jobs market turned out to be far less sensitive to interest rates than economists thought, at least so far. Companies and consumers had locked in long-dated loans with low rates during the pandemic. Household savings piles took time to run down. And workers got big raises, more than inflation. All these factors supported consumption and business. Rebounding stock and credit markets and steadyish long-dated Treasury yields meant overall U.S. financial conditions have eased since October even as the Fed tried to tighten them.

Many of these factors could reverse, as I discussed in my last column. But the biggest warning sign that recession has been delayed, not defeated, is that short-term interest rates remain well above 10-year Treasury yields, what’s known as an inverted yield curve.

An inverted yield curve tells us one thing with reasonable certainty: Investors don’t think the current level of interest rates can last. At some point rates bite, the economy slows, inflation comes down and the Fed cuts rates again. There’s a complication in that Fed holdings of long-term Treasurys may be suppressing their yields, but the basic point is that markets and most economists agree that at some point rates are going to come down again.

History tells us more: In the U.S., rates usually come down again because there’s a recession. But not always. In 1966 the curve inverted without signaling recession, although each of the next eight recessions was preceded by an inversion, with no more false signals. The yield-curve record in other major countries is much worse, with the U.K. inverting six times with only three recessions since the 1980s. (It is inverted again now.)

I find it hard to believe that the 2019 inversion predicted the pandemic, or that the 1973 inversion predicted the Arab oil embargo. In both cases, those keen on the yield-curve signal would have to argue that even without the surprise shocks there would have been a recession. Equally, the U.S. “recession” of 2001 never had the two successive quarters of falling gross domestic product that’s used as the definition for most countries; the U.S. goes by a broader view taken by a committee of eight academic economists instead.

Definitions matter, in part because no one really knows whether the economy is growing or shrinking, and frequent large revisions can change the story many years later. Use the income measure rather than the more-popular output measure of GDP—they ought to be the same—and the U.S. economy has shrunk for the past two quarters. Maybe the yield curve was right and we’re already in recession, but didn’t notice?

The yield curve may also have turned into a causal element as much as a predictive one. Campbell Harvey, a professor at Duke University, points out that investors and economists learned a hard lesson in 2008-2009, as many had dismissed the earlier yield-curve warning.

The inversion could cause a recession in two ways. First, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as investors and CEOs see the inverted yield curve as a signal to cut back risk-taking in expectation of recession, creating the very economic weakness they were worrying about. Second, an inverted curve hurts the basic business model of banks, that of borrowing short-term and lending long-term, hitting profits and reducing lending—again, bad news for growth.

The market looks to be heating up again after the Fed paused its string of rate hikes, but layoffs are starting to pick up and forward-looking economic data is showing signs of a recession. Here is what to look out for this week. Photo: Tolga Akmen
The inverted curve could also help explain why the recession hasn’t—yet—hit. The combination of an inverted curve and falling stock prices put a lid on the postpandemic boom in corporate investment.

When the curve inverted before the 1990 and 2008-2009 recessions, corporate investment went up, as the economy went into a final growth phase. This time CEOs and CFOs with an eye on the curve might have exercised some caution, helping moderate the boom and so extending the period of growth. Rather than talk ourselves into recession, maybe we merely talked ourselves out of a boom.

The key lesson of the yield curve is that inversion doesn’t guarantee recession, but it is foolish to dismiss it.
Speyside2
rfenst
2 years ago
[size=8]U.S. Inflation, Consumer Spending Growth Cooled in May[/size]

Federal Reserve is still likely to consider July rate rise amid solid economy


WSJ

Consumer prices and spending rose more slowly in May, but the Federal Reserve likely remains on track to raise interest rates in July amid recent signs of healthy economic activity.

The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, the personal-consumption expenditures price index, rose 3.8% from a year earlier, its lowest reading in two years, the Commerce Department said Friday.

Household spending rose 0.1% in May but was flat when adjusted for inflation, a possible sign of flagging economic growth. Americans spent more on services such as healthcare and air travel, and less on goods such as autos.

“We are still seeing spending grow, it’s gradually losing momentum rather than falling out of bed,” Wells Fargo economist Shannon Seery said. She pointed to the strong labor market and robust household balance sheets, adding “this is really just a stalling at a very elevated level.”

So-called core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy categories, rose 4.6% in May from a year earlier, down slightly from 4.7% in April. Economists see core inflation as a better predictor of future inflation than overall inflation.

Senior Fed officials have focused attention this year on prices for a subset of services that exclude energy and shelter. They think these labor-intensive services could show whether wage pressures from tight labor markets are passing through to consumer prices, especially because they have expected price increases for housing and goods to slow.

That reading rose 0.2% in May from the prior month and 4.5% from a year earlier, according to Wall Street Journal calculations. The reading rose at a 3.9% annualized rate over the past three months, down from 5.3% over the three months before that.

Some officials say they have expected it would take more time for services inflation to decline but have been unsettled by slower progress bringing down goods inflation. Before the pandemic, goods inflation was usually flat or negative. Prices of goods, excluding food and energy, increased 2.6% in May and have been running near that level all year. “The puzzle has been why haven’t goods prices come down even more,” Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee said in a June 21 interview.

Inflation and economic activity haven’t eased as much during the first half of 2023 as Fed officials anticipated. Layoffs retreated last week, adding to evidence of a solid labor market. Economic growth was stronger than previously estimated in the first quarter, the government reported Thursday. Other recent data showed rising new-home sales, orders for long-lasting goods and consumer confidence.

Officials held the benchmark federal-funds rate steady in June, ending a string of 10 consecutive increases that lifted the rate to a range between 5% and 5.25%. In June, they penciled in two more increases this year.

Holding rates steady in June offered a way to further slow the pace of increases and better assess the effects of their moves, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Thursday. “Our commitment isn’t to a particular number of rate hikes; it is to a stance of policy that’s sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2%,” he said.


Powell signaled greater uncertainty over how high rates would ultimately need to rise. Fed officials “almost overwhelmingly…think that we need to do more to get to a level of tight policy.”

Economists expect consumer spending to ease further in coming months in part because of higher interest rates and the resumption of student-debt payments.

Federal student-loan borrowers will see interest start accumulating again on Sept. 1, according to the Education Department, with payments due starting in October.

Households making those payments could see a significant reduction in the amount of money they can spend elsewhere. Wells Fargo estimates that the average monthly loan payments will be between $210 and $314, or a total of about $6 billion to $9 billion a month. The effect on the broader economy will be limited as those payments are relatively small compared with about $1.5 trillion in monthly consumer spending.

“Consumers are downshifting but still doing reasonably well,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities.

Economists expect consumer spending to ease further in coming months.

“Consumers are downshifting but still doing reasonably well,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities. He said higher interest rates and the resumption of student-debt payments would likely weigh on consumer spending.

Joel Breen, owner of JB’s Furniture in Milwaukee, said business has been “up and down” at his furniture store. “There’s an increase in financed sales,” he said, referring to customers using credit to make purchases. “The money just seems a little tighter right now.”

Some companies reporting earnings this week sounded a note of caution on consumer spending. Drugstore chain Walgreens Boots Alliance on Tuesday lowered its financial outlook for the year, citing weaker consumer spending. Lucky Charms maker General Mills said sales slipped in its most recent quarter as retailers trim their inventories.

Steven Ludsin, 74 years old, a lawyer in East Hampton, N.Y., said that while he generally feels good about his financial situation, high inflation has prompted him to reduce spending.

He is dining out less often, borrowing books from the library rather than buying them, and purchasing clothing on sale.

“On the lighter side, I find myself buying lottery tickets more regularly,” he said.
Users browsing this topic