[DWCAP]

What in the world are you talking about CA Renter? The city slashed its expenses 50%, and dont tell me there wasnt some kinda waste, the city’s bid was 900k less for the services it already provides. That is $1.5million that can be used to hire teachers, police, lifeguards, etc etc etc (or not fire them). That is $1.5 million that can be used to fill budget holes and/or not have to raise taxes. Are city services to never see any kind of financial reality placed upon them, ever?

In my opinion they need to do alot more of this. Monopolies are some of the worst run buisness models, competition is good for all of us.

[DWCAP]

What in the world are you talking about CA Renter? The city slashed its expenses 50%, and dont tell me there wasnt some kinda waste, the city’s bid was 900k less for the services it already provides. That is $1.5million that can be used to hire teachers, police, lifeguards, etc etc etc (or not fire them). That is $1.5 million that can be used to fill budget holes and/or not have to raise taxes. Are city services to never see any kind of financial reality placed upon them, ever?

In my opinion they need to do alot more of this. Monopolies are some of the worst run buisness models, competition is good for all of us.

[DWCAP]

My dad is a palm/cacti nut, and he has been to this place nearly every time they come down from Santa Barbara. It isnt cheap, but they ‘got some great stuff’.

http://www.ranchosoledad.com/hours.asp

[DWCAP]

My dad is a palm/cacti nut, and he has been to this place nearly every time they come down from Santa Barbara. It isnt cheap, but they ‘got some great stuff’.

http://www.ranchosoledad.com/hours.asp

[DWCAP]

My dad is a palm/cacti nut, and he has been to this place nearly every time they come down from Santa Barbara. It isnt cheap, but they ‘got some great stuff’.

http://www.ranchosoledad.com/hours.asp

[DWCAP]

My dad is a palm/cacti nut, and he has been to this place nearly every time they come down from Santa Barbara. It isnt cheap, but they ‘got some great stuff’.

http://www.ranchosoledad.com/hours.asp

[DWCAP]

My dad is a palm/cacti nut, and he has been to this place nearly every time they come down from Santa Barbara. It isnt cheap, but they ‘got some great stuff’.

http://www.ranchosoledad.com/hours.asp

[DWCAP]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]OK I just don’t see inflation happening,
Really have you guy’s thought this through,

You need near full employment to have inflation I would think, and we really can be self sufficient in the U.S.A believe it or not, it may take five years but we have the ability to do it (the point is they need us a lot more than we need them who ever they are).

Deflation I think is still the rule of the day, maybe in five years we can talk about inflation again but the world will be a different place in five years so it is almost pointless to speculate.

If the China bubble does burst commodities will bust too, I think that will go a long way toward easing inflation as well but I am not a big believer that china bubble will burst anytime in the next few years either.[/quote]

You confuse price inflation with monitary inflation. I am sure there are a thousand threads on piggington playing with this, and a billion or two on the WWW, so I am not really gonna go into it. But the Fed can ‘print money’ and buy US bonds, allowing the government to repay our foreign creditors. That is monitary inflation, and isnt guarenteed to do anything to our prices here in the USA. As long as that money stays off shore, and people are willing to accept it, it wont hurt us too bad. Please see the ‘print and deny’ comment.

And you dont need to have full employment to have price inflation as you talked about.

[quote]Both the civilian unemployment rate and the rate of change in consumer prices deteriorated in the second half of the decade. Between 1970-74, the average annual unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, while the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 6.6 percent. From 1974-79, the figures edged up to 7.9 percent for unemployment and 8.1 percent for the CPI. [/quote]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar05p1.htm

And while I agree that the world will be a very different place in 5 years, we do need to worry about it because the AVERAGE length of treasury debt right now is something like 4 years. You live in a very narrow world if you think 4-5 years is a long ways off.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]OK I just don’t see inflation happening,
Really have you guy’s thought this through,

You need near full employment to have inflation I would think, and we really can be self sufficient in the U.S.A believe it or not, it may take five years but we have the ability to do it (the point is they need us a lot more than we need them who ever they are).

Deflation I think is still the rule of the day, maybe in five years we can talk about inflation again but the world will be a different place in five years so it is almost pointless to speculate.

If the China bubble does burst commodities will bust too, I think that will go a long way toward easing inflation as well but I am not a big believer that china bubble will burst anytime in the next few years either.[/quote]

You confuse price inflation with monitary inflation. I am sure there are a thousand threads on piggington playing with this, and a billion or two on the WWW, so I am not really gonna go into it. But the Fed can ‘print money’ and buy US bonds, allowing the government to repay our foreign creditors. That is monitary inflation, and isnt guarenteed to do anything to our prices here in the USA. As long as that money stays off shore, and people are willing to accept it, it wont hurt us too bad. Please see the ‘print and deny’ comment.

And you dont need to have full employment to have price inflation as you talked about.

[quote]Both the civilian unemployment rate and the rate of change in consumer prices deteriorated in the second half of the decade. Between 1970-74, the average annual unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, while the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 6.6 percent. From 1974-79, the figures edged up to 7.9 percent for unemployment and 8.1 percent for the CPI. [/quote]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar05p1.htm

And while I agree that the world will be a very different place in 5 years, we do need to worry about it because the AVERAGE length of treasury debt right now is something like 4 years. You live in a very narrow world if you think 4-5 years is a long ways off.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]OK I just don’t see inflation happening,
Really have you guy’s thought this through,

You need near full employment to have inflation I would think, and we really can be self sufficient in the U.S.A believe it or not, it may take five years but we have the ability to do it (the point is they need us a lot more than we need them who ever they are).

Deflation I think is still the rule of the day, maybe in five years we can talk about inflation again but the world will be a different place in five years so it is almost pointless to speculate.

If the China bubble does burst commodities will bust too, I think that will go a long way toward easing inflation as well but I am not a big believer that china bubble will burst anytime in the next few years either.[/quote]

You confuse price inflation with monitary inflation. I am sure there are a thousand threads on piggington playing with this, and a billion or two on the WWW, so I am not really gonna go into it. But the Fed can ‘print money’ and buy US bonds, allowing the government to repay our foreign creditors. That is monitary inflation, and isnt guarenteed to do anything to our prices here in the USA. As long as that money stays off shore, and people are willing to accept it, it wont hurt us too bad. Please see the ‘print and deny’ comment.

And you dont need to have full employment to have price inflation as you talked about.

[quote]Both the civilian unemployment rate and the rate of change in consumer prices deteriorated in the second half of the decade. Between 1970-74, the average annual unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, while the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 6.6 percent. From 1974-79, the figures edged up to 7.9 percent for unemployment and 8.1 percent for the CPI. [/quote]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar05p1.htm

And while I agree that the world will be a very different place in 5 years, we do need to worry about it because the AVERAGE length of treasury debt right now is something like 4 years. You live in a very narrow world if you think 4-5 years is a long ways off.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]OK I just don’t see inflation happening,
Really have you guy’s thought this through,

You need near full employment to have inflation I would think, and we really can be self sufficient in the U.S.A believe it or not, it may take five years but we have the ability to do it (the point is they need us a lot more than we need them who ever they are).

Deflation I think is still the rule of the day, maybe in five years we can talk about inflation again but the world will be a different place in five years so it is almost pointless to speculate.

If the China bubble does burst commodities will bust too, I think that will go a long way toward easing inflation as well but I am not a big believer that china bubble will burst anytime in the next few years either.[/quote]

You confuse price inflation with monitary inflation. I am sure there are a thousand threads on piggington playing with this, and a billion or two on the WWW, so I am not really gonna go into it. But the Fed can ‘print money’ and buy US bonds, allowing the government to repay our foreign creditors. That is monitary inflation, and isnt guarenteed to do anything to our prices here in the USA. As long as that money stays off shore, and people are willing to accept it, it wont hurt us too bad. Please see the ‘print and deny’ comment.

And you dont need to have full employment to have price inflation as you talked about.

[quote]Both the civilian unemployment rate and the rate of change in consumer prices deteriorated in the second half of the decade. Between 1970-74, the average annual unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, while the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 6.6 percent. From 1974-79, the figures edged up to 7.9 percent for unemployment and 8.1 percent for the CPI. [/quote]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar05p1.htm

And while I agree that the world will be a very different place in 5 years, we do need to worry about it because the AVERAGE length of treasury debt right now is something like 4 years. You live in a very narrow world if you think 4-5 years is a long ways off.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]OK I just don’t see inflation happening,
Really have you guy’s thought this through,

You need near full employment to have inflation I would think, and we really can be self sufficient in the U.S.A believe it or not, it may take five years but we have the ability to do it (the point is they need us a lot more than we need them who ever they are).

Deflation I think is still the rule of the day, maybe in five years we can talk about inflation again but the world will be a different place in five years so it is almost pointless to speculate.

If the China bubble does burst commodities will bust too, I think that will go a long way toward easing inflation as well but I am not a big believer that china bubble will burst anytime in the next few years either.[/quote]

You confuse price inflation with monitary inflation. I am sure there are a thousand threads on piggington playing with this, and a billion or two on the WWW, so I am not really gonna go into it. But the Fed can ‘print money’ and buy US bonds, allowing the government to repay our foreign creditors. That is monitary inflation, and isnt guarenteed to do anything to our prices here in the USA. As long as that money stays off shore, and people are willing to accept it, it wont hurt us too bad. Please see the ‘print and deny’ comment.

And you dont need to have full employment to have price inflation as you talked about.

[quote]Both the civilian unemployment rate and the rate of change in consumer prices deteriorated in the second half of the decade. Between 1970-74, the average annual unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, while the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 6.6 percent. From 1974-79, the figures edged up to 7.9 percent for unemployment and 8.1 percent for the CPI. [/quote]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar05p1.htm

And while I agree that the world will be a very different place in 5 years, we do need to worry about it because the AVERAGE length of treasury debt right now is something like 4 years. You live in a very narrow world if you think 4-5 years is a long ways off.

[DWCAP]

The thing is, this is all about public debt, not private debt. It isnt about small houses and smaller/fewer cars, it is about less money for schools/ national parks/ transportation/ police/ Military/ poor ‘social safty nets’. We have three options, Default, pay it back, or inflate it away.

#1) most people would consider default to not be an option. It would play havic with the world financial order.

#2) to pay back our debt will require higher taxes, and/or lower spending. This is the bitch of the Keyenian economic model we are now following. We fill in the economic vallies only by lopping off the economic mountain tops. If things are getting better as supposed, then taxes are going up, your benifits are falling, and services will be reduced to pay for all this stimulus.

I think that is what this article was trying to get at.
“No reasonably foreseeable rate of economic growth would overcome this structural deficit. Thus, any efforts to rein in future deficits must entail either large increases in taxes to support these programs or major restraints on their growth — or some combination of the two.”

Basically the American people will get less for their money from the government, or will give more money to the government for what they already get.

#3) Inflate away the costs. IMO, this is what will happen. High inflation will make paying these debts easier and easier. It will play havoc on our economy, and our savers will loose alot of (real) money, but that is prefered to #1 or #2. Print, dump and deny.

[DWCAP]

The thing is, this is all about public debt, not private debt. It isnt about small houses and smaller/fewer cars, it is about less money for schools/ national parks/ transportation/ police/ Military/ poor ‘social safty nets’. We have three options, Default, pay it back, or inflate it away.

#1) most people would consider default to not be an option. It would play havic with the world financial order.

#2) to pay back our debt will require higher taxes, and/or lower spending. This is the bitch of the Keyenian economic model we are now following. We fill in the economic vallies only by lopping off the economic mountain tops. If things are getting better as supposed, then taxes are going up, your benifits are falling, and services will be reduced to pay for all this stimulus.

I think that is what this article was trying to get at.
“No reasonably foreseeable rate of economic growth would overcome this structural deficit. Thus, any efforts to rein in future deficits must entail either large increases in taxes to support these programs or major restraints on their growth — or some combination of the two.”

Basically the American people will get less for their money from the government, or will give more money to the government for what they already get.

#3) Inflate away the costs. IMO, this is what will happen. High inflation will make paying these debts easier and easier. It will play havoc on our economy, and our savers will loose alot of (real) money, but that is prefered to #1 or #2. Print, dump and deny.

[DWCAP]

The thing is, this is all about public debt, not private debt. It isnt about small houses and smaller/fewer cars, it is about less money for schools/ national parks/ transportation/ police/ Military/ poor ‘social safty nets’. We have three options, Default, pay it back, or inflate it away.

#1) most people would consider default to not be an option. It would play havic with the world financial order.

#2) to pay back our debt will require higher taxes, and/or lower spending. This is the bitch of the Keyenian economic model we are now following. We fill in the economic vallies only by lopping off the economic mountain tops. If things are getting better as supposed, then taxes are going up, your benifits are falling, and services will be reduced to pay for all this stimulus.

I think that is what this article was trying to get at.
“No reasonably foreseeable rate of economic growth would overcome this structural deficit. Thus, any efforts to rein in future deficits must entail either large increases in taxes to support these programs or major restraints on their growth — or some combination of the two.”

Basically the American people will get less for their money from the government, or will give more money to the government for what they already get.

#3) Inflate away the costs. IMO, this is what will happen. High inflation will make paying these debts easier and easier. It will play havoc on our economy, and our savers will loose alot of (real) money, but that is prefered to #1 or #2. Print, dump and deny.

[Author]

Posts