Maybe you have a point, but be quiet about it, ci, if you don't want entitlements to grow too fast. Lower cost of living raises helps us have a better chance to manage the federal budget.
c.i. wrote :
Quote:This is one reason I don't believe in the government's inflation numbers of three (3) percent. When all costs are going up at double-digit rates for the American consumer, and wages stay stagnant, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the government's BS about their inflation numbers - year after year.
i believe that's the CORE INFLATION ! things like gasoline , food and other volotile items are excluded from tht core inflation number .
even commentators on CNBC are saying that the core inflation number has become bogus .
as one CNBC commentator recently said : "i told my wife about the low 3% inflation rate - she invited me to go shopping with her ! " .
hbg
Quote:In recent years, the news media have increasingly focused on the so-called core (excluding food and energy) measure of inflation. Often we hear how the all-items index may have been higher than expected, but we should still cheer because the core number was lower than expected.
The reasoning behind this is that food and energy prices are supposedly more volatile than other components, something that is certainly true in the case of energy but less true of food, which in the aggregate is hardly more volatile than some "core" categories. Individual sub-categories in food like vegetables may be highly volatile but that is usually counteracted by other sub-categories remaining stable or even moving in the opposite direction.
The reasoning for excluding food and energy is again their real or alleged volatility, which supposedly make them unreliable as inflation indicators. But the idea that the core index in any way better measures "underlying" inflation pressures should be rejected for several reasons.
complete article :
CORE INFLATION RATE
okie, Are you talking about our tax paid entitlements in Iraq? It's costing us 2.7 billion every week; for a cuase that's been lost some years ago. No country survives without a viable central government.
c.i. :
if you'd stop spending money on such silly things as food and gasoline , you'll see your "personal" inflation rate going down quickly
!
(this is what the "governor of the bank of canada" has been telling canadians for quite some time : " THE CORE INFLATION RATE REMAINS LOW ! " )
hbg (hasn't stopped eating and drinking yet)
Americans need to stop driving cars and start doing more biking and walking...
Miller wrote:Americans need to stop driving cars and start doing more biking and walking...
As a biker and walker, I couldn't agree more. It would not only save transportation monies, but the increased health benefits would doubtlessly lead to lower medical costs as well.
Cycloptichorn
The biggest problem with the government's "core inflationn rate" is how the financial pundits continue to use this useless number for the world at large.
Most Americans don't know about "core" and "real" inflation rates, because nobody bothers to explain the difference.
They compare economic growth (3 percent) and the inflation rate at three percent. For most Americans, that means zero growth - or falling further behind. Only the most wealthy are gaining in both income and value.
cicerone imposter wrote:The biggest problem with the government's "core inflationn rate" is how the financial pundits continue to use this useless number for the world at large.
Most Americans don't know about "core" and "real" inflation rates, because nobody bothers to explain the difference.
They compare economic growth (3 percent) and the inflation rate at three percent. For most Americans, that means zero growth - or falling further behind. Only the most wealthy are gaining in both income and value.
But is the government "pushing" the sale of I-bonds?
miller wrote :
Quote:Americans need to stop driving cars and start doing more biking and walking...
up to a point i agree with you , however there are more and more SMOG DAYS even here in ontario when the medical offcer of health advises people NOT to walk for any long distances during the daytime .
we are being advised to go for a walk before and after sunset
as seniors we also find walking with a legbrace is getting rather slow .
hbg(still walking - but not as much as even two years ago)
hbg, So true about us seniors slowing down; but for me, it's been only about one year. What surprises me even more is the simple fact that my head tells me to slow down. I'm cutting down on my travels down to five or six this year; my brain keeps telling me to slow down.
The good news is that I'm still getting my eight hours of sleep every night, and I can still walk all day if need be.
cicerone imposter wrote:hbg, So true about us seniors slowing down; but for me, it's been only about one year. What surprises me even more is the simple fact that my head tells me to slow down. I'm cutting down on my travels down to five or six this year; my brain keeps telling me to slow down.
The good news is that I'm still getting my eight hours of sleep every night, and I can still walk all day if need be.
But do you know where you're going?
Quote:But do you know where you're going?
it's either UPHILL - puff , puff - or DOWNHHILL
advantages and disadvantages in both - depending upon you you look at it
hbg(right now trying to stay upright )
Dealing With the Dragon
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 4, 2008
On both Wednesday and Thursday, the price of oil briefly hit $100 a barrel. The new record made headlines, as well it should have. But what does it mean, aside from the obvious point that the economy is under extra pressure?
Well, one thing it means is that we're having the wrong discussion about foreign policy.
Almost all the foreign policy talk in this presidential campaign has been motivated, one way or another, by 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Yet it's a very good bet that the biggest foreign policy issues for the next president will involve the Far East rather than the Middle East. In particular, the crucial questions are likely to involve the consequences of China's economic growth.
Turn to any of several major concerns now facing America, and in each case it's startling how large a role China plays.
Start with the soaring price of oil. Unlike the oil crises that followed the Yom Kippur War and the overthrow of the shah of Iran, this crisis wasn't caused by events in the Middle East that disrupted world oil supply. Instead, it had its roots in Asia.
It's true that the global supply of oil has been growing sluggishly, mainly because the world is, bit by bit, running out of the stuff: big oil discoveries have become rare, and when oil is found, it's harder to get at. But the reason oil supply hasn't been able to keep up with demand is surging oil consumption in newly industrializing economies ?- above all, in China.
Even now, China accounts for about only 9 percent of the world's demand for oil. But because China's oil demand has been rising along with its economy, in recent years China has been responsible for about a third of the growth in world oil consumption.
As a result, oil at $100 a barrel is, in large part, a made-in-China phenomenon.
Speaking of made in China, that brings us to a second issue. There's growing concern in this country about the effects of globalization on wages, largely because imports of manufactured goods from low-wage countries have surged, doubling as a share of G.D.P. since 1993. And more than half of that rise reflects the explosive growth of U.S. industrial imports from China, which went from less than 0.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 to more than 2 percent in 2006.
Last, but most important, is the issue of climate change, which will eventually be recognized as the most crucial problem facing America and the world ?- maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.
Why is climate change a China issue? Well, China is already, by some estimates, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. And as with oil demand, China plays a disproportionate role in emissions growth. In fact, between 2000 and 2005 China accounted for more than half the increase in the world's emissions of carbon dioxide.
What this means is that any attempt to mitigate global warming will be woefully inadequate unless it includes China.
Indeed, back in 2001, when he reneged on his campaign promise to limit greenhouse gas emissions, President Bush cited the fact that the Kyoto treaty didn't include China and India as an excuse for doing nothing. But the real problem is how to make China part of the solution.
So what does all this tell us about the presidential race?
On the Republican side, foreign policy talk is all bluster and braggadocio. To listen to the G.O.P. candidates, you'd think it was still February 2003, when the national discourse was dominated by people who thought that American military might was sufficient to shock and awe the rest of the world into doing our bidding.
Memo: China has 50 times the population of Iraq.
The Democrats in general make far more sense. But among at least some of Barack Obama's supporters there seems to be a belief that if their candidate is elected, the world's problems will melt away in the face of his multicultural charisma.
Memo: It won't work on the Chinese.
The truth is that China is too big to be bullied, and the Chinese are too cynical to be charmed. But while they are our competitors in important respects, they're not our enemies, and they can be dealt with.
A lot of Americans, when they think about the next president's foreign-policy qualifications, seem to be looking for a hero ?- someone who will stand tall against terrorists, or transform the world with his optimism.
But what they should be looking for is something more prosaic ?- a good negotiator, someone who can bargain effectively with some very tough customers and get the deals we need on energy, currency policy and carbon credits.
au, That's a good article, but Krugman misses one big point; the loss of value of the US dollar against all major currencies.
Jobs number today was terrible, helicopter Ben Bernake makes noises of another rate cut.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, Cyclo, the numbers were bad. Something like only 18,000 new net jobs. I have been trying to find out the break-down, but without great success. Something like 48,000 down in construction. Retailing, manufacturing and financial services also down. Health care up. Oddly (to me) 31,000 new jobs in government.
If anyone stumbles across the distribution of gains and losses by category, that would be cool.
The stock market was not happy at the news on Friday.
Some of us have been talking about the "r" word last year. ;( I can't see how our economy can continue to grow when more Americans are losing their homes/jobs, fuel costs are going up, and salaries are stagnant.
