Obama '08?

In the Christian world we live to about 80. In the evolutionary world I read it was early 20s.

Actually in the Christian world you lived til sometime in your 40s until it became the scientific world. Then and only then did life expectancies start reaching the 70s and 80s.

Japan has/had one of the longest longevity, and most are buddhist/shinto, not christian.

What kind of "information?"

You don't have to be a person of faith to appreciate religious imagery.

It's epic.

Who knows? Do you?

Considering the vast majority of humanity has been praying for all of recorded history and likely thousands of years before, you either have overestimated humanity or underestimated prayer.

Yes, none. It was not prayer that may have saved a life or two.

What do you call one who is absolutely certain of something, but who has no basis whatever for that certainty?

A Republican?

Cycloptichorn

A liberal democrat?

Faithful

I think Cyclo is a pretty good fit. He combines limited understanding with an insensitivity to conflicting detail and a high degree of uncritical certainty in his prejudices.

Anyone can get all the illustration of blind faith they need by just observing and listening to the rightwingers who want to continue the Bush tax cuts, continue and increase the deregulation of banking, and just keep doing all the things that steered this country right into an economic shyt hole. Their way has never worked, but they make endless noise as if it will.

Don't be so sensitive, George, I was only teasing ya.

Besides, I could turn right around and say you fit the exact same bill. Right? I mean, for how many years now have you predicted runaway inflation that has, over and over again, failed to materialize?

Cycloptichorn

All things Obama is what has steered this country right into an economic **** hole

It was Bush that did that.

1.8% economic growth over 8 years. Almost no job creation over 8 years. And somehow you think going back to his policies are what we need?

watersquirt doesn't understand economics 101. He has no grasp of reality, graphs, facts, or the "regular" media.

That is an interesting issue. The historical record leaves little doubt that larger increases in the money supply are a precursor to inflation. Indeed the founding charter of the Federal Reserve is based in major part on that observation and the need to control the money supply so as to limit the danger associated with such inflation.

To reduce risks arising from the 2007 collapsing real estate bubble and associated market collapse the Government, through the TARP program, and later the Fed, through its normal activity, added enormous liquidity in a largely successful effort to stem an unfolding banking crisis. Since then, our government, and governments in Europe have struggled with an entirely separate crisis of far greater long-term signifcance arising from historically very high levels of government debt in the U.S. and Europe - compounded in the U.S. by rapidly expanded annual deficits and associated additions to already dangerously high debt levels. As a result local market collapses for government bonds have already occurred in Europe, with further contaigon already threatened in Italy and beyond. So far the U.S. has been insulated from risk simply by being the least immediately risky haven for money looking for a shelter from the storm. ( That is a deludingly comfortable situation that could end suddenly and without warning.)

However, we too have already seen a reduced demand for our government debt. This quietly growing problem has been temporarily tamped down by the Federal Reserve's massive QE2 program and subsequent massive purchases of Federal debt, all of which have even more massively added to the money supply, thereby creating significant potential for an inflationary spiral should the economy begin to recover significantly.

This continuing problem of a stagnant economy and high (and still rising) levels of government debt has got us in a very dangerous corner from which there is no escape without serious economic risks - continued stagnation, or inflation .... or both. There are also historical patterns that add to the uncertainty. Governments burdened with high levels of debt relative to economic output very often resort to inflationary policies as a way of escaping their debt in real economic terms by diluting the wealth of holders of their currencies.

It is true, as Cyclo writes, that inflation has not yet occurred despite the large scale expansion of our money supply. However, it is also true that the Fed, tied as it is to a government that requires low borowing costs to continue so as to sustain its high spending levels, is no longer able to perform its mandated function of limiting the inflation danger. There's a lot of liquidity out there and no available means of restraining it while we're in this corner.

The faithful will always be able to make a good argument for why their predictions will come true - soon. This time. For sure.

You never fail to disappoint; kudos.

Cycloptichorn

But I didn't assert that inflation will come soon, nor did I make any prediction at all. Instead I outlined the dangers and the risks associated with our current situstion and the ill-conceived policies of the current administration that continue to add to the extraordinary risks we face, and which do so with little or no short-term economic benefit and great long-term risk.

The current Administration has presided over one of the slowest econoimic recoveries from a recession of the past century. Its economic measures to deal with the recession have slowed, not accelerated the recovery - and they continue to do so. The Administration is instead pursuing a political strategy designed to obscure its failures, and convince its supporters that they are the victims of an unseen conspiracy at the hands of their political opponents. From an historical perspective, this is a readily recognizable and rather shopworn tactic favored by populist manipulators, tyrants and phoneys who are in over their heads. Take your pick.

Other than the great depression, it was the worst recession in the last century, with the sharpest rate of job losses and most jobs lost. By far. It takes longer to recover from deep shocks than it does small ones.



Prove it. You and Mitt Romney are fond of throwing this line around; where is the evidence?



This argument might work with someone who wasn't paying attention to the Obstructionism of the GOP over the last several years. But you can't be foolish enough to actually think it would fly around here - a place where people have been paying a great deal of attention and know exactly how hard the GOP has been attempting to keep things from getting better.

Cycloptichorn