New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
64 Things Restaurant Patrons Must NEVER Do
Confirmation that it's costing more to buy your bread: Inflation is "running at the fastest pace in 17 years, which consumer prices rising 0.8% last month, twice what experts were expecting. The AP grimly reports: "It marked the third straight month of oversized inflation increases following jumps of 0.6 percent in May and 1.1 percent in June and left inflation rising by 5.6 percent over the past year, the biggest 12-month gain since January 1991." The increases were across the board, for "clothing, food, transportation and recreational products." The NY Times says that this news "suggests that a[n interest] rate increase could come sooner rather than later," because lowering interest rates might force more inflation.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Way to go Republicans! You succeeded in reversing pretty much everything that was good that the Clinton administration did. Talk about 'mission accomplished!'!
damn tag closing. i'm a n00b
The best part in the number reporting is that the metrics don't include food and energy prices.
Core inflation is a joke of a stat in that regard.
So, basically things are worse than they seem.
Let's see Bottomless, They spent a budget surplus and left us with out highest national deficts ever (which scares the crap out of me and I remember the Reagan years) and now they have shot the economy completely to hell and inflation is on an upswing again.
Seeing as the only real good that came out of the Clintons was teh economy I would say it's a fair statement that Bush has officially undone it.
Inflation is outpacing my salary increases. Such news warms my heart.
Ugh. Sorry about the typos. I was caught up in the passion of my argument.
Won't raising interest rates exacerbate the housing crisis causing higher monthly payments for individuals who have adjustable rate mortgages, high credit card debt, student loans, etc?
The Fed is going to have to make some sticky decisions soon. Stagflation is a pain in the ass.
Presidents don't carry as much influence over the overall economy as you may think. Republican or Democrat, we would've been stuck in the same shit. If Americans are looking for someone to blame (as they ALWAYS love to do), tell them to look in the mirror.
they ain't kidding Pb doubled in price if not more.
didn't the nutcase who murdered the Democratic party chairman blamed the Democrats for him losing his job? why is it always the right wing nut cases who go batcrap and kill for their shortcomings or causes. (ex. reproductive rights)
Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.
...
Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."
...
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
...
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
wrong guy, the AR murder is still fresh.
oh well.
"Confirmation that it's costing more to buy your bread."
prisoner 24601 steals his bread.
There's so much wrong in here, I don't know where to begin.
We lived beyond our means in the Clinton/Greenspan years (and still are). Remember the NASDAQ bubble? Then who inflated a new bubble (housing), Mr. Greenspan.
Clinton balanced a budget---that's hardly a serious measure in determining our nation's economic health. That figure can be achieved through taxation, printing new money, and cooking the books.
By national deficit, you are referring to our national debt. This has always been growing. During Clinton's years it was at the highest ever. During HW's years it was at the highest ever, then. W. Bush is not to blame for setting a new peak. It would've happend with Gore or Kerry, too.
You are correct. It was hasten the process and make things worse, but things NEED to get worse before then can get better. So we should quicken the gulp of medicine instead of prolonging things and making it worse for all of us.
We need higher rates now.
Well the reason our nation is sagging is because we don't really make much of anything anymore. We come up with cool ideas for the Internet (Google), we create cool services that we buy with our money from our service industry job...and we don't export much.
We don't export much not because we don't have resources here (labor and hard) that can make great goods---it's because of regulation that has allowed us to be a creditor nation and stop producing goods. So in that regard, Presidents have influence as the additional regulation has hurt us quite considerably.
go take it to the street corner bottomless chips
Way to go Republicans! You succeeded in reversing pretty much everything that was good that the Clinton administration did. Talk about 'mission accomplished!'!
Actually, if you look at the inflation data, lower rates of inflation started in the Reagan years, declining from double digit levels under Carter. Since Bush I, inflation has basically trended between 2 and 6%. http://tinyurl.com/2znk5t
The current increase is largely the result of dumping money into the system to keep our banks afloat after they engaged in all those billion dollar write-downs, blaming the overheated housing market. The housing market bubble was largely created because dramatically lowered lending rates to banks in 2001 to prevent a post internet bubble 9/11 tailspin.
Banks passed the savings on to consumers through lower interest rates and relaxed lending standards, contributing to where we are now. The Fed slowly raised rates, but cut them to help with the current perceived crisis. This time, banks have been gulping up the cheap money, but they aren't passing the lower rates on to consumers, profiting off the larger spread. Those profits have helped offset the impact of the write-downs, creating some stability on the bank balance sheets.
Prices have gone up as the world competition for oil and commodities have increased, and the dollar has been devalued as we continue to dump more currency into the system.
Without giving Republicans a pass on the situation, Democrats have controlled Congress for since the 2006 election. Similarly, Repubicans took control of Congress in 1994, during much of the period you are attributing to Clinton.
Blaming or crediting one party or one President for the recent increase in inflation is simplistic to the point of ignorance; it's like blaming the sky for the rain.
These statistics are terribly flawed and unreliable. It's just like when you are dieting and trying to lose weight: don't go by the scale, go by your waist size and how your clothes fit.
I love George Bush and Sanjib loves my job. What's a little inflation to boot?
"The best part in the number reporting is that the metrics don't include food and energy prices. Core inflation is a joke of a stat in that regard."
The idea behind core CPI is that food and energy prices seep into other prices and you don't want to double count things. Of course, this ignores reality. Yes, food/energy does seep into other prices. However, that doesn't change the fact that I still have to buy food/energy and the prices are increasing. Alan Greenspan was a big fan of only looking at core CPI (along with a few other technical changes to CPI measures).
Note that CPI including food and energy is still being tracked and is available on the BLS website. The media acts like it doesn't exist (similar to how they act like the 'official' unemployment is the only number released by BLS. In reality they release 6 unemployment indicators).
Actually, what I said above is incorrect. Looking at the BLS release and the news reports, the number being reported is not core CPI. It's all items. Core was 0.3% month-month and 2.5% annual.
This is feeling more and more like the 70s. High inflation, high energy prices. All we need are new versions of the AMC Pacer and the VW Rabbit and I'd feel right at home.
Agree that the standard they use to measure inflation is not very accurate. We all know that for the last couple of years, gas has gone up, oil has gone up, milk has gone up, insurance rates have gone up... Some things trend down. Cost of a 50" tv, or a 30gb ipod, or a computer with a decent size screen.
Overall, though, I think most people do think that their purchasing power has declined over the last year. Inflation is something we should be concerned about, but the bigger concern is employment. If people have jobs, presumably increases in salaries offset the cost of inflation.
If you have a job and a fixed rate mortgage or a long term rental agreement, inflation might actually lower your effective cost of living. If you pay $4000 a month on a mortgage, and, because of inflation, $4000 doesn't have the buying power it once did, as long as your income is keeping pace with inflation you're actually better off.
If the job market tanks, that's when we'll really be screwed. Fewer jobs means less tax revenue, more people on unemployment, more defaults on loans... that will be ugly.
"we don't export much"
An oft-heard lament.. we actually export a lot. Over $1.5 trillion in goods in 2007.
The problem isn't that we don't export anything. It's just that we import a lot more. Regulations are not to blame. Simple economic realities are. Most people will buy the cheapest goods.
thank god we have bottomless chips as our resident economist.
"Agree that the standard they use to measure inflation is not very accurate. We all know that for the last couple of years, gas has gone up, oil has gone up, milk has gone up, insurance rates have gone up... Some things trend down. Cost of a 50" tv, or a 30gb ipod, or a computer with a decent size screen."
What exactly are you claiming to be inaccurate?
What exactly are you claiming to be inaccurate?
the reported inflation rate and CPI as a measure of actual consumer costs.
And regulation is definitely to blame. You wouldn't place a bulk of the blame on the Fed? You wouldn't put a bulk of the blame on labor laws, which helped kill the auto industry?
Politburo, I know that there are other metrics which include food and energy.
With your mention of CPI, I never understood what it's a good measure of anything as it uses the government's reported number on annualized inflation. Which, frankly, seems a bit low when you look at M3.
The cheapest and highest quality goods could be produced here, and exported to the world instead of us importing from China for free if we relaxed a lot of our labor laws.
$60B/month trade deficit is unsustainable, though, which is what I think we both agree on. Central banks won't buy our dollar forever.
Care to tell me why I'm wrong about inflation not solely being W's fault or just make snarky comments.
eyekant - Well in that case I don't know how you can claim it is inaccurate. The measure is compiled by people literally walking into stores and writing down (well, punching into a computer) the prices of goods. The problem most people seem to have with the CPI is that it 'doesn't match my experience', and that is correct. It will not match anyone's experiences, because it is a weighted average of weighted averages. It is a very broad measure that is intended to capture large economic trends. There is no indication that it's failing to do this.
Bottomless - I guess I'm not sure how the Fed is involved. I have an idea of what you're getting at, but rather than guess, I think it would be better if you could expand on that a bit.
As for labor laws, I don't really see how they killed the auto industry, especially since some of those laws predate the industry. Shitty cars and bad management killed the auto industry. Note that many of the Japanese automakers now have plants in the US, and don't seem to be having any issues.
In the last 7 1/2 years the cost of almost every major life essential -- health care, education, housing, energy, food -- has skyrocketed. The credit markets bubbled and crashed. Taxpayers are bailing out institutions that speculated wildly on poorly documented mortgages and mortgage securities. Foreclosures have gone up. The national debt has ballooned to record levels. The stratification between rich and poor has increased. Unemployment is higher now than at any time since the early 90's. Consumer debt is out of control. More people are living without health insurance. The value of the dollar is way down.
All this has happened in the last 7 1/2 years but nooooooooo, let's not point fingers.
Monetizing our debt is a function of the Fed which is troublesome. Another example would be bailing out Bear Stearns with buying mortgage securities we know will lose us money.
With labor laws, I guess I'll refer to things like healthcare for full time employees and then the trade unions. GM is paying pensions out that aren't really worth the labor it got from the employee. Working on an assembly line is a classical management example of how you can get maximum efficiency of lower skilled workers at a fraction of the cost. But when you're paying a million dollar pension out for someone who had one fixed skill their entire career due to the trade unions---that's going to lighten your profit margin, thus reducing profits re-invested into your company and dividends to share holders who could sink more money in giving you more capital to invest, and so on.
I'm teetering on an anti-union rant, but will hold off.
Other regulatory costs by the government that companies are forced to incur are all the environmental laws, FICA, capital gains on investors, tax breaks which unfair favor one company over another, inflation which drives up commodity prices, and then windfall taxes.
Healthcare: Why do prices go up? Hmm. Possibly because of government intervention? Which party instituted massive free health care plans for the poor and elderly?
Education: Democrats are the ones who seek to throw more money at public eduction, right? Next thing you know, it's going to cost $25,000 to send a kid through one year of HS.
Housing: Isn't that what people wanted? For housing prices to go higher and higher? This was the fault of Alan Greenspan keeping the interest rates low in the wake of the NASDAQ burst.
Energy: Oil has been rising in price steadily as the dollar has continually gone down. Look at the price in oil priced in gold.
Food: Again, related to inflation and the dollar.
Taxpayer bailouts: This is nationalization, which is a Democratic tenet and which the Democratic Congress and Senate vote for.
National Debt: It has ballooned with every president. Clinton, too.
Rich and Poor: Blame the Fed.
Unemployment: A mix of Democratic policies which cripple businesses, and inflationary reasons
Consumer Debt: The Fed. With low federal funds rates, there is more lending. This was the case with Clinton, too.
Health Insurance: The high costs of procedures makes insurance even more expensive. Prices rise because of Medicaid and Medicare.
Value of The Dollar: Many, even non-permabears, have called this.
It doesn't seem like your issue is with labor laws, really. There's no law that says you have to provide healthcare, or that you have to provide pensions, etc. I would agree that the auto unions (and some other unions) are actually working against the interests of their constituents.. or maybe better worded: unions seek shorter-term gains at the expense of long-term benefits. I don't think relaxing our labor and environmental standards is the way to go.
"With your mention of CPI, I never understood what it's a good measure of anything as it uses the government's reported number on annualized inflation."
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I would have to double check, but I don't think the CPI relies on any other government reported numbers. I think we're getting into the issue of CPI vs. inflation. I think the CPI is good at what it does, tracking changes in prices. Whether or not that is a good indicator of inflation is another debate entirely.
omg, this is the most boring bunch of comments ever!
There's no law that says you have to provide healthcare, or that you have to provide pensions, etc.
I meant more of the paradigm or employer based insurance*, though I believe MA forces employers of x-number or more to subsidize benefits or kick in money to the state's pool.
Cities have this, too, like San Fran, and that's seemingly going to be the trend as we get a Democratic president.
As for the pensions, no GM was not required to, but the unions make it tough. And as long as we allow union shops we'll see problems like that arise.
*The job lock with insurance is another problem that could be remedied through purely private health care.
wasnt the us auto industry the short-sided industry that pushed larger cars and trucks while Toyota and Honda were looking at more efficent cars. Dont most of the US automaker competitors have plants in the US and arent suffering like GM and Ford. Doesnt GM and Ford also have plants outside of the states? GM and Ford have made innumberable mistakes and thats why the us auto-industry is suffering. screw them.
unless you're tycoon yourself this quote
'as long as we allow union shops we'll see problems like that arise.'
is pretty chilling.
I hate unions and union shops not because I'm a rich tycoon who wants to screw the little peasants. In fact, I'm middle class and in a service industry. About your norm for a New Yorker.
I hate them because they strip the rights of those who are in them. What's chilling to me is joining an organization where I give up my individual rights and fork over the wages of my labor to a third party. The rights of man are stripped (Locke). You participate in group think. And you fight away competition in an immoral fashion. Unions are scary and chilling.
You obviously didn't read my points on Ford and GM being hamstrung to reinvest their profits into new capital.
As for your Toyota and Honda small car point, when the government is giving tax breaks for SUVs and pickups that artificially creates demand for those, GM and Ford will build more. Yay, government intervention in the marketplace!
I agree with Bottomless and the FED should be abolish!
"Inflation Reaches 17-Year-High"
Duh hello. This is why -traditionally- RETARDS are normally NOT elected to run a country.