Is the US economy overheating - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15196592
Steve_American wrote:You are wrong.
You need to check the facts.
Yes, the 1st Amendment talks about only "Congress".
However, one of the post Civil War Amendments has been extended by the USSC to also apply all 10 Amendments to the states also.
It is settled law.

I am not wrong. I am quite aware of incorporation. The point is that the 2nd Amendment didn't need incorporation. It is true that though that gun control contravenes the 14th as well as the 2nd. I would hardly describe this as settled. The liberals are working night and day to undermine free speech, gun rights and to enslave us to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Although it must be also be added that Conservatives are working night and day to enslave women's bodies by denying their right to abortions.
Last edited by Rich on 02 Nov 2021 02:38, edited 2 times in total.
#15196602
Rich wrote:
It is true that though that gun control contravenes the 14th as well as the 2nd. I would hardly descried this as settled.

The liberals are working night and day to undermine free speech, gun rights and to enslave us to the pharmaceutical industrial complex.



The first noun in the Second is Militia. It's about militias..

The problem they had back then is that they didn't have a standing army. Militias suck, and they knew that. They were hoping they would slow the Brits down long enough to raise an army.

We now have the most powerful military in history. We have a large reserve force called the National Guard. Which makes the 2nd obsolete.

You also need to understand that, for over 200 years, no court interpreted the 2nd as broadly as Heller. It was a massive shift, if we ever get a SC that isn't dominated by kooks, it will face review.

Which brings me to my closing point. For a long time, Republicans have been lying their ass off. Heller is part of that pattern. Right wing judges say they are originalists when it suits them, and the exact opposite of that the moment that suits them.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_2?crid=20K87MD3NN0N0&dchild=1&keywords=the+second+amendment+a+biography&qid=1635777276&qsid=131-4556309-4521855&sprefix=the+second+amend%2Caps%2C187&sr=8-2&sres=1476747458%2CB093QG4MBR%2CB08H5S6K5C%2C1938895223%2C1642935670%2C1648017878%2C1479819913%2C1501116495%2C1250073731%2CB005BTM08A%2C1952491134%2C1440870586%2C1643137026%2C1534502904%2CB084M23FRL%2C0830831703&srpt=ABIS_BOOK
#15196603
B0ycey wrote:
I can't work this out? Do you believe in the Chinese miracle that they got rid of Covid? :lol: now that is fantasy.

Nonetheless I didn't say China ignored Covid. I SAID THEY KEPT THEIR ECONOMY RUNNING and didn't pay anyone to sit on their ass post Wuhan. What they did instead was mitigate Covid which was what I said we in the West should have done two years ago as it happens when everyone was crying about hearting their lockdowns and saying the economy didn't matter. They built up their health capacity by building new hospitals, controlled the spread by wearing face masks, didn't over cook the figures and scare people shitless so people were happy to continue doing their ordinary lives without changing their habits, when the spread of Covid was looking unsustainable in specific districts they did mass testing rather than shutting down the entire country. And the result? An actual growth last year. They basically said fuck it. They didn't sacrifice their economy for no good reason. They actually gave people personal responsibility and mitigated. So get a grip. We are where we are and you were happy with that two years ago. Lockdownteers have no right to bitch about inflation or supply issues given you can't say you weren't warned.



There is much wrong in there it's well past pathetic.

If you are going to discuss something, you need to know something, and that doesn't include the ravings of the delusional.
#15196604
late wrote:We now have the most powerful military in history. We have a large reserve force called the National Guard. Which makes the 2nd obsolete.


You also have a citizenry that is also armed. On the off chance the dirty CCP invade the US, they would also have to worry about the citizens taking pot shots at them.

USA! USA! USA!

If I recall right, during WWII Japanese generals warned that an invasion of the US mainland would be impossible because "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass". He was refering to regular people. I think the US is well positioned to maintain a resistance to occupation. Although it's an unlikely event, it is still a reason I support the 2nd amendment.

USA! USA! USA!
#15196611
Rancid wrote:
You also have a citizenry that is also armed. On the off chance the dirty CCP invade the US, they would also have to worry about the citizens taking pot shots at them.

USA! USA! USA!

If I recall right, during WWII Japanese generals warned that an invasion of the US mainland would be impossible because "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass". He was refering to regular people. I think the US is well positioned to maintain a resistance to occupation. Although it's an unlikely event, it is still a reason I support the 2nd amendment.

USA! USA! USA!



That's old school thinking. My grandfather thought the Russkies would invade across Canada. Which was daft. He kept a number of WW1 rifles, and pounds of lead and powder to make bullets for them.

Anyway, it's all about the high ground now. It shouldn't be, one of the worst ideas humans have ever had is militarising Space, but science had no luck against the human compulsion to make everything everywhere a battleground.
#15196638
Rich wrote:I am not wrong. I am quite aware of incorporation. The point is that the 2nd Amendment didn't need incorporation. It is true that though that gun control contravenes the 14th as well as the 2nd. I would hardly describe this as settled. The liberals are working night and day to undermine free speech, gun rights and to enslave us to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Although it must be also be added that Conservatives are working night and day to enslave women's body by denying their right to abortions.


Every reasonable person agrees that modern weapons require some control of some weapons.
The following weapons are just too dangerous: atom bombs, poison gas, AA rockets, etc.
This means that an absolute understanding of 'arms' to be any weapon the military uses or can use, is ruled out.
So, every reasonable person agrees that a line must be drawn somewhere. Now we are arguing about where to draw it.
The Founders only knew about muzzle loading cannons, rifles, muskets, and pistols. These might be approximated today with guns with no magazines at all. No revolvers either. WWI era quick firing guns are for the cannons. You get 1 or 2 shots before you must pause to reload. Mass shooting are not possible.
. . . Nobody I know is going that far. I'm just pointing out what sort of 'arms' the Founders were thinking of, converted to modern forms.

The bottom line is that we need to decide what modern weapons are too dangerous in the hands of the masses.

One other point is Thom Hartmann thinks that he has written evidence that the 2nd Amend. was there because the slave owners were afraid of an internal threat. And their response was to create local militias to put down slave revolts. Trained regular soldiers were 'overkill' against illarmed slaves. I would argue that the settlers needed arms to help them steal the natives' land as they moved west. Danial Boone had a militia in Tenn. in the 1780s and 90s. A private fort in the 1840s (Bents Fort) had 2 cannons.
. . . So, now that slavery and native resistance are gone, the Militias have no purpose. IED have been shown to be very much better than guns in our modern world for fighting soldiers. That is, if you fire at soldiers with a gun you are very likely to be killed before you get away.
.
#15196639
Countries than run continuous deficits do not seem to endure accelerating inflation or currency crises

This is the title of Dr. Bill Mitchell's blog post for Mon., Nov. 1.

I found it quite well said.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/? ... ment-73461

I'll quote it some, just to give you an idea of its points. I jump around.
... snip...
But the critique unveiled at the conference recently doesn’t really deal with any of that.

It starts by arguing that:

"Economists of the MMT persuasion polarize with the claims that … a state with its own currency has ‘no budget constraint’ "

The authority for this assessment is that characters like “Fed chair Yellen”, “ECB President Lagarde”, Larry Summers, Mr Dodgy Spreadsheet Rogoff and others don’t like MMT so we are polarising.

Go figure that one.

The authors present a reasonable rendition of the basis MMT propositions that they consider to be ‘strengths’ although it is not how I would have written it.

They then turn to the “Weaknesses of MMT”.

The first attack is on a comment that they draw from Randall Wray’s 2015 Primer (Palgrave) that “households need the government to spend before they can pay taxes!”

They claim this is “astonishing” given that MMT also “emphasizes the endogeneity of money which is based on banks borrowing money from the central bank ” and thus means that “there is no intrinsic linkage between the volume of central bank money and government spending”.

But, of course, this criticism reflects a misunderstanding of the way in which we order the pedagogy which introduces our work to the general public.

In some cases, we use simple conceptual vehicles (heuristics) to begin a discussion with those interested in MMT who have no prior background.

Representative of these heuristics are these blog posts:

1. A simple personal calling card economy (March 31, 2009).

2. Barnaby, better to walk before we run (February 8, 2010).

3. Some neighbours arrive (February 15, 2010).

There is no sense that these ‘models’ can represent reality as we know it. Reality is much more complex and multilayered.

But these heuristics allow us to explore some intrinsic characteristics of the monetary system, the capacity of the currency issuer and the options that such a government might have to advance its policy agenda.
...snip...

and
...snip...
This asserted causality then forces investors to demand higher yields on government debt, which leads to “Higher interest rates”, which “negatively affect the government’s fiscal position and depress investment”.

They then argue that if the government tries to control yields using QE, the investors will abandon the currency as per the previous assertion.

Then the workers retaliate and there is a wage-price spiral and a “further increase in inflation”.

So all of this is standard mainstream reasoning, which has floundered in the real world.

First, governments all around the world have run continuous fiscal deficits for decades, which inject net financial assets, initially denominated in the government’s currency, into the non-government sector.

Where is the systematic depreciation and inflationary impacts via import price rises evident for these nations?

Why is the demand for Australian government bonds so strong always and continuously held in Australian dollars, when there has been an external deficit mostly since the 1970s and governments have run fiscal deficits regularly, of varying magnitudes?

Why has the Japanese public largely held government bonds in yen and why hasn’t the yen collapsed in the face of massive fiscal deficits, significant government bond issues, and very large-scale QE programs?

Why has Japan fought deflationary rather than inflationary pressures since the 1990s given its fiscal and monetary policy settings?

Why has the Bank of Japan been able to control short-term interest rates and yields on government debt despite the massive QE programs, while simultaneously observing deflationary rather than inflationary pressures?

Second, there are notable instances of currency-issuing government facing currency pressures as investors shift their portfolios into foreign assets.

The experience of Britain in the 1990s is one example.

But that arose because Britain had pegged its currency and thus had lost its sovereignty.

Speculators knew that if Britain insisted on maintaining its membership of the ERM, then it could be targetted with short trades.

Ultimately, the ‘currency crisis’ came to a head on September 16, 1992, when the government finally abandoned its ERM membership and floated the pound.

MMT always considers nations that compromise their currencies with any pegged-typed arrangements will face ‘investor pressure’.

Third, there are also cases where a floating exchange rate can be targetted.

The GFC-example of Iceland is important to understand.

They had a very large banking collapse during the early days of the GFC and they prevented a currency-collapse and inflation by imposing capital controls.

I have regularly written about the need for capital controls in some circumstances.

MMT economists clearly understand that large private capital holders can cause trouble for a small nation through speculative ventures that can be thwarted by the imposition of capital control, which are clearly the remit of the legislative authority, as the Icelandic experience shows.

Fourth, the idea that recipients of a nation’s currency, acquired in the course of government spending on contracts to produce infrastructure, provide services, procure private activity, employ people, have the choice on how to store their wealth portfolio.

In a growing economy, which high levels of employment and wealth generation, it is implausible to assume that recipients of government currency, in the normal course of events, will seek to transfer those holdings into foreign assets.

The fear of these conversions was also raised in the context of Chinese purchases of US government bonds and there were many erroneous claims that the Chinese were funding US government spending.

The reality is that the holdings of US dollar-denominated assets were only able to be accumulated because the Chinese economy ran export surpluses and deprived their citizens of the use of the resources embodied in those exports.

But the value of those foreign currency denominated assets will be sensitive to what the holders do with them.

It would be very odd behaviour to build up these assets in one’s wealth portfolio and then undermine their value by selling them off via foreign exchange transactions.
...snip...



So, the massive body of work by MMTers since the early 90s has already addressed all the objections made by MS economists in their attempts to downplay MMT as wrong or things they all knew for decades. [But, they never wrote about how they knew 'those things' for all those decades. It's as if they had to keep that knowledge secret.]

.
#15197285
@Steve_American There are now 4 times more dollars in circulation then 2000. From Bitcoin we know a currency has to be in circulation to be something worth.

Due to globalisation has the international trade increased in the last 2 decades, so the need for Dollars.

Could this be an explenation why we do not see hyperinflation, although more money got printed?
#15197489
Sandzak wrote:@Steve_American There are now 4 times more dollars in circulation then 2000. From Bitcoin we know a currency has to be in circulation to be something worth.

Due to globalisation has the international trade increased in the last 2 decades, so the need for Dollars.

Could this be an explanation why we do not see hyperinflation, although more money got printed?


1] The US has not printed 4 times more money.
. . a] Because selling bonds to deficit spend, does not add dollars in circulation. The dollars in the bonds are saved.
. . b] Many or even most of the dollars that have been added to the money supply were added by banks making loans.
Source is ==> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1914001070
In its Abstract it says, "This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, "out of thin air"."
. . . . So, banks create dollars with every loan.
. . c] All of the dollars created by bank loans are deposited into bank accounts. They are not in the form of paper dollars.
. . d] The only way the the MMT combined US Treasury and Fed. Res. do sort of 'print money' is done by the Fed. buying US bonds on the secondary market with dollars that the Fed. creates out of thin air. But again, these dollars go into bank accounts.

Everyone, please note, that MS Econ. doesn't track bank loans as adding to the money supply, but does accuse the Gov. of adding to the money supply when it sells bonds to deficit spend. Partly, this is because MS econ. has factored banks out of their theory.

Again, I assert that dollars invested in US bonds are not really in the money supply any more than dollars in savings accounts. Neither sort of dollar can add to inflation. At least, not more than, very little.

In summary, most of the increase in the money supply since 2000 was added by banks making loans. It was not added by the US Gov. deficit spending. Some was added, maybe, by the Fed. buying US bonds from persons.

Again, MS Econ. predicted in 2008 that austerity would cause people to spend more. That this spending would end the Great Recession. It didn't because the people didn't have the money to spend, and they could not borrow it, because banks were not making loans to anyone who lacked 100% solid collateral.
. . .It didn't matter that the people were not afraid of higher taxes 10 years down the road, they could not spend 'today' because they didn't have the money 'today'.
. . . MS Econ. is just stupid.
#15198389
Another great explanation of why we are seeing prices increase. The increase in Gov. deficit spending is *not* the cause, except in real estate and stock prices. The cause is shortages caused by a breakdown in the delivery system of imported stuff and OPEC wanting oil prices increased. [I have seen an unconfirmed report that the problem is only Saudi Arabia.]

As I have pointed out, oil and other prices went down in2020. The only way to be honest and account for this is to look at the increase between a month in 2019 and the same month in 2021, and then divide by 2 (for the 2 years that in the long run are all that matters; and inflation must always be seen in the long run. For example, a price spike because of a hurricane is not what matters, even if it was quite large, as long as the prices return to 'normal'.

Also, MMT economists define inflation as a 'general ongoing increase in prices'. The increases we are seeing have not been going on for long enough to be "ongoing".

MSNBC Host Says INFLATION Not A Problem For Regular Folks

The 9.3 min. video is by Breaking Point an independent online news source, they have a lot to say.

#15199261
The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) released their BIS Bulletin No. 48 –
– Bottlenecks: causes and macroeconomic implications – for inflation.
https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull48.pdf


http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=48729
From Bill Mitchell's blog today. He's a founding MMTer.
The current inflation trajectory still looks to be transitory
Monday, November 22, 2021 --- Coronavirus, Inflation

On November 11, 2021, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) related their BIS Bulletin No. 48 – Bottlenecks: causes and macroeconomic implications – which presents evidence that should help people who are becoming het up about the inflation numbers lately to calm down a bit. On June 8, 2021, the UK Guardian published an Op Ed I had written – Price rises should be short-lived – so let’s not resurrect inflation as a bogeyman – which I stand by. I have been criticised for dismissing the inflation threat and I regularly get E-mails announcing the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is ‘over’ and has been proven wrong by the rising inflation rates around the world. Those interventions actually break up my day with ‘humour’ ...


AFAIK, there are active links to those 2 articles in blue, in the blog post linked to above.

Later, just before the conclusion, Bill says this.
What does this mean for MMT analysis?
For the critics who have been hoping for some inflation as evidence that MMT-style analysis is plain wrong, sorry for the disappointment.
The current inflation verifies key aspects of an MMT understanding.
There is nothing at all normal about a once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic (hopefully).
The shifts in demand, the constraints in supply have been large and rapid. No economy can adjust that quickly without consequence. The supply constraints that have emerged merely reflect the scale of disruption and tell us nothing about the way an economy responds to properly calibrated fiscal interventions designed to maintain full employment.
It is surprising actually, that prices haven’t risen by more than they have given that large sections of our economies have been shut down, while workers have been given income support in various forms by governments, thus maintaining demand higher than otherwise.
What the pandemic has done for MMT is show that government deficits do not drive up bond yields and interest rates, if the central bank provides supplementary support to the spending increases. It has shown that ultimately, bond markets can only influence yields if the government allows them too.
It has also shown that there is a huge thirst for government debt – as a form of corporate welfare.
It has shown that governments can spend very large amounts, very quickly, whenever it chooses, without the connotation of ‘running out of money’.
All core MMT propositions, which place our work in contradistinction to the mainstream New Keynesian analysis and predictions.

.
#15206411
Krystal and Saagar on "Breaking Points" on youtube have a few 10 min. videos about inflation.

They say it is mostly because corps are raising prices more than their cost have risen, because then they can brag about record profits and shortages cause by economic disruptions caused by covid.

The money supply theory of inflation is false. It sounds plausible, but when one looks at the data there is no correlation between the money supply and the inflation rate.

The money spent to support the economy during the covid pandemic is not the cause of the current inflation. See Biden going after the meatpacking industry for 1 example.

.
#15207568
Rich wrote:
I am not wrong. I am quite aware of incorporation. The point is that the 2nd Amendment didn't need incorporation. It is true that though that gun control contravenes the 14th as well as the 2nd. I would hardly describe this as settled. The liberals are working night and day to undermine free speech, gun rights and to enslave us to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Although it must be also be added that Conservatives are working night and day to enslave women's bodies by denying their right to abortions.



Love the crazy, but the reality is we had a standing precedent for a couple centuries. Heller ripped that up, you guys used to call that "judicial activism".

Heller was wrongly decided (big surprise) and will eventually be replaced.
#15207631
Rich wrote:I am not wrong. I am quite aware of incorporation. The point is that the 2nd Amendment didn't need incorporation. It is true that though that gun control contravenes the 14th as well as the 2nd. I would hardly describe this as settled. The liberals are working night and day to undermine free speech, gun rights and to enslave us to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Although it must be also be added that Conservatives are working night and day to enslave women's bodies by denying their right to abortions.

I don't think this reply has anything to do with the economy overheating. But, I'll reply any way.

There has been a lot of tech progress since 1782. This means that there has had to be adjustments to what it means. In the beginning, citizens were allowed to own cannons. They could arm merchant ships with them, in the Davy Crockett legend Mike Fink had a small cannon on his keel boat, and the Bent brothers had 2 cannons in Bents Fort.
For example, airplanes and air forces were invented. The Constitution, if read according to the original intent, only allows the army and navy, it doesn't allow an air force.
Other examples are machineguns, poison gas, anti-aircraft guns (& missiles), and nuclear weapons were invented. IMHO, we do not want people to be selling backpack atomic weapons. These can be seen as 'arms' as they are man carried, and not bigger than a small cannon. I do not want kooks to own anti-aircraft guns to park at the end of runways to play at shooting down planes as they take off. I do no want people to own poison gas cylinders either. Etc.

Therefore, I strongly assert that a line has to be drawn between 'arms' that are too dangerous for the people to own and those that are protected. If you concede that this line must exist, then I assert that what is being debated is 'where to draw the line'.

I further assert that guns are not that useful to fight a modern army. The Iraqi resistance fighters didn't fight the US Army with guns. They use roadside IED that let them blow up the invaders and not expose themselves to being shot as a result. My point is that --- assault guns are only useful for killing unarmed people and not very useful for overthrowing the Gov. As such, I assert that they are too dangerous and not useful enough to be protected. The line should be drawn to lump them in with atom bombs. YMMV.

Please note -- the UN rules give the people a right to resist foreign invaders. Americans thought nothing was wrong with young men and older boys in the movie "Red Dawn" attacking and killing the Soviet troops that had invaded the US. I assert that the only difference between the situations of Red Dawn and the US in Iraq is that 'we' were the invaders in Iraq and the invaded in "Red Dawn". I assert that the Iraqi resistance fighters were not terrorists any more than the boys in Red Dawn were. The US Gov. just lied and denied them their UN granted human rights and called them terrorists. YMMV.
.
#15207758
Back on topic.

More evidence that the current inflation is ephemeral from Bill Mitchell's blog of Monday, Jan. 17th

Bill wrote in the introduction, "I last provided data and analysis of this issue in this blog post – Central banks are resisting the inflation panic hype from the financial markets – and we are better off as a result (December 13, 2021) – where I made it clear that the spikes [in inflation] are a unique coincidence between abnormal, pandemic-related demand and supply patterns. That couldn’t be clearer. "
. . And, "Supporting this view, is a recent ECB [European Central Bank] research paper, which uses fairly advanced econometric techniques to decompose one measure of inflationary expectations in a component that reflects short-term risk and another that reflects longer term inflationary expectations. They find the former is driving the current inflation trajectory while the latter is largely stable. That means, in English, that the current inflation is likely to be of an ephemeral nature driven by how long the pandemic interrupts supply chains."

The ECB is *not* known for its MMT or leftist views. It is quite steeped in Neo-liberalism.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=49030

.
#15207792
Unthinking Majority wrote:The inflation will go away when people go back to work, supply chains are restored after COVID, and the gov stops pumping money into the economy.

UM, the Gov. has been pumping cash into the economy as you call it like crazy since 1992 with no high inflation. Trump cut taxes on the rich and spent like crazy and there was deflation in 2020.

It doesn't seem like pumping cash into the economy causes inflation until there are shortages or the OPEC cuts oil production, or otherwise makes the price of oil increase by 30% in 1 or 2 years.
. . . I gave the lurkers some facts as evidence, and all you, UM, did was to make an assertion.

We MMTers assert that this is the normal case, and the money supply theory of inflation is false.

.
#15207905
Steve_American wrote:UM, the Gov. has been pumping cash into the economy as you call it like crazy since 1992 with no high inflation. Trump cut taxes on the rich and spent like crazy and there was deflation in 2020.

It doesn't seem like pumping cash into the economy causes inflation until there are shortages or the OPEC cuts oil production, or otherwise makes the price of oil increase by 30% in 1 or 2 years.
. . . I gave the lurkers some facts as evidence, and all you, UM, did was to make an assertion.

We MMTers assert that this is the normal case, and the money supply theory of inflation is false.

Much of the deficit money since 1992 introduced by gov has been spent on bombs or the rich, not given to regular people to buy goods. There has also been steady inflation since 1992 based on the other spending and new money supply introduced.

There's been far more money introduced into economies across the world the last 2 years than any point since WWII. The US doesn't exist in a bubble, countries globally are giving their citizens cash to prop up their locked-down economies, and that coupled with supply chain interruptions has created inflation. Virtually every country in the world buys US products and invests in US companies.

The price of any product in a market is determined by supply and demand. If you reduce the supply due to COVID supply chain disruptions while people have extra money to burn you're going to cause inflation. The stock markets are inflated because people are sitting around not going to work and not spending money on gas or going to restaurants and gym memberships and music concerts and movie theatres and are instead putting some of that money into the markets or collectibles. Go on eBay and look at the prices of any collectible market, they have skyrocketed since before COVID because demand has increased but supply hasn't. That's inflation.

You have no idea what you're talking about. MMT'ers have replaced Marxists as the utopian ideologues and will destroy our economies too if we let them. You have confirmation bias, you desperately want these things you say to be true but they just don't jive, just like Marxists did.
#15207917
Unthinking Majority wrote:Much of the deficit money since 1992 introduced by gov has been spent on bombs or the rich, not given to regular people to buy goods. There has also been steady inflation since 1992 based on the other spending and new money supply introduced.

There's been far more money introduced into economies across the world the last 2 years than any point since WWII. The US doesn't exist in a bubble, countries globally are giving their citizens cash to prop up their locked-down economies, and that coupled with supply chain interruptions has created inflation. Virtually every country in the world buys US products and invests in US companies.

The price of any product in a market is determined by supply and demand. If you reduce the supply due to COVID supply chain disruptions while people have extra money to burn you're going to cause inflation. The stock markets are inflated because people are sitting around not going to work and not spending money on gas or going to restaurants and gym memberships and music concerts and movie theatres and are instead putting some of that money into the markets or collectibles. Go on eBay and look at the prices of any collectible market, they have skyrocketed since before COVID because demand has increased but supply hasn't. That's inflation.

You have no idea what you're talking about. MMT'ers have replaced Marxists as the utopian ideologues and will destroy our economies too if we let them. You have confirmation bias, you desperately want these things you say to be true but they just don't jive, just like Marxists did.

UM, we disagree. I think you have it backwards.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Neo-liberals have replaced Marxists as the utopian ideologues and have destroyed our economies, because we let them. You have confirmation bias, you desperately want these things you say to be true but they just don't jive, just like Marxists did. If you don't realize that the US economy has been destroyed by Neo-liberalism, that is because you are part of the 10% whose life has improved while the life of the other 90% has crumbled, especially the bottom 50%.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

:lol: X2 Monaco, Fiji, Vatican City, and Boy […]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

And yet as you see several states are willing to […]

@BlutoSays yes, I do. I also understand there ar[…]

It's nice to see that people are realizing a prepa[…]