Actually it would .
Increasing supply should always help bring prices down .

And as more « competitors » join the markets , it should create more competition that should entice lower prices .
Isn’t the whole result of globalisation ?

Wars are inflationary by nature .

Sure. But as I said not by much because eliminating those bottlenecks will just restore productivity.

You left off ".... and create higher paying jobs, reducing income inequality to boot." Wouldn't hold my breath.

i dont understand your point.
increasing productivity should increase supply, lowering prices.
why you think it would not lower by much ?

if ever a normalization occur through Russia reintegrating oil worldwide market and gas, the cost of production about almost anything will dramatically decrease, being transfer to lower prices of goods and services.



i did not let off anything, globalization pretty much shown interior income inequality increase in advanced economies but reduce income inequality as a whole if u take the entire planet into consideration.
Advanced economies will never be able to compete on wages with emerging market.
So i dont see how americans can get higher paying jobs once globalization restart.
The only way they can have higher paying jobs is to reshore jobs, creating inflation.
will they ? no idea .

I was replying to the other comment. Biden has promised millions of green jobs. He relaxed the rules on importing solar panels which crushed a few Made in The USA companies

So now you want to rely on China for our energy as well?

Can someone explain to me why the Dems
Can elect a judge with 50 votes in congress and the VP tiebreaker
Pass a 700billion $ bill with50 votes plus the tiebreaker

But not pass a cap on Drug price increases without 60 votes and will not use executive power because the parliamentarian says the cant? Appoint a new parlimentarian

You want us to explain senate rules to you like you were a child?

Be fair, he’s still waiting for Fox News to feed him talking points on the Mar a Lago raid.

That's circular. You're assuming the various bottlenecks are the primary drivers for prices going up and concluding the removal of those bottlenecks will bring prices back down to where they were. I'm not denying that the latter would follow the former or that those bottlenecks aren't having any affect at all re prices. Instead, I'm arguing you et al are wrong attributing the bulk of price increases to those bottlenecks rather than the increase in the money supply.

With the fastest pace on record of rising interest rates, the worst bond crash in the last 200 years and an incredible rise of the dollar , oil prices ( the primary ressource where cost of goods start) and many other commodities are still very high .

That is a supply shock stemming from oil supply problems , not monetary supply.
If u had a huge monetary supply increases, like we had in 2020 , you would see a big rally in stock and yet it’s crashing .
The liquidity in the markets today , due to rising interest rates , is diminishing not increasing and yet inflation still went up on the last print .

I don't want to get into the weeds again with this. As I said last August:

No more like a CDN

I don’t understand .
How can u think that inflation will last due to monetary expansion (contrary to my thinking of being not sustainable since it’s from supply shock) when U post a graph up there showing the personal savings are even lower prior to covid ?

Where the money will come from to sustain those high prices long term ?
Especially with such vast amount of liquidity will be tied up into overpriced real state and house for years ?
People Wont be able to borrow much either with such high interest rates to sustain those prices .

Obv if Russia wars keep going on I agree with you (because of high oil prices since u can’t have no inflation with high oil prices).

establishment democrats believe that they are better than "going against the NORMS..." because if they do then something, something, something, republicans.. but the republicans will do whatever teh **** they want regardless of norms.

When the Senate modified the Filibuster rules in the 1970's they stopped forcing people to talk forever and instead decided that if you had 60 votes then there could be no Filibuster.

The problem with that would be that they wouldn't be able to pass budgets without extreme leverage by the minority party so they decided to allow only a simple majority for anything having to do with the budget.

In order to determine whether something was budget related or not they use the Parliamentarian who is supposed to be politically neutral.

In the case of capping drug prices in the free market that is not budget related and its not even close. But because Medicare is part of the budgeting process capping drug prices for Medicare is considered to be within the reconciliation requirements.

In terms of electing a Judge that has changed over time. Originally all appointed judges needed 60 votes to bypass a Filibuster. But politics entered into the minority party slowing down the Federal Judge appointment process so Democrats decided to bypass the Filibuster entirely for Supreme Court approvals (note that before Reagan was President Supreme Court nominations were mostly apolitical and were supported by a vast majority of the Senate). Once Republicans took over the Senate they applied the bypass to all federal Judges (if memory serves me).

It is likely that had Manchin and Simema approved, the Fillibuster would have been bypassed for a new Voting Rights Act because the original had been so gutted by the recent conservative Supreme Court. But as we have seen with the Federal Judge process, once the Democrats bypass the Fillibuster for their purposes, Republicans will do the same once they regain control. And Manchin and Sinema were not willing to let that happen.

^^^ excellent answer.

I do not think Republicans need the Dem's to break the seal for them to walk thru and do same, and regardless if the dem's never do it, if the GOP has the power and the Filibuster or Parliamentarian are in their way, they would scuttle them instantly.


the key is that for now since the GOP has no real policy positions outside SC justices and Tax breaks, they do not need to scuttle them and they like how they bind and stop the Dem's implementing their agenda. If things were reversed and the GOP had an expansive agenda being blocked and the Dems had the limited agenda not being blocked the GOP would have already killed them both.

As I've been saying, it's already there. So just as if a counterfeiting ring injected a few trillion into our economy a new price equilibrium would become the new normal.

I'd like to know this too.

inflation is at 9%, not 3 not 4%.

"US Inflation Quickens to 9.1%, Amping Up Fed Pressure to Go Big"


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ding-forecasts


"Seven-in-ten Americans view inflation as a very big problem for the country, followed by the affordability of health care (55%) and violent crime (54%)."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...country-today/

that must be the same 7 in ten that they are talking about that are living paycheck by paycheck and don't have savings over 1000 dollar. meaning that if they have to go to the ER, or have some kind of emergency, they are ****ed.

funny is that the republicans are mirrowing those numbers while some libs are gaslighting.

"With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats differ over what they see as major national problems. Inflation is by far the top concern among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 84% of whom say it is a very big problem in the country today.

A much narrower majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (57%) view inflation as a very big problem. Among Democrats, larger shares see gun violence (70%), the affordability of health care (65%) and climate change (63%) as very big problems."


"4 in 10 Americans say they’re financially ‘struggling’ amid high inflation and soaring gas prices"

https://nypost.com/2022/07/05/4-in-1...as-prices/amp/

most people expect it to get worse.

Washington post did a survey recently. I'm using American surveys since the US are an indicator for what's happening next in Europe I think.

What you are saying is possible but not likely to happen.

As you pointed out right now the Republicans are basically a party with no legislative agenda. Under Trump there wasn't even a party platform in the 2020 election. So their goal is to essentially maintain the laws that are on the books while the Supreme court rulings can undo what they don't like. And they can do this whoever controls the Senate because the Democrats are unlikely to get back to a 60 seat majority.

If they were to pass a law bypassing the Fillibuster it would be extremely likely that the Democrats would take back the Senate and House shortly thereafter and not only reverse that law but start on a path of progression that would limit the Republicans ability to maintain control in purple states. A Voting Acts law that limited the wait time on lines in elections (currently it takes more than 10 hours on line to vote in many Democratic leaning counties in Southern states) would quickly pass and allow Democrats to maintain control. Similarly gerrymandering could be addressed and disallow states that are showing a majority of votes for Democrats and a majority of Republican Congressman at the same time to no longer be allowed. Again this would affect purple states like Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, etc. And again it would strengthen Democratic advantages in the House.

That would be just the tip of the iceberg. Re-writing laws about Federal Regulation would follow as well to undo the recent conservative Supreme Court rulings on the EPA and other regulatory agencies.

And of course assault rifles sales would be banned and background checks for gun purchases would be extended to 100% of gun sales (which close to 90% of the US population supports). It is even possible that the law preventing lawsuits against US gun manufacturers would be reversed.

What would the ultimate point be for Republicans? To try to codify the Pro-Life Supreme Court decision so that it would apply to all 50 states? The irony of that would be that Abortions would rise anyway. The US War on Drugs has been an unmitigated 50 year failure. There is no way to prevent abortion because it can now be done successfully 99% of the time with a pill and no doctor visit. So instead of seeking medical support and risk public knowledge of pregnancy, women would be testing in private and making quick decisions to abort. And in Pro-choice states they would choose not to prosecute anyone at a State level which is essentially leaving things as they are without a Pro-Life federal law.

I hope the Republicans do get rid of the Fillibuster. It is a stupid rule that prevents us from moving forward as a country.

read the article. 88% and more than half say middle class gets ****ed by biden.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/05/4-in-1...as-prices/amp/

trump helped the middle class didn't he??

washoe,

I have no idea why you believe and continue to insist that Trump was some great friend to middle class Americans.

you dont know, seriously?
I tell you why.

because I'm talking to 2 friends in the U.S. regularly and they keep telling me this. trump was very good for the economy and it's people. while Biden is the opposite, or seemed to bring the opposite.

one lost about 60k on wallsteet due to change of presidents and the other one about the same. (for one it is more due to inflation, not being able to spend so much anymore and loss of quality of life) but yeah both lost a big chunk of savings and it doesn't get any better when they have to pay a loot more for everything now.

for both vacationing or spending time in California becomes nearly impossible. not really impossible but prices aee just too high. vacationing in a foreign coumtry is much cheaper.
buying a house became almost impossible there now. that's just an outlier of the problem.

so yeah, if you keep that in mind, the well being of yourself and your family, you make the cross at trump all f day.