Politics

[Wishfulthinker580]

Pardon my economic ignorance but would it not be more impressive for the market to reach record highs with low inflation instead of high?

 

[Red Leg]

Pardon my economic ignorance but would it not be more impressive for the market to reach record highs with low inflation instead of high?

Another of these pesky statistics, but review this with respect to current inflation. It is why the "economy stupid" argument has started to fade and why the Trump campaign has pivoted so strongly to immigration and Haitians eating cats.

Current US Inflation Rates: 2000-2024

The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.5% for the 12 months ending August, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.9%, according to U.S. Labor Department data published on September 11, 2024. The next inflation update is scheduled for release on October 10 at 8:30 a.m. ET...

www.usinflationcalculator.com

 

[WAB]

Pardon my economic ignorance but would it not be more impressive for the market to reach record highs with low inflation instead of high?

There you go with that logic stuff…

 

[ActionBob]

My point was if a 30K Dow was a sign of great accomplishment and great economy for Trump (his words), then a 41.6K Dow is the same for Biden.

Fed is lowering the rates due to positive economic indicators.

It does make one wonder just where would the Stock Market be if Trump had been President this past 3.5 years?

Would the Fed need to be lowering rates? Would they ever have increased rates the way they did to temper the inflation created by Bidenomics?

It boggles the mind to think through how the World is different because of the Biden Administration's stubborn desire to change everything.

I seriously doubt Russia would have invaded Ukraine and if it had, certainly more decisive decisions would have come out of the White house and I feel more would have been done to stop it before it started.

No way would Iran's economy have been boosted and turned loose. Very likely the Abraham Accords would have been finished. . Really doubt the Middle East would be on fire.

What might have happened regarding the despot in North Korea? Would that country be joining an evil axis power with China (perhaps), Iran and Russia? Who knows but Trump was at least communicating with him.

Pretty sure the Afghanistan withdrawal would have happened but been managed properly. Our best night vision and sniper equipment would not be making its way to all sorts of nefarious characters World wide. Not to mention how that ineptitude and weakness emboldened all our rivals.

Quite sure the Federal Government would not have spent those last Trillions creating more inflation. Without that inflation, there would have been no interest rate hikes. Housing would likely be going gangbusters.. Might even have cut off a lot of the incentives for people to NOT work so perhaps we'd have a more respectable worker participation rate and less welfare. We would definitely not have been inundated with all these illegal immigrants!

We would very likely be the dominant oil and overal energy producer in the World.

So where does that point the Stock market? Personally I don't care all that much. I'd much prefer an economy based on real production rather than overzealous government spending and a heavily subsidized unrealistic energy policy. It may well employ a hell of a lot of engineers, construction workers and technicians in this new energy sector. Does that mean it is good for the overall economy compared to letting markets find their natural way?

And now what happens if Harris is elected? Actual World War III breaks out? Maybe, maybe not... But does China move into a stronger, unfettered position, likely. Does the Axis Alliance of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea gain strength? Where do other countries allign? India, Brazil, and South Africa are allready in an Economic alliance with China and Russia.

Does she get her way on a Tax and Spend policy leading to higher inflation and higher interest rates?

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[LivingTheDream]

Fed is lowering the rates due to positive economic indicators.

I think positive inflation data, they are lowering rate because the economy is slowing.

 

[Brent in Az]

A pipeline has exploded and is on fire in a Houston suburb. Evacuations in progress.

 

[ActionBob]

A pipeline has exploded and is on fire in a Houston suburb. Evacuations in progress.

SUV hit a valve, at least 2 homes damaged apparently by fire.

ABC News is also reporting that the driver of the SUV has an Uncles Cousin who knows someone who has a neighbor with a Trump 2024 sign in their yard..... so it is obviously Trump's fault

 

[freefall]

Orange Man Bad!!

 

[Inline6]

My point was if a 30K Dow was a sign of great accomplishment and great economy for Trump (his words), then a 41.6K Dow is the same for Biden.

Fed is lowering the rates due to positive economic indicators.

I would argue they are cutting the rate due to an election. Yes I know that it is "separate"...

$100 in 2017 was worth 110.55 in 2021. Cumulative inflation of 10.55%
$100 in 2021 is worth 116.17 in 2024. Cumulative inflation of 16.17%.

Dow was 30K in 2021 and 41.6K today a 38.7% increase. I’d call it a win at more than double the inflation numbers.

I'm not the best with money, they way you explain it seems a little different than I understand it. 100.00 in 2017 can only buy 89.45 in 2021. 100 in 2021 can only buy 83.83 in 2024. I'm not an economics major, I could have something wrong.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

I happen to like John Bolton, he's a smart, smart guy when it comes to global geopolitics. A lot of people view him as a bit on the hawkish side.

 

[mdwest]

Bolton is definitely a lot on the hawk side… also a bit of a pompous asshole in my opinion that isn’t very well liked by many even within his own party and those that share his same views and opinions…

I was pretty closely tied to a prominent member of the bush administration when Bolton was ambassador to the UN and was in his presence more than a few times (my guy and Bolton would meet at least once monthly, and often would speak by phone weekly)..

All of that said, he is indeed very smart and very astute when it comes to geopolitical issues.. and he knows how to get things done despite not being well liked.. there is a reason he’s been popping up in every republican administration in one capacity or another since being the Asst. AG under Reagan…

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I would argue they are cutting the rate due to an election. Yes I know that it is "separate"...



I'm not the best with money, they way you explain it seems a little different than I understand it. 100.00 in 2017 can only buy 89.45 in 2021. 100 in 2021 can only buy 83.83 in 2024. I'm not an economics major, I could have something wrong.

In regards to the value of the dollar, I see it your way too. $100 in 2017 was stronger/worth more and bought you more than $100 in 2024

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Rig count in the US was 886 exactly 5 years ago- the week of 9/13/19. This week we’re at 590..

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Rig count in the US was 886 exactly 5 years ago- the week of 9/13/19. This week we’re at 590..

Rig count is an important metric on the health and economic outlook of the oil and natural gas industry. One of the things driving down rig activity is low natural gas prices. Lower gas prices are due to lack of LNG export capacity vs supply. The Biden administration did kill or hinder LNG expansion. With the high oil production currently in the US, a lot of associated natural gas is produced along with the oil. If there is no market for the gas, the oil production has to be curtailed. Supply, demand and price all work to regulate the market and activity.

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Rig count in the US was 886 exactly 5 years ago- the week of 9/13/19. This week we’re at 590..

One might would think that would mean the USA is producing less, but it doesn't. We're producing more than even at the end of the Biden admin. Perhaps in part in spite of Biden, but nonetheless we're producing more. My point being that arguing for more oil production instead of less is not a winning strategy.

Under both Trump and Biden-Harris, US oil and gas production surged, despite different energy goals • Alaska Beacon

Under each of the three most recent presidencies, U.S. oil and gas production was higher at the end of the term than at the beginning.

alaskabeacon.com

 

[HookMeUpII]

Let me quote what I think is almost certainly unwittingly the most relevant paragraph in the supposed expose' @Altitude sickness has provided us on Ukraine and its relationship with the West; a relationship it rather desperately sought to strengthen in the face of the threats from the dictatorship to its immediate east.

"The New York Times’ exposé offers no shortage of disturbing implications. Ukraine is, needless to say, a sovereign state in charge of determining its own security arrangements. The underlying issue is not whether Ukraine is within its rights to enter into this kind of relationship with the CIA, as it obviously is, nor is it whether the Maidan Revolution put Ukraine on a certain path toward political cooperation with Western entities."

I think everything after that paragraph in that piece is pretty much irrelevant.

After all, what were these dangerous bases that Ukraine and NATO were supposedly establishing on the borders of Russia? Were they airbases for strike aircraft? Were they missile batteries loaded with nuclear weapons capable of reducing the Russian strategic strike force with a surprise attack? Perhaps they hosted brigades of mechanized infantry poised to march on Moscow? Of course not. What there was were non-uniformed US and allied training teams there providing cooperative training assistance to the Ukrainian military and intelligence services. I would suggest that I am at least as well informed on this topic as someone you know.

But let's take it a step farther. Ukrainian intelligence services were indeed cooperating with the US bilaterally just as were the Swedes and the Finns prior to 2022. Moreover, there was nothing a CIA on the ground post in Ukraine could have discovered about the Soviet Union that a host of technical means were not already providing.

The only thing Ukraine's cooperation with the West represented to the dictator in Moscow was a useful excuse to attempt to expand the borders of his empire, and recreate the population and resource underpinnings of the Soviet Union. It is absolutely in our national interests to prevent that from happening.

I particularly love right world media assessments of the CIA. One moment they are bumbling incompetents and the next they are capable of causing the vast majority of a whole nation to depose a Putin puppet who would have turned a Ukraine with aspirations for eventual EU membership into another state like Belarus or Georgia. To their everlasting credit, the Ukrainian people and not the CIA, voted in the streets for a different future. Were most governments and anyone with a modicum of understanding of Russian ambitions pleased? Of course they were. But to blame Ukraine's fight for self-determination or excuse Russian brutality as somehow the fault of the CIA or the United States is simply embracing a politically convenient falsehood.

Secondly, you need to work on your math. To date, the US has appropriated approximately $175 billion for Ukraine. Our government spent six trillion dollars last year. Even if it were all real money, that isn't even a round-off. But it isn't all actual money. What most handringers scrolling the pages of the more right wing reporting on the web or listening to Tucker Carlson don't read or hear is that most of the actual military aid has been Presidential drawdown materiel from US stocks.

For instance, the US has a couple of thousand older model Bradley infantry fighting vehicles in storage. They will never ever be used by US forces again. They do have "value" because they were purchased to fight the Soviet Union with US taxpayer dollars. When we provide a couple of hundred to Ukraine that budget value is deducted from the allocation. In other words money did not change hands.

We have indeed increased munition production. That is a Godsend to the US military. We have so reduced the nation's capacity to produce artillery ammunition and guided air, sea, and ground munitions that it had been a strategic worry since well before I left the Pentagon in 2003 or the defense industry in 2014. That new capability increases the deterrence factor of our military as China weighs its options in the Pacific.

What we have allocated is .35% of our GDP in real and materiel dollars to support of Ukraine. That is about equal to NATO in actual dollars and significantly less in GDP than the majority of our partners. I think even you would agree if you gave a million dollars to your favorite charity it isn't the same thing as Elon Musk doing the same thing. For instance Poland is providing 4.00 % of its GDP to Ukraine compared to our .35 - or proportionally - over ten times as much. Sadly, you won't get that over on Newsmax.

What the US is faced with is the brutal attempt by the ex-KGB thug in the Kremlin and his apathetic enabling state to brutally conquer a nation that had been independent for thirty years and had such aspirations for a thousand. Its history is not unlike Poland, and I don't see anyone suggesting Poland should again be under the bootheel of a Russian tyrant. To not aid Ukraine in its fight to remain independent is to by default to aid Russia in achieving his goals of recreating a powerful military state astride the Eurasian continent closely allied to China. In what world would that be in our national interests?

One additional thought. Putin has proven such an offended strategic genius that he has managed to drive Sweden and Finland into NATO turning the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake and putting NATO strike aircraft and troops all along an 800 mile mutual border. NATO ground forces could hike to St. Petersburg if they so desired, and NATO intelligence assets are now looking directly into the harbor holding Russia's nuclear capable submarines.

We just have differing view points. We are at a point where nothing I am going to say will resonate with you, and the same with I. You just look at things differently. I see your viewpoint on the Kremlin. I don't like Putin. I just take myself more as a realist. There is no "idealistic" ending to this. You can't reason with a madman who will sacrifice every last Russian man, and then some. Not to mention, the nuclear button. I am also realistic in the sense that he's not launching a nuke anywhere but Ukraine. Our intercontinental ballistic missile defense is beyond what your wildest imaginations can think up. Furthermore, to launch at a NATO block country is suicide.

Like you, I have a bit of inner experience in terms of how these things go. Especially proxy wars. Yemen, for example, which I can only speak that I do have first hand knowledge on. Not much more, unfortunately. When a proxy war is fought, the end goal for the "common good" outweighs the realistic picture on the ground. The ideal itself takes precedence over the actual human cost on those fighting it.

No one in the Pentagon believes Ukraine can "win" this war. Anyone who does is out of their mind. This isn't a Syrian conflict where surgical "advisors" are installed and direct action missions have an impact. There are advisors in country now, I know for a fact, but it's not the same. The "win" for this is really, stop Putin from taking the entire country. Crimea, the NW corner, etc will all likely go to Putin.

There's no sense arguing on this anymore because we just have differing viewpoints.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

One might would think that would mean the USA is producing less, but it doesn't. We're producing more than even at the end of the Biden admin. Perhaps in part in spite of Biden, but nonetheless we're producing more. My point being that arguing for more oil production instead of less is not a winning strategy.

Under both Trump and Biden-Harris, US oil and gas production surged, despite different energy goals • Alaska Beacon

Under each of the three most recent presidencies, U.S. oil and gas production was higher at the end of the term than at the beginning.

alaskabeacon.com

I wasn’t saying we’re producing less, I was pointing out the fact that we could be producing more. Not to mention all the jobs that are associated with said decline. It’s obviously in spite of Biden. High rig counts are a good thing. A booming energy sector is good for everyone. Please elaborate on your opinion of arguing for more oil production being a losing strategy. Because of environmental/global warming concerns?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I wasn’t saying we’re producing less, I was pointing out the fact that we could be producing more. Not to mention all the jobs that are associated with said decline. It’s obviously in spite of Biden. High rig counts are a good thing. A booming energy sector is good for everyone. Please elaborate on your opinion of arguing for more oil production being a losing strategy. Because of environmental/global warming concerns?

I'm not arguing against more oil production. But let's say in a debate, a real one that is, Trump cannot state we're producing less oil under Biden than when he was POTUS. The numbers just don't bear this out. Could we be producing even more? Possibly, but most folks are going to be lost in this argument as soon as the production numbers show we're producing more and a higher rate than ever before.

The goal is to win the WH, not the argument.