How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[Yssup Rider]

Who says there are no professional writers in this forum, WTF?

The prose flows from the nose in this forum.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Who says there are no professional writers in this forum, WTF?

The prose flows from the nose in this forum.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

if you say so

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

My involvement in this thread is to say it is about time you supply side lovers started worrying about how to pay for shit.

There you go again!

Nobody in this forum considers themselves "supply side lovers". You have no idea what the term even means. You think if you toss it around enough you will start to look like you know something about economics. You know diddly squat.

Time to move on to your next straw man!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again!

Nobody in this forum considers themselves "supply side lovers". You have no idea what the term even means. You think if you toss it around enough you will start to look like you know something about economics. You know diddly squat.

Time to move on to your next straw man!

I know you think we only have a spending problem. What fucking economist in his right mind does not acknowledge the revenue side?

What part of the government not including entitlements is the biggest expenditure? Should we cut all programs by 20% muster we only have a fucking spending problem

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again!

Nobody in this forum considers themselves "supply side lovers". You have no idea what the term even means. You think if you toss it around enough you will start to look like you know something about economics. You know diddly squat.

Time to move on to your next straw man!

Googled supply side lovers. Thought you might find this more interesting than I did.

CONFESSIONS OF A SUPPLY-SIDE LIBERAL

https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/

On the margin, whether we should cheer for greater federal power or greater state power depends on which level of government is most likely to advance the “real welfare of the great body of the people,” without inappropriately privileging some people above others.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again!

Nobody in this forum considers themselves "supply side lovers". You have no idea what the term even means. You think if you toss it around enough you will start to look like you know something about economics. You know diddly squat.

Time to move on to your next straw man!

Let me try again...just what do you consider yourself?

You've defended Reagan in this thread like he was your sweetest Sugat Daddy!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let me try again...just what do you consider yourself?

You've defended Reagan in this thread like he was your sweetest Sugat Daddy!

no, you keep making a false claim. it's not about defending Reagan, it's about proving you wrong about Reagan. are you sure Ronnie didn't fornicate with a close familial relative of yours?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

no, you keep making a false claim. it's not about defending Reagan, it's about proving you wrong about Reagan. are you sure Ronnie didn't fornicate with a close familial relative of yours?

Reagan reversed a 35 year decline in the debt to GDP ratio.

Lustylad has made numerous claims about how that is the best way to judge our economy. Remember, you posted the extended numbers!

Your ignorance on this has already popped up and been slapped back down once in this thread...you want to go for an Exacta?

Jesus..I feel like the Grinch having to explain that Santa isn't real.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Is the Great Krugtron in your forum? In case you missed it, he just wrote a flaky NYT column on this very topic. After summarizing both sides of the inflation argument, he flaked out this way:

"Maybe the real takeaway here should be how little we know about where we are in this strange economic episode. Economists like me who didn’t expect much inflation were wrong, but economists who did predict inflation were arguably right for the wrong reasons, and nobody really knows what’s coming."

Not the first time Krugman admitted he got a forecast wrong but then deflected by taking a swipe at those who got it right!

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/o...nomy-2021.html

Nope! (I think the group is a bit too conservative/libertarian for the Great Krugtron to be a good fit.)

Only on rare occasions have I been on his side of any economics debate, and it does feel a bit strange. But, as I told one friend, the fact that Krugman believes something perhaps ought not to be presented as prima facie evidence that it's wrong!

However... unlike some others ... I own my mistakes and misjudgements. I can think of several reasons that I could be wrong, and a few others reading this thread undoubtedly can as well.

You and Tiny can come back in here and ridicule me with an "I told you so!" post in the event that high inflation persists into 2023.

However, I respectfully request that you guys give the issue time to crystallize before telling me in so many words (politely, of course!) that I'm totally full of shit!

.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I read about the September, 2019 events in the repo market on Wikipedia -- interesting. It sounds like it had the potential to turn into a black swan event. It's a little unnerving that economists don't exactly understand what caused the shortage of cash.

Interesting ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septem...S._repo_market

Wow! I had no idea the set of events would warrant its own Wikipedia entry, as you pointed out, but there it is! That looks like a pretty good take on the issues surrounding the event.

I remember reading some discussions about this at the time, and it seemed that no one had any idea of what the fuck was happening -- even Mnuchin's deputies, according to a couple of people!

There apparently was a frenzied flurry of phone calls between Treasury offices and the NY Fed. Wouldn't it have been great fun to have somehow been able to tap into all that and listen?

The fact that this sort of chaos can even happen at all is a bit disquieting.

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You and Tiny can come back in here and ridicule me with an "I told you so!" post in the event that high inflation persists into 2023.

However, I respectfully request that you guys give the issue time to crystallize before telling me in so many words (politely, of course!) that I'm totally full of shit!

.

They can come back in a year or two and help us count our money!

Now is the time to invest!

They do not understand this is more like a Tsunami, each wave is getting smaller and smaller. Those are waves of inflation in case the brilliant economist LL was having trouble keeping up.

And we are in store for at least 3 years of gridlock!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Interesting ...

[url]https://e

The fact that this sort of chaos can even happen at all is a bit disquieting.

.

I think the term Black Swan is used instead of "We haven't a clue, at times".

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Reagan reversed a 35 year decline in the debt to GDP ratio.

Lustylad has made numerous claims about how that is the best way to judge our economy. Remember, you posted the extended numbers!

Your ignorance on this has already popped up and been slapped back down once in this thread...you want to go for an Exacta?

Jesus..I feel like the Grinch having to explain that Santa isn't real.

i posted the full list because you only wanted to show data starting at 1980 in a failed effort to claim Reagan vastly increased the ratio when he didn't. go back 20 years to 1960 and average the percent by year to 1979 and you get about 37%. average Reagan's and you get 39%.



nice try professor.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i posted the full list because you only wanted to show data starting at 1980 in a failed effort to claim Reagan vastly increased the ratio when he didn't. go back 20 years to 1960 and average the percent by year to 1979 and you get about 37%. average Reagan's and you get 39%.



nice try professor.

Reagan took it from 32% to 50%.

Now some on here may want to count the. IOU's he left in our entitlement programs as some magical debt that does not count

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Reagan took it from 32% to 50%.

Now some on here may want to count the. IOU's he left in our entitlement programs as some magical debt that does not count

what was the average? and you know the full list shows numbers far higher at times that 50% for a single year. and years way before Reagan where it was 50% or greater. like 1960/61/62.


1960 $286 54% Recession
1961 $289 52% Bay of Pigs
1962 $298 50% JFK budgets & Cuban missile crisis
1963 $306 48% U.S. aids Vietnam, JFK killed
1964 $312 46% LBJ's budgets & war on poverty
1965 $317 43% U.S. entered Vietnam War
1966 $320 40% 1967 $326 40%
1968 $348 39%
1969 $354 36% Nixon took office
1970 $371 35% Recession
1971 $398 35% Wage-price controls
1972 $427 34% Stagflation
1973 $458 33% Nixon ended gold standard & OPEC oil embargo
1974 $475 31% Watergate & budget process created
1975 $533 32% Vietnam War ended
1976 $620 33% Stagflation
1977 $699 34% Stagflation
1978 $772 33% Carter budgets & recession
1979 $82732%


your argument it "was going south" doesn't hold water. it averaged 34%. from 1969 to 1979. 37% going back to 1960. Reagan averaged 39%.