Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?

Consumer price inflation turned down in November on sharply lower gasoline prices plus dips in some core subcomponents. Overall consumer price inflation fell 0.3 percent after no change in October. The November number was below market expectations for a 0.1 percent dip. Energy dropped 3.8 percent, following a 1.9 percent decline the month before. Gasoline plunged 6.6 percent in November after a 3.0 drop in October. Food rose 0.2 percent, following a 0.1 percent increase in October. Excluding food and energy, consumer price inflation posted at 0.1 percent in November easing from 0.2 percent in October. Analysts forecast a 0.1 percent gain.

Within the core, the shelter index rose 0.3 percent, and the indexes for medical care, airline fares, and alcoholic beverages also rose. In contrast, the indexes for apparel, used cars and trucks, recreation, household furnishings and operations, personal care, and new vehicles all declined in November.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the headline CPI was up year-ago 1.3 percent versus 1.7 percent in October. Excluding food and energy, the year-ago rate was 1.7 percent, compared to 1.8 percent the prior month.

The latest CPI report gives the Fed room to keep monetary policy loose. However, there still likely will be lots of debate on timing of the next rate move and on guidance.

PkrBum wrote:I find it funny that you think there are and will be no negative consequences to the bailout, stimulus, qe1, qe2, qe3, zero interest rates, deficits, debt... etc. An equally plausible explanation is that these measures have created another bubble... a money bubble.

I bet that before interest rates go up a couple of times that we'll have another downturn... and another quantitative easing.

gatorfan wrote:Bill Clinton has a response to BoF who tends to only be able to grasp at one straw at a time. That narrow world view affliction......

Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102036225#.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Bill Clinton has a response to BoF who tends to only be able to grasp at one straw at a time. That narrow world view affliction......

Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102036225#.

I agree with absolutely everything Clinton said in that article.

I'll also point out that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

At this point, I'd ask you to explain the relevance of the article, but you and I both know how that will play out; so I will mercifully allow you to exit at this point, unquestioned.

2seaoat wrote:I bet that before interest rates go up a couple of times that we'll have another downturn... and another quantitative easing.


You do understand what these stats mean? Interest rates will NOT be going up, and if the energy pricing continues to track downward we will be entering a deflation zone. We are attacking the budget deficit, and having steady increases in employment and GDP. The key is steady. Again, there are major structural problems remaining, but the trend is for steady and slow growh with low interest rates.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I find it funny that you think there are and will be no negative consequences to the bailout, stimulus, qe1, qe2, qe3, zero interest rates, deficits, debt... etc. An equally plausible explanation is that these measures have created another bubble... a money bubble.

I bet that before interest rates go up a couple of times that we'll have another downturn... and another quantitative easing.

We are in the midst of an almost unprecedented run in job growth and a very strong GDP. Betting that we may dip into a recession at some point in the midst of that is like someone saying "I bet red is going to come up some time in the next 10 rolls" when black has hit 50 times in a row.

"I bet we go into recession at some point in the future. Further, I bet that the central bank will employ monetary policy to help ease that economic disturbance."

No shit? Thank you, Captain Obvious!

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Bill Clinton has a response to BoF who tends to only be able to grasp at one straw at a time. That narrow world view affliction......

Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102036225#.

I agree with absolutely everything Clinton said in that article.

I'll also point out that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

At this point, I'd ask you to explain the relevance of the article, but you and I both know how that will play out; so I will mercifully allow you to exit at this point, unquestioned.

I knew you wouldn't grasp the relevance, but thanks for "mercifully allowing me to exit". ROFLMA. For an unqualified narcissist you sure have delusions of competence. A true legend in your own mind. Wow!

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I find it funny that you think there are and will be no negative consequences to the bailout, stimulus, qe1, qe2, qe3, zero interest rates, deficits, debt... etc. An equally plausible explanation is that these measures have created another bubble... a money bubble.

I bet that before interest rates go up a couple of times that we'll have another downturn... and another quantitative easing.

We are in the midst of an almost unprecedented run in job growth and a very strong GDP.  Betting that we may dip into a recession at some point in the midst of that is like someone saying "I bet red is going to come up some time in the next 10 rolls" when black has hit 50 times in a row.

"I bet we go into recession at some point in the future.  Further, I bet that the central bank will employ monetary policy to help ease that economic disturbance."

No shit?  Thank you, Captain Obvious!

The fed monetary policy is what has been unprecedented... but you ignore it almost fully... that is what's obvious.

2seaoat wrote:Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant


Bill Clinton is dead cinch correct, and completely consistent with what Boards has been saying for the last three years.  The President and every person remotely familiar with economics understands the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with the 1968 index adjusted for inflation has huge ramifications on median income.  The blockade on minimum wage incremental increases is bad for American business and our GDP.  70% of our GDP is driven by demand and when we allow record profits to go untaxed and top brackets to get tax cuts we feed  the income disparity and slow growth of the median income average.   Boards has been dead cinch correct from the get go..........and I think some people are jealous of his intelligence and understanding of these issues.

colaguy wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant


Bill Clinton is dead cinch correct, and completely consistent with what Boards has been saying for the last three years.  The President and every person remotely familiar with economics understands the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with the 1968 index adjusted for inflation has huge ramifications on median income.  The blockade on minimum wage incremental increases is bad for American business and our GDP.  70% of our GDP is driven by demand and when we allow record profits to go untaxed and top brackets to get tax cuts we feed  the income disparity and slow growth of the median income average.   Boards has been dead cinch correct from the get go..........and I think some people are jealous of his intelligence and understanding of these issues.

Please tell us how corporate profits are not taxed.  Has there been some congressional action that removes the corporate tax? / If you take a look at the taxes paid by the top individual income producers you will see that it is they who pay a disparately high rate in taxes.

2seaoat wrote:


In 2010, corporate tax revenue constituted about 9% of all federal revenues or 1.3% of GDP.  The above link shows how corporation tax revenue has plummeted since the  lowering of corporate rates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg

We simply need to reclaim the lost corporate taxes and attack debt while looking to lower middle class tax rates while increasing top rates significantly.  Our demand economy has been crippled by reaganomics and its flawed theories, and clearly you can see how the tax policy has attacked the middle class and led to income disparity.

colaguy wrote:

2seaoat wrote:


In 2010, corporate tax revenue constituted about 9% of all federal revenues or 1.3% of GDP.  The above link shows how corporation tax revenue has plummeted since the  lowering of corporate rates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg

We simply need to reclaim the lost corporate taxes and attack debt while looking to lower middle class tax rates while increasing top rates significantly.  Our demand economy has been crippled by reaganomics and its flawed theories, and clearly you can see how the tax policy has attacked the middle class and led to income disparity.

The OMB statistics differ from your (uncited) chart. It indicates corporate tax receipts have varied as a % over the years, but have been increasing since 2009.  It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts, and that about half of all income earners pay no federal taxes.  Why you distort the facts and want the wealthy to pay more is baffling.  However, I agree with you about attacking the Debt.  Unfortunately that has yet to occur.