Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said: HaHabwahaa! An oil executive desperately trying to keep selling fossil fuels claims that there is no need to stop selling fossil fuels. Bwahaha! Hilariously pathetic! The fact that this is the very best you have is why you are an imbecillic failure. He is the head of COP28. He speaks for the conference and represents them. Furthermore, he is absolutely right. "there is “no science” that says phasing out fossil fuels is necessary to keep global warming under a critical threshold.." At last some common sense is beginning to emerge from these climate summits. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,259 DM December 5, 2023 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Coal demand appears to be robust going forward. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Rystad-Coal-Usage-and-Emissions-in-the-Global-Power-Sector-to-Peak-in-2023.html "Asia has added more than 40 GW of new coal capacity in each of the last five years and is expected to add 52 GW next year. In other words, Asia will add more coal capacity in 2024 than the total installed capacity in Argentina. Most of this new capacity is in China, followed by India and Indonesia." did you not read the headline?????? coal demand to peak in 2023 Coal-Usage-and-Emissions-in-the-Global-Power-Sector-to-Peak-in-2023.html 2023 is only days away from being over Coal peaked in 2013/14 and has yet to see demand above the peak of 2013/2014 and now the article states Your dead cat bounce has already happened in 2023....... 2024 lower demand....my my Coal is toast read the article it is all downhill now New Coal powerplants are just backup power plants with Solar and Wind taking the lead in all new capacity additions and solar and wind provide power at half the cost of Coal................... Enjoy the transition Peak Coal happened in 2013/2014 and the long term future is not good for coal Hurrah for mankind.........A great accomplishment in the long battle against pollution and global warming 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP December 5, 2023 On 12/2/2023 at 9:42 PM, Ron Wagner said: The UK will be reliant on gas for up to two-thirds of its electricity this weekend as global policymakers at COP28 are reminded of the importance of fossil fuels. Freezing temperatures, resulting in a cold snap across the country, has seen demand soar, while outputs from windfarms have plunged. https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/uk... Translate post English Posted on 5:58 AM · Dec 2nd, 2023 Bottom line is that over the last year in the UK FF made up 35.7% of powergen and renewables 35.2% there is a need for both but surely you can see that FF will become back up generation for when the wind doesnt blow as FF are more expensive, besides the whole climate change issues and pollutants. That is until large scale battery back up comes on line. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP December 5, 2023 On 12/3/2023 at 6:04 AM, Ecocharger said: And provide your sources, otherwise it looks like you are ashamed of them. Like you with your economics degree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE December 5, 2023 5 hours ago, Ecocharger said: He is the head of COP28. He speaks for the conference and represents them. Have you ever attended a conference, or even know the definition? con·fer·ence a formal meeting for discussion. You should also read what he says before you laud him. He disagrees with you, but as usual you cherry pick some tiny fraction you like and try to hide the rest. https://www.cop28.com/en/news/2023/12/COP28-President-recaps-key-wins-from-first-four-days-of-COP28 "Allow me to use this opportunity to bring everyone up to speed on what has been achieved thus far, and in particular in the past three and a half days of COP28. And before I begin, let's remember why we're all here. We're all here because we made a very clear call to action, and we've been very upfront about it. And we said clearly and repeatedly that the UAE takes this task with humility, responsibility, and we fully understand the urgency behind this matter. And we're here because we very much believe and respect the science. 43% of global emissions must be reduced by 2030. That is 22 gigatons by 2030 and we need to make that happen to keep 1.5 within reach. And I have been crystal clear on the fact that that is a critical success factor if we want to keep 1.5 within reach. Let me say from the outset that everything this presidency has been working on, and continues to work on, is focused on and centered around the science." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 7 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Bottom line is that over the last year in the UK FF made up 35.7% of powergen and renewables 35.2% there is a need for both but surely you can see that FF will become back up generation for when the wind doesnt blow as FF are more expensive, besides the whole climate change issues and pollutants. That is until large scale battery back up comes on line. Rob, even the head of COP28 admits that there is no science to support the view of climate mitigation through CO2 reduction, that is a chimerical dream. Fossil fuels continue to supply about 84% of world energy needs. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 7 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Like you with your economics degree? What is wrong with my economics degree? You have a problem with economics? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: What is wrong with my economics degree? You have a problem with economics? We have a problem with someone who is too embarrassed to say where their degree is from. Not one real economist refuses to say where their degree is from. Not one. I'm guessing yours is from either Prager University or Trump University. Edited December 5, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 December 5, 2023 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/4/green-climate-agenda-pushes-policies-that-destroy-/ Green climate agenda pushes policies that destroy the planet rather than save it Groups no longer promote a cleaner environment Follow Us Search Search Keyword: Search FRONT PAGE PODCAST RECOMMENDED Twelve Days of Biden Christmas: Wishing you a very brandy holiday season Debunking myths about the Israel-Hamas conflict FBI interviewed priest, choir director in rogue probe of Catholic church’s link to terrorism Israel has played the game of hope and change long enough Electric vehicle shock coursing through America SPONSORED CONTENT You're Legally Skilled If You Name 15/20 Car Parts BY BRAKE FOR IT Advertisement SPONSORED CONTENT Doctor: "Doing This Every Morning Can Snap Back Sagging Skin (No Creams Needed)" SPONSORED CONTENT The Bra Designed by the 60-year-old Grandma is Sweeping Illinois! Decatur, Illinois: Get Legal Weed Delivered to You Here Are 23 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2023 2023 Silver American Eagle Soliver Coin, Silver Spot Price The Seat Cushion Designed by a 70-year-old Enginee Are Taking Illinois by Storm! Here's What New Gutter Guards Should Cost You in 2023 Anyone Who Wants to Lose Weight Needs to Check This out (Watch Video) Cardiologists: Overweight? Drink This Before Bed (It's Genius!) COMMENTARY Stephen Moore Green climate agenda pushes policies that destroy the planet rather than save it Cal Thomas Newsom and DeSantis trade insults, spout talking points in disappointing debate Richard W. Rahn Former USSR no longer a population or economic giant VIEW ALL Advertisement PODCASTS New: The death of Henry Kissinger Diplomat. Intellectual. War criminal? Get Tuesday’s top stories in under five minutes The Washington Times Front Page Podcast Latest Episode: The Coup Mike McKenna and Tom Pyle VIEW ALL LATEST CARTOON QUESTION OF THE DAY Should President Biden halt travel between the U.S. and China until more is known about the latest respiratory illness? Question of the Day ABSOLUTELY YES PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA UNSURE SEEMS UNNECESSARY NO WAY View results Advertisement Climate crusaders, green energy and changes that can kill people illustration by The Washington Times more > Print COMMENTARY By Stephen Moore - - Monday, December 4, 2023 OPINION: The late humorist P.J. O’Rourke used to quip that “everyone wants to save the world, but no one wants to wash the dishes.” The same can now be said for the traditional environmental groups that seem to have lost their way. Green groups are supposed to be about keeping our rivers, lakes and streams clean. They are supposed to be about fighting litter and keeping toxic chemicals out of the air. Their job is to maintain the beauty of our national parks and save elephants and tigers. You Might Also Like Recommended by PAID See Why Americans Are Switching To This New Truck (Search For Deals)(BestSearches | Search Ads) PAID Senior Cruise Package Deals(GoSearches | Search Ads) Not anymore. The New York Times recently reported in a disturbing headline: “Environmental Groups Cut Programs as Funding Shifts to Climate Change.” In other words, the left’s climate change hysteria and its campaign to end fossil fuels are interfering with a commonsense green agenda. Worse than that, the climate agenda is in some ways making the environment worse. Top Stories00:4201:12‘We’re united’: GOP senators sayno Ukraine money without major border changes According to the Times story: “A significant shift in donor contributions to nonprofits fighting climate change in recent years has left some of the nation’s biggest environmental organizations facing critical shortfalls in programs on toxic chemicals, radioactive contamination and wildlife protection. “The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Working Group, which have been at the forefront of efforts to clean up wastewater, regulate pesticides and adopt tougher standards for atomic power plants, are facing similar financial problems.” TIMESMYVIEW ALL EDITORIAL Attack on Elon Musk, world’s richest man, is about freedom of thought Hunter Biden’s monthly payments to father raise questions of influence-peddling as probe intensifies Biden bucks ‘Scranton Joe’ persona with series of glitzy fundraisers with A-listers This is all being driven by a mad pursuit of billions of green dollars for stopping global warming. That is, they are chasing and spending money on a cause — changing the planet’s temperature — on which they can have almost no impact. How much money are we talking about? In 2022, environmental groups spent and raised $8 billion on climate change activities. That doesn’t fully include the tens of billions of dollars that central governments are spending on climate issues. All of this money has funded scores of ritzy climate change conferences around the globe, as well as virtue-signaling protests, propaganda campaigns in schools, and a war on oil, natural gas and coal, cars, stoves and air conditioners. And now eating meat is verboten. Yet the climate agenda is often pushing policies that destroy the planet rather than save it. In poor countries, the war on fossil fuels has meant that villages are burning wood or even feces. Instead of spending money on ensuring that the world’s poor have safe drinking water, we are spending billions of dollars pushing windmills and solar panels. These “green energies” use 10 times as much land as a natural gas-powered plant. The landscape of America is being paved over and industrialized in our pursuit of zero-carbon policies. How is that a pro-environment policy? Moreover, raising the cost of energy makes people poorer, which is counterproductive if we want to keep the planet clean. The richer a country, the more money it spends to clean the air and the water, and to preserve wildlife. The bigger question environmentalists should be asking is: What has the half a trillion dollars spent on climate change bought? No measurable results. See the attached chart. Fossil-fuel use reached an all-time high in 2022 and 2023, and carbon emissions have been climbing rather than receding. The more governments spend, the more money the United Nations insists we need to spend. The latest U.N. report says more than $4 trillion needs to be spent in the coming years to combat climate change. With that much money, we could end world hunger and illiteracy. Instead, the fanatics in the Biden administration and the billionaire donor class demand that we save the planet from carbon emissions at any cost, and if that means diminishing funds for fighting real pollution that kills people, so be it. • Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and an economist at FreedomWorks. His latest book is “Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy.” 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said: We have a problem with someone who is too embarrassed to say where their degree is from. Not one real economist refuses to say where their degree is from. Not one. I'm guessing yours is from either Prager University or Trump University. Why should I give you my transcripts on a website, Jay? Are you offering me a job? Actually, if you had studied economics you would have understood how inflation happens, I had to straighten you out on that recently. And you claim to have an economics degree? Oh, I get it. You got your degree in California. That explains your confusion. I will give you a little info. My econometrics professor got his PhD at Harvard. He gave me an A in his grad course and offered to find a job for me. I guess I did something right. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) Here is one reason why EV sales have a ceiling and are currently having trouble with building stockpiles of unsold EV products. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Technology-May-Reduce-Battery-Fires.html "While no government agency tracks vehicle fires by type of car, and electric car battery fires appear to be relatively rare, they pose particular risks; the National Transportation Safety Board reports that first responders are vulnerable to safety risks, including electric shock and the exposure to toxic gasses emanating from damaged or burning batteries." The fear of electric shock is a concern for vehicle accidents in EVs. Jay is very wise not to buy one of these EVs. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Why should I give you my transcripts on a website, Jay? Are you offering me a job? Actually, if you had studied economics you would have understood how inflation happens, I had to straighten you out on that recently. And you claim to have an economics degree? Oh, I get it. You got your degree in California. That explains your confusion. I will give you a little info. My econometrics professor got his PhD at Harvard. He gave me an A in his grad course and offered to find a job for me. I guess I did something right. Every real economist says where they went to school, name one who doesn't and no you did not explain how inflation happens. In fact there is a lot of disagreement over how inflation works. You would know that if you were a real economist. Just do a search for inflation mystery and see how common the topic is: "Who Killed the Phillips Curve? A Murder Mystery∗ David Ratner† Jae Sim‡ September 2021 Abstract Is the Phillips curve dead? If so, who killed it? Conventional wisdom has it that the sound monetary policy since the 1980s not only conquered the Great Inflation, but also buried the Phillips curve itself. This paper provides an alternative explanation: labor market policies that have eroded worker bargaining power might have been the source of the demise of the Phillips curve. We develop what we call the “Kaleckian Phillips curve”, the slope of which is determined by the bargaining power of trade unions. We show that a nearly 90 percent reduction in inflation volatility is possible even without any changes in monetary policy when the economy transitions from equal shares of power between workers and firms to a new balance in which firms dominate. In addition, we show that the decline of trade union power reduces the share of monopoly rents appropriated by workers, and thus helps explain the secular decline of labor share, and the rise of profit share. We provide time series and cross sectional evidence" https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2022028pap.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: Every real economist says where they went to school, name one who doesn't and no you did not explain how inflation happens. In fact there is a lot of disagreement over how inflation works. You would know that if you were a real economist. Just do a search for inflation mystery and see how common the topic is: "Who Killed the Phillips Curve? A Murder Mystery∗ David Ratner† Jae Sim‡ September 2021 Abstract Is the Phillips curve dead? If so, who killed it? Conventional wisdom has it that the sound monetary policy since the 1980s not only conquered the Great Inflation, but also buried the Phillips curve itself. This paper provides an alternative explanation: labor market policies that have eroded worker bargaining power might have been the source of the demise of the Phillips curve. We develop what we call the “Kaleckian Phillips curve”, the slope of which is determined by the bargaining power of trade unions. We show that a nearly 90 percent reduction in inflation volatility is possible even without any changes in monetary policy when the economy transitions from equal shares of power between workers and firms to a new balance in which firms dominate. In addition, we show that the decline of trade union power reduces the share of monopoly rents appropriated by workers, and thus helps explain the secular decline of labor share, and the rise of profit share. We provide time series and cross sectional evidence" https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2022028pap.pdf Those radical neo-Marxist alternative explanations were discredited decades ago, Jay. President Carter was the only leader who was taken in by those misguided advisors. If you wake up some day, you will see that all reputable economists, including the Fed people, operate on a monetary explanation. That is what you see happening today. Has current inflation declined as a result of restrictive monetary policies? Yes, just read the headlines. If I were you, I would not claim to be an economist. Your ideas are not mainstream. I have been offered jobs as an economist, but I had other directions to pursue. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Here is one reason why EV sales have a ceiling and are currently having trouble with building stockpiles of unsold EV products. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Technology-May-Reduce-Battery-Fires.html "While no government agency tracks vehicle fires by type of car, and electric car battery fires appear to be relatively rare, they pose particular risks; the National Transportation Safety Board reports that first responders are vulnerable to safety risks, including electric shock and the exposure to toxic gasses emanating from damaged or burning batteries." The fear of electric shock is a concern for vehicle accidents in EVs. Jay is very wise not to buy one of these EVs. Gasoline cars burn and explode on a regular basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: Gasoline cars burn and explode on a regular basis. You are off-topic again. The point I made was that you are wise to avoid buying any EV because of the fear of electric shock during vehicle accidents. I presume that was part of your reason to avoid buying an EV. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Those radical neo-Marxist alternative explanations were discredited decades ago, Jay. President Carter was the only leader who was taken in by misguided advisors. If you wake up some day, you will see that all reputable economists, including the Fed people, operate on a monetary explanation. That is what you see happening today. Has current inflation declined as a result of restrictive monetary policies? Yes, just read the headlines. And it failed for most of the 2010's. The fed has been reconsidering its inflation formula: Economists are reconsidering how much corporate profits drive inflation MAY 19, 2023 In the past, corporate profit growth accounted for maybe a third of inflation. But a report from the Kansas City Fed found that nearly 60% of inflation in 2021 was because of corporate profits. There is a formula for what causes inflation, and it's very simple. It is costs plus corporate profits. That's how you get inflation. If costs increase for a company because workers want higher wages or because the cost of raw materials go up, you can get inflation. If corporate profits go up, you can get inflation. Now, you may remember a lot of economists last year saying that corporations or corporate greed was not driving inflation, but corporate profits could be a driver of inflation. It's right there in the inflation formula, says Andrew Glover at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177180972/economists-are-reconsidering-how-much-corporate-profits-drive-inflationFed has no reliable theory of inflation, says Tarullo Former Fed governor calls for more attention to actual data © Bloomberg Central bankers are steering the economy without the benefit of a reliable theory of what drives inflation, a former top Federal Reserve policymaker said, as he called for policymakers to pay less attention to theoretical models and more to actual data. Daniel Tarullo, who left the US central bank’s board of governors earlier this year, said economists displayed a paradoxical faith in the usefulness of unobservable concepts such as the natural rate of unemployment or neutral real rate of interest, even as they expressed doubts about how robust those concepts were. https://www.ft.com/content/a5438cce-a933-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: And it failed for most of the 2010's. The fed has been reconsidering its inflation formula: Economists are reconsidering how much corporate profits drive inflation MAY 19, 2023 In the past, corporate profit growth accounted for maybe a third of inflation. But a report from the Kansas City Fed found that nearly 60% of inflation in 2021 was because of corporate profits. There is a formula for what causes inflation, and it's very simple. It is costs plus corporate profits. That's how you get inflation. If costs increase for a company because workers want higher wages or because the cost of raw materials go up, you can get inflation. If corporate profits go up, you can get inflation. Now, you may remember a lot of economists last year saying that corporations or corporate greed was not driving inflation, but corporate profits could be a driver of inflation. It's right there in the inflation formula, says Andrew Glover at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177180972/economists-are-reconsidering-how-much-corporate-profits-drive-inflationFed has no reliable theory of inflation, says Tarullo Former Fed governor calls for more attention to actual data © Bloomberg Central bankers are steering the economy without the benefit of a reliable theory of what drives inflation, a former top Federal Reserve policymaker said, as he called for policymakers to pay less attention to theoretical models and more to actual data. Daniel Tarullo, who left the US central bank’s board of governors earlier this year, said economists displayed a paradoxical faith in the usefulness of unobservable concepts such as the natural rate of unemployment or neutral real rate of interest, even as they expressed doubts about how robust those concepts were. https://www.ft.com/content/a5438cce-a933-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97 No, that is garbage. You are not even close to being a mainstream economics reader, Jay. The standard monetary explanation has worked well, if you print too much money to facilitate gigantic government deficits, the result is inflation. Tramping on the monetary brakes has driven down inflation currently, just as predicted by the monetary economists at the Fed. You and Jimmy Carter bought into a losing model. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: No, that is garbage. You are not even close to being a mainstream economics reader, Jay. The standard monetary explanation has worked well, if you print too much money to facilitate gigantic deficits, the result is inflation. Tramping on the monetary brakes has driven down inflation currently, just as predicted by the monetary economists at the Fed. You and Jimmy Carter bought into a losing model. You are claiming the Fed is right yet you are calling evidence from the Federal Reserve garbage. You are a joke. The monetary explanation failed for most of the 2010s and the Fed just came out with that report pegging a big part of inflation to corporate costs and profits. Inflation is down mostly because supply chains have been fixed. From the Fed: Global Supply Chain Pressures and U.S. Inflation Zheng Liu and Thuy Lan Nguyen Global supply chain disruptions following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the rapid rise in U.S. inflation over the past two years. Evidence suggests that supply chain pressures pushed up the cost of inputs for goods production and the public’s expectations of higher future prices. These factors accounted for about 60% of the surge in U.S. inflation beginning in early 2021. Supply chain pressures began easing substantially in mid-2022, contributing to the slowdown in inflation.https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/june/global-supply-chain-pressures-and-us-inflation/ Edited December 5, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: You are claiming the Fed is right yet you are calling evidence from the Federal Reserve garbage. You are a joke. The monetary explanation failed for most of the 2010s and the Fed just came out with that report pegging a big part of inflation to corporate costs and profits. Nonsense. The Fed is currently following the standard monetary policies which have worked well to explain past results. Yellen was criticized by conservative economists for facilitating inflationary pressures through an accommodating monetary policy, allowing the government to print money to pay for the servicing of gigantic government deficits. That is what caused the inflation. The current reduction in inflation rates is attributable to restrictive monetary policy. The neo-Marxists cant about profits is pure nonsense. You are confusing cause with effect, just as Jimmy Carter did. Pointing to rising profits and rising wages as the supposed cause of inflation is a very superficial understanding. What you are citing as the cause of inflation is nothing of the kind, what you claim as the cause is simply a description of inflation. The symptoms of inflation are not the cause of inflation. The fact that you buy into a superficial rabble-rousing explanation of inflation is consistent with your view of the CO2 climate issues. Political motivation. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 1 minute ago, Ecocharger said: Nonsense. The Fed is currently following the standard monetary policies which have worked well to explain past results. Yellen was criticized by conservative economists for facilitating inflationary pressures through an accommodating monetary policy, allowing the government to print money to pay for the servicing of gigantic government deficits. That is what caused the inflation. The current reduction in inflation rates is attributable to restrictive monetary policy. The neo-Marxists cant about profits is pure nonsense. You are confusing cause with effect, just as Jimmy Carter did. Pointing to rising profits and rising wages as the supposed cause of inflation is a very superficial understanding. What you are citing as the cause of inflation is nothing of the kind, what you claim as the cause is simply a description of inflation. The symptoms of inflation are not the cause of inflation. The fact that you buy into a superficial rabble-rousing explanation of inflation is consistent with your view of the CO2 climate issues. Political motivation. There was no inflation during Yellen's term as Fed chairman you fool and I am posting reports from the Fed. They represent the current understanding of recent inflation and it was primarily due to supply chain disruptions and corporate greed. If you understood basic economics you would know that when supply is disrupted shortages occur and prices go up. It is called supply and demand. Conservative economists are wrong as usual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: There was no inflation during Yellen's term as Fed chairman you fool and I am posting reports from the Fed. They represent the current understanding of recent inflation and it was primarily due to supply chain disruptions and corporate greed. If you understood basic economics you would know that when supply is disrupted shortages occur and prices go up. It is called supply and demand. Conservative economists are wrong as usual. Jay, you proposed that explanation previously, and it does not work. As I pointed out to you above, you are confused about cause and effect. What you claim as the cause of inflation is merely a description of inflation. You do not know the difference. What we see now are not problems with supply chains but a reduction in demand pressures with restrictive monetary policy. Previously there was an expansionary monetary policy (you can count interest rates?) during a period of high employment, a recipe for inflation. Supply chains had nothing to do with it. Anytime you have expansionary monetary or fiscal stimulus during a period of fully employed labor and capital you will get inflation. Technological change is insufficient to avoid inflation when the productive inputs are fully engaged. The Fed operates on this basis. Yellen's period in office is over. Jimmy Carter is no longer President. You are a stranded neo-Marxist without support. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Jay, you proposed that explanation previously, and it does not work. As I pointed out to you above, you are confused about cause and effect. What you claim as the cause of inflation is merely a description of inflation. You do not know the difference. What we see now are not problems with supply chains but a reduction in demand pressures with restrictive monetary policy. Previously there was an expansionary monetary policy (you can count interest rates?) during a period of high employment, a recipe for inflation. Supply chains had nothing to do with it. Anytime you have expansionary monetary or fiscal stimulus during a period of fully employed labor and capital you will get inflation. Technological change is insufficient to avoid inflation when the productive inputs are fully engaged. The Fed operates on this basis. Yellen's period in office is over. Jimmy Carter is no longer President. Actually Yellen is our current Secretary of the Treasury and there was no inflation during her term at the Fed even with negative interest rates. That means monetary policy is not the most important thing. The Fed claims that 60% of the recent inflation increase is due to supply shortages due to Covid. They are a cause not a symptom of inflation. Read their report: Global Supply Chain Pressures and U.S. Inflation Zheng Liu and Thuy Lan Nguyen Global supply chain disruptions following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the rapid rise in U.S. inflation over the past two years. Evidence suggests that supply chain pressures pushed up the cost of inputs for goods production and the public’s expectations of higher future prices. These factors accounted for about 60% of the surge in U.S. inflation beginning in early 2021. Supply chain pressures began easing substantially in mid-2022, contributing to the slowdown in inflation. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, global shipping and transportation costs surged, and delivery times and backlogs spiked to historically high levels. The resulting supply shortages added significant pressure to inflation. https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/june/global-supply-chain-pressures-and-us-inflation/ Edited December 5, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: Actually Yellen is our current Secretary of the Treasury and there was no inflation during her term at the Fed even with negative interest rates. That means monetary policy is not the most important thing. The Fed claims that 60% of the recent inflation increase is due to supply shortages due to Covid. They are a cause not a symptom of inflation. Read their report: Global Supply Chain Pressures and U.S. Inflation Zheng Liu and Thuy Lan Nguyen Global supply chain disruptions following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the rapid rise in U.S. inflation over the past two years. Evidence suggests that supply chain pressures pushed up the cost of inputs for goods production and the public’s expectations of higher future prices. These factors accounted for about 60% of the surge in U.S. inflation beginning in early 2021. Supply chain pressures began easing substantially in mid-2022, contributing to the slowdown in inflation. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, global shipping and transportation costs surged, and delivery times and backlogs spiked to historically high levels. The resulting supply shortages added significant pressure to inflation. https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/june/global-supply-chain-pressures-and-us-inflation/ As I stated above, supply chain problems were not the main issue with the recent inflation, read your own material. Supply chain issues were temporary. Continuous inflation was related to general price and wage increases, nothing to do with temporary supply chain issues. Did you not read the numbers on general inflation? I guess not. The current reduction in inflation is due to high interest rates which has slowed investment and consumer demand, the usual monetary approach to demand management. There are no supply shortages in the EV market, just excess supply. The excess supply and unsold inventories are characteristic of restrictive monetary policy. The underlying economy-wide inflationary pressures were created by excessive monetary stimulation over several years, and had to be addressed by restrictive monetary policy. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 December 5, 2023 1 minute ago, Ecocharger said: As I stated above, supply chain problems were not the main issue with the recent inflation, read your own material. Supply chain issues were temporary. Continuous inflation was related to general price and wage increases, nothing to do with temporary supply chain issues. Did you not read the numbers on general inflation? I guess not. The current reduction in inflation is due to high interest rates which has slowed investment and consumer demand, the usual monetary approach to demand management. There are no supply shortages in the EV market, just excess supply. The excess supply and unsold inventories are characteristic of restrictive monetary policy. The underlying economy-wide inflationary pressures were created by excess monetary stimulation over several years, and had to be addressed by restrictive monetary policy. The Federal Reserve disagrees with you. Try reading: Supply chain disruptions increase input costs and raise the public’s expectations for higher prices. We estimate that these effects contributed about 60% of the above-trend run-up of headline inflation in 2021 and 2022. https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/june/global-supply-chain-pressures-and-us-inflation/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL December 5, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: The Federal Reserve disagrees with you. Try reading: Supply chain disruptions increase input costs and raise the public’s expectations for higher prices. We estimate that these effects contributed about 60% of the above-trend run-up of headline inflation in 2021 and 2022. https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/june/global-supply-chain-pressures-and-us-inflation/ If that were true, Jay, there would not be any need for a general monetary restriction to tame inflation. The Fed has employed a standard monetary restriction to restrain demand pressures in the economy as a whole, not just in certain markets. The policy itself tells us everything we need to know. Has Powell indicated an easing of monetary policy? No. The reason being that inflation is still regarded as a problem and the monetary restriction needs to continue to deal with that. That is a clear monetarist approach to inflation. Edited December 5, 2023 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members