Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Clinton campaign post-mortem

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Clinton campaign post-mortem
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Find it here.

I'm posting this because I figure it'll be of interest to a bunch of Ornery posters and readers. But also so I can laugh about the fact that the first page contains at least two usages of the phrase "Clinton herself."

[LOL]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This stuff is just hilarious... I knew there was squabbling going on, but every memo I look at just makes the Clinton team look utterly incoherent and at war with itself.

With Edwards' career going down in flames and Clinton's internal management a warzone, nothing makes me smile more than that the disaster of having either of these two as the Dem nominee has been averted.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now she's holding rallies in backyards with 6-8 person crowds ranting about wanting a floor vote at the convention.

The woman is....unbalanced.

[ August 12, 2008, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of this is funny, and some is tragic. And the conclusion that Mark Penn was basically right about how to get Clinton the nomination, however abrasive his personality, and that Clinton lost because she never said, "Penn is fully in charge here, and anyone who challenges that will be fired immediately" will surely be disputed. But Mark Penn did get Bill Clinton elected, while Clinton herself had Senate duties preventing her from giving full time to the campaign, so putting him in charge would have been a reasonable and perhaps successful choice.

However Clinton started off with a huge number of political enemies for both her and for Bill Clinton, who could never be won over by any argument from her campaign. And she did not really run full out for the Presidency, in the sense that she was willing to gamble her Senate seat and entire political future on winning the White House in 2008, at least in the beginning. So she got off to a late start for New Hampshire and Iowa, and the voters probably punished her for hesitancy. She also lost a lot because Obama had apologized for supporting the Iraq War resolution, and probably no Democrat could have won the nomination this year without doing something like that, even if it reduced his chances in the general election. Also Obama's canny use of the skewed delegate selection rules giving undue prominence to winners of caucuses in Republican states means that in part it is fairer to say he won the nomination rather than that Clinton lost it. She also never made the Reverend Wright and an outright racist appeal painting all blacks as disloyal and potential traitors a center of her campaign, so as to secure the nomination even if she lost every black vote and the election in November.

But all campaigns are a hothouse of clashing personalities suffering from exhaustion as they struggle to meet one deadline after another. A very funny book could be written about any of them, even if Clinton's may have been a bit more peculiar than average. And I am not sure the Clinton debacle this year was any worse than Rudy Giuliani's decline from being the Republican front runner to a fizzle in Florida, which showed there is only one way to win a nomination but lots of ways to lose one. Since Giuliani could have devoted full time to his campaign, his inaction had much less excuse.

[ August 12, 2008, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What an incompetent manager.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am not sure the Clinton debacle this year was any worse than Rudy Giuliani's decline from being the Republican front runner to a fizzle in Florida, which showed there is only one way to win a nomination but lots of ways to lose one. Since Giuliani could have devoted full time to his campaign, his inaction had much less excuse.
I would hesitate to call it a "debacle". She was weak at the start and made many mistakes, but she fought like hell right up to the very end. Obama had her beat (more or less) after super tuesday, but she managed to hang on and even (once or twice) almost convinced me that she could still win.

I despise her, but I respect her toughness and tenacity. She would have made a formidable presidential candidate.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She's plenty tough, but can't run an organization.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of my buddies worked with hillary a fair amount for about 18 months, because of his job with the new york state assembly. He's definetely a democrat, and he said a few times "Once she realizes her career isn't going any further, she's going to be an excellent senator, kinda like Kennedy."
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if Obama wins, she won't have to. She'll be one of the most interesting justices since Taft. [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clinton won no small number of Red State delegates, and certainly didn't consider it to be "gaming the system". Bill even thanked Rush for his help.

The fact is, her campaign simply did not plan for anything past super-tuesday. It was no "arcane rules" that burned through her firewalls on Super-Super-Tuesday, but rather piss-poor ground level organization, wastefull spending, and clinging to the message of inevitability and blaming the press.

Her national poll numbers saw no bounce from Penns "style", the ground changed. Geography was once again mistaken for "momentum" in an attempt to create an exciting drama that kept viewers clued to the cable networks and viewing internet add content. Any ninth rate poll that showed any sort of bump for her was trotted out in attempt to keep the highly profitable illusion of a "horse race" alive.

By May, according to reliable polls, Obama would have beaten her by five points in California instead of losing by eight. When I say a reliable polling firm, BTW, I'm talking about one that predicted her actual CA margin within a point less than a week before Super-Tuesday.

Had Penn been "given his head" in December, she would have been out of the race back in February. His tactics worked? Only in States where Clinton had always had a strong lead in reliable polls.

The last minute smear style of politics becomes less and less effective as people learn how to do their own research with those metal boxes on their desks. What ever Bill may ramble on about in regard to third rate polling firms like Quinnipiac showing "improvement" as a result of the scorched earth policies of the latter part of his wifes campaign, broken down county by county, results were only seen in counties with the lowest degree of internet access. She was losing ground in States with higher internet penatration.

Penn is outdated, and his type of campaign just would have ended the whole circus earlier.

That tactics that ran up the numbers in Kentucky and West Virginia would have pounded the nails into her coffin in New York, Massachusets, and California...the same way they did in Oregon (where she should have been viable).

At the end of the day, though, she lost because was buying coffee and doughnuts for her volunteers. She was paying a staff to go make comments on newstories. She was *hiring* canvasers.

She couldn't buy the ground level organization or internet presence that Obama got largely for free. Her message for over a year was that she would do everything for all those little people nice enough to vote for her, and that was all they needed to do.

That's all they did, and that's why she lost. Hundreds of thousands fewer volunteer hours.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"One of my buddies worked with hillary a fair amount for about 18 months, because of his job with the new york state assembly. He's definetely a democrat, and he said a few times "Once she realizes her career isn't going any further, she's going to be an excellent senator, kinda like Kennedy.""

I'd never have thought I'd see everard propose the Glass Ceiling as a good thing [Razz]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But I still want Hillary for president. Preferably, newly single.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even after reading the Atlantic piece about her managerial incompetence? Why would she run the white house differently? President is a managerial position, folks.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because she is willing to inject liquidity on the indicator of inflation, and willing to level the field for energy.

Now, you won't find that in documents but conversations back when Bill was in suggest the above.

That's worth all the rest, and makes her 100x the value of even Romney, manager-extraordinaire.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In other words, you're voting on the basis of pork (noble, desirable pork tho it may be, and I be a bacon eatin Jew myself) [Smile]

BTW, forgive me for bringing the debate down to troglodyte level, but are you saying that the way to combat inflation is to print more money?

[ August 13, 2008, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Inflation is caused by our treasury failing to print and release the proper money to balance our new products, forcing producers into factoring, borrowing, rolling, repricing.... inflation. It's not a theory. It's a fact.

The key is, the treasury has set a rate at which it will, by its collusion, assist in the failure of new business or the gradual receivership of small business by larger interests. For a lot of people, that's just fine. For me, I call it treason. Our treasury's practices are another reason to outsource new factories. Would you rather have a factory here, where there will be, soon, an automatic pinch as your products are added to a deliberately underfunded asset pool, or put them in Indonesia or Asia where the liquidity will be re-adjusted and keep new products out of competition with each other (injection upon the indicator of inflation)?

I'd put factories in China, too.

I also support counterfeiters [Razz] because THAT is assisting in solving the problem!

[ August 13, 2008, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Inflation is caused by our treasury failing to print and release the proper money to balance our new products, forcing producers into factoring, borrowing, rolling, repricing.... inflation. It's not a theory. It's a fact.
It's also an overgeneralization.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TD, shall we break it down into other alternatives? Shall we include mezzanine schemes, re-capitalization, and every other mechanism which really, truly just means.... a LOAN from a source which inflates a price because there is insufficient liquidity due to too many products that need dollars matched to them?

I don't see the reason to split hairs and pretend this is more confusing than it really is.

[ August 14, 2008, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So inflation is not the condition whereby there is **too much** currency in the market, which as a result causes the price of everything to fall per currency - i.e., with two gazillion dollars representing all the goods and services, each dollar only buys half of what it would have if there were only one gazillion dollars in circulation, representing all goods and services?

Ed. to add: That seems to be what the Wiki article is saying:
quote:
The modern definition of inflation used in mainstream economics differs from the original definition to the extent that Austrians maintain that inflation is an increase of the money supply, which in turn leads to a higher nominal price level, as the real value of each monetary unit is eroded and thus buys fewer goods and services. Mainstream economists maintain inflation is a measurement of the general level of prices. Thus, the difference is that Austrian economists claim that inflation is the very action of producing more units of money, whereas mainstream economists distinguish between the measurement of the level of prices (the effect) and the increase in the money supply (one of the causes).


[ August 14, 2008, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I also support counterfeiters [Razz] because THAT is assisting in solving the problem!"

I guess the Germans were just clueless, then, when they had the idea of causing hyperinflation in Britain by dropping millions in counterfeit money.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So inflation is not the condition whereby there is **too much** currency in the market, which as a result causes the price of everything to fall per currency - i.e., with two gazillion dollars representing all the goods and services, each dollar only buys half of what it would have if there were only one gazillion dollars in circulation, representing all goods and services?
That's part of it, Ricky. It's complicated by the fact that for the last couple decades, we've been trading our debts back and forth with each other more heavily than we've been trading our actual assets. Munga would like to see those debts more easily monetized (i.e. have money printed to match those paper debts, so that the entity who owns the debt on one end can spend that money now without selling the debt to somebody else.) Her position is that no new capital is created without leveraging debt, and therefore monetizing debt is the only way to grow the economy; she observes that banks already have a mechanism to monetize debt, and argues that it is unfair to deny that mechanism to others if it's offered to some.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you much. (Not your fault, munga, he just speaks trog, to which I am unfortunately limited.)

OK, me surely mistaken, me trog and all. Isn't part of the current credit crisis due to too much of that sort of thing?

"so that the entity who owns the debt on one end can spend that money now without selling the debt to somebody else.)"

In cave culture, us call that refinancing. You take a loan secured by a loan someone owes you, and you pay interest on the money you borrow just like your borrower pays to you (not necessarily same rate, of course... depends on what each borrower negotiated).

The problem, as I understand it, is when many loans are rolled over too many times, and then when loans are defaulted on, each screws multiple balance sheets, rather than just one, thus creating a credit crisis rather than a bunch of isolated defaults.

Finally, as for denial, in all the rivers of verbiage, has any evidence whatsoever been offered to show that her enterprise being denied is anything more than "we don't like your securities"? Has she shown that comparable securities were accepted from others?

Thank you, kind interpreter, maker of smart words in stupid language. Me most grateful... [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guys.

We're still not getting this right.

Inflation is a measure of a price of a basket of goods.

think of 20 things that might be total market indicators, and put them in the basket: 10 lbs of sugar, 10 gallons of oil, 10 lbs of wheat, 10 lbs of plastics, 1 MW of electricity (these aren't the actual increments, but this is a good demonstration).... and when you have a good, indicative basket that represents all manufacture, that is what is measured, every time.

Now.

Inflation, the very name, means to "get bigger," which is what we call it when the total price of the total basket rises.

Deflation, the very name, means to "get smaller," which is what we call it when the total price of the total basket falls.

Inflation is always the basket-price raising because there insufficient liquidity, for items produced in the United States. The reason is that the index is for manufacture of contracted products, or products with a precise, proven demand. These manufacturers do not walk into the bank and say they think they will sell their future products (which is called "good will" and mostly is a scalping game that banks play to make business owners feel unworthy) they walk into the bank with the actual contacts to sell their products, a demonstrated demand. But there is insufficient liquidity available (which usually means, too many are purchasing the products on credit- 60 or 90 day agreements, because THEY in turn can't find enough money for their products, for which they also have a demonstrated demand)... and so, the interest on the loan for raw materials is converted into what we call "inflation." This means, in other words, that banks are the ones experiencing the benefit of inflation, not the producers at all.

Our current crisis is caused by TOO LITTLE of something, not TOO MUCH of something. We have TOO LITTLE liquidity = dollars printed and released to match to our products. Americans, in their desperation, are producing more and more and more of the products in order to somehow gain the dollars, which are too scarce. If I have one gripe with the Bush admin on this, it is that they were fully aware that when they diverted the cash that is printed today to support the contractors and war effort, they were fully aware the rest of America was going to be headed into receivership and they just don't care. They could have prevented this disaster, they knew what they were doing, and instead, they just plunged our heads underwater, for which I will spit on Bush's legacy forever. Too many families and dreams have been shattered under this gross mismanagement and willful enslavement of Americans by the finance industries.

The securities- Yes, I posted a request for them from other banks, they are the number one holding of Wachovia Bank, and the Federal Reserve posts their margin tables (which is the same thing as saying, "we'll take that asset and give you this much money for it!!!") right on their website. They have been used in non-constructive sales (repurchase agreements) in many other transactions and the reason this transaction is banned is that the product will produce power beneath the band of the hedge that all banks stand to then Pay Out upon if electricity is produced in sufficient quantities, or in other words, if the facility produces according to design.

[ August 14, 2008, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"I also support counterfeiters [Razz] because THAT is assisting in solving the problem!"

I guess the Germans were just clueless, then, when they had the idea of causing hyperinflation in Britain by dropping millions in counterfeit money.

Well, they have to say something to cause people to not make fake money and enrich themselves. The real situation is that it will cause deflation, or as LoneSnark liked to say, "devaluation of the currency" which opens up an interesting discussion:

How did LoneSnark get this way?

What factors go into creating someone who is aware of how currency works, and how banks roll up the costs from manufacturers (he called it the price of "renting capital") and yet, who doesn't wish to have the liquidity really corrected?

Think it through. I talk to people like LoneSnark every day. All of Congress, almost every person in finance, knows what they are doing and knows that insufficient capital for the products is the problem, but they like it this way because, as LS said, if there WERE sufficient liquidity it would cause "devaluation of the currency."

Immediately this tells me where LS is, spiritually, concerning his wealth. He has enough savvy to tell me that he does, indeed, have money to manage just as he claimed.

But why would someone be fully aware that (let's use this example):

There are ten people each with a pile of goods worth 10 million dollars.

They know that there is no more money out there for the new products.

An up-and-coming hardworking human being produces ten million dollars worth of projected value.

They do not wish there to be more money made for that value.

Instead, they want the new man to come and borrow which is equal to "enrich me, first" thinking in order to have their dream assets.

They insist that the new man borrow rather than allow more currency to be produced to represent the new man's wealth.

This kind of thinking is the biggest problem in America today. Bankers worry about devaluation not because they are not certain that there are sufficient products, but because, if there were sufficient liquidity and YOU could earn your nest egg without making them, simultaneously STILL richer than you, how would I, the banker continue to be better than you? How would I continue to be slightly more important, and who will serve me? Who will sit supplicantly and request my valued opinion? Worst, who will take out my trash?

These people fear their own devaluation in the efficient market, which is when there is sufficient liquidity for products (everyone's, not just a few) and each producer can make the products and goods they are best at.

LoneSnark isn't worse, he's not evil, but he is a victim of someone. Someone taught him this principal, just as mothers long ago taught their children that colored-folk were animals that really benefit from our control. These are the enemy.

[ August 14, 2008, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
In other words, you're voting on the basis of pork (noble, desirable pork tho it may be, and I be a bacon eatin Jew myself) [Smile]

BTW, forgive me for bringing the debate down to troglodyte level, but are you saying that the way to combat inflation is to print more money?

Yep. And Bernanke knows it too. He's even suggested printing the money and putting it in the poor communities by Helicopter, which has earned him the epithet "Helicopter Ben" but for this, I have some hope and respect the man.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"deflation" began appearing in the business news, Bernanke gave a speech about deflation.[13] In that speech, he mentioned that the government in a fiat money system owns the physical means of creating money. Control of the means of production for money implies that the government can always avoid deflation by simply issuing more money. (He referred to a statement made by Milton Friedman about using a "helicopter drop" of money into the economy to fight deflation.) Bernanke's critics have since referred to him as "Helicopter Ben" or to his "helicopter printing press". In a footnote to his speech, Bernanke noted that "people know that inflation erodes the real value of the government's debt and, therefore, that it is in the interest of the government to create some inflation."[13]"

Emphases mine. From Bernanke's wiki.

Seems you got your terms mixed up. Bernanke wanted to drop in money to prevent deflation, the pposite of inflation, which is way us cavemen do it. In order to control inflation, you usually control prices and tightly restrict the amount of currency in circulation. That is how they did it here in Israel when it hit 400% in the early 80's.

Hobsen my man -

"he also lost a lot because Obama had apologized for supporting the Iraq War resolution, and probably no Democrat could have won the nomination this year without doing something like that, even if it reduced his chances in the general election."

Um, whaaaa? Obama was
A) Not in a position to support or not support any motions in the US Congress at the time of the Iraq War Resolution, cause he wasn't a member at the time

and

B) On record as unequivocally opposed.

It is B) that went far in winning him the nomination, as you say.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
not really.

It's the same situation as the "if we don't tell people that counterfeiting hurts everyone we won't have the justification to lock em up"

Bernanke knows what he's doing. He's advocating an answer while feeding the sharks. He is surrounded, 100%, by bankers.

He's got the same problem when trying to work with congress on currency valuation procedures. Dollars are always given a comparative value, yes? We compare what a dollar will buy, as opposed to what a Yen will buy. Americans can't get their mind around the currency thing in that we think we want to buy foreign commodities with strong dollars. This is simply not true. We should be trading weak dollars for products. If I'm going to trade a cow for a barrel of oil, and I have the choice between the mature, fat cow, and a small, minature cow, which would be the best business decision? In an import economy we want to work with weak dollars. In an export economy, we want to work with strong dollars. He's got a tightrope to walk to explain it to the masses, in a recession induced by purposed underliquidity. It's one big nightmare.

I just have no reason to engage in the double speak here. It's finance propaganda.

[ August 14, 2008, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, so Bernanke is saying deflation but actually means inflation? You're pulling my leg, right? Saying stupid things in order to see when I get all apoplectic and not get the joke?

I think you got it backwards again with the weak/strong thing, but it's late. Maybe not.

You ever read Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Ricky.

There is more than one measure of inflation. Inflation of the dollar and inflation of the commodities which is what we, you and I, usually call "inflation". All metrics have inflation and deflation, the question is, what is in the basket?

No, never read Frankin's book, but it does sound just up my alley. My dad listens to Rush Limbaugh 24/7 (he's disabled and Rush is his meat). I rarely fail to hear something completely idiotic from Rush, when I visit. My mom listens guardedly.

Most recently my mother, feeling that she'd finally gotten the ammo to bring me to my senses, reported that Rush had found an instance where a school system had paid TWO MILLION dollars for windmills to provide just TWO MEGAWATTS of power for them. It was environmental-crazyism! I asked her if Rush had reported that one million dollars per megawatt is the accepted energy industry standard, exactly the same cost per MW as a coal fired facility, or a nuclear facility? No, Rush hadn't known that. I asked her if Rush had understood that by paying for the 2 MW of capital equipment to make the power that they require, the school system, after pay out (satisfaction of the debt) would be making the energy they need, for free, as wind costs nothing? No, Rush hadn't mentioned that. I asked if Rush understood that by making their own power, the school system had opted out of the speculation scheme of the utility, and contributed to lowering the cost of gas at the fuel pump via the BTU conversion? No, Rush hadn't known that. I asked her if Rush had understood that the wind-mill would not be producing Dioxins and Furans, known carcinogens, and that the school district had just lowered the mortality rate of the people by requiring fewer carcinogens in the air because they are producing it cleanly?

Well, to make a long story short, my mom doesn't trust Rush anymore, but my Dad can't be penetrated.

[ August 14, 2008, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. You do not get to make up your own terms. Inflation means too much money per goods, ergo each unit of currency being able to buy less. It's like an IPO. If you issue a million shares, each share represents 1/million of the equity being offered to the public. If you issue 2 million shares for the same equity (say 20% of the total worth of the company) then each share is worth half of one millionth.

Counterfeiting, which you seem to think is a victimless crime, exacerbates this problem, as it basically divides a non-changing pie into thinner slices.

I am done arguing the point. If you have one, in your usual tortuous fashion, one of my trusty trog-speakers will elucidate me.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
munga, I think what Ricky has been saying is that he (and I'm with him) usually call inflation of the dollar "inflation." I also think that's what Bernanke was talking about in the quote Ricky posted.

If the dollar has been inflated, then I have to spend more of them to buy my plastic cowboy hat from China. If I make the same number of dollars per hour either way, I'd rather be importing goods with a strong (un-inflated) dollar than a weak one.

What I'm saying is I don't think this makes any sense:

quote:
originally posted by munga:
Americans can't get their mind around the currency thing in that we think we want to buy foreign commodities with strong dollars. This is simply not true. We should be trading weak dollars for products.

...and I don't understand why you illustrated your example by talking about trading a commodity for a commodity instead of a currency for a commodity.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Ricky, inflation that WE know of, unless you are a currency trader, means inflation of the cost of products, not "too much money per goods". Check your wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

here's another:http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation1.asp

here's another:
http://economics.about.com/od/helpforeconomicsstudents/f/inflation.htm

here's another:
http://www.finpipe.com/inflat.htm

but in my opinion, CPI is a bad marker.

[ August 14, 2008, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifi-

Yes, Bernanke was talking about the dollar inflation. BUT he was addressing an answer to the commodities inflation, which is the real crisis today. He has a lot to juggle, but at least he's not the asshat that Greenspan was.

On the strong/weak dollar thing.... I've actually never tried to explain that phenomenon outside of finance circles. It took weeks of talking to RickyB before I hit on the use of the "blood" analogy and finally we started to connect. I don't think I can really really simply demonstrate the principals, beyond what I've already said, without a little thought.

[ August 14, 2008, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
munga, "inflation in the cost of products" usually means (to us jes folks) that it costs MORE DOLLARS to buy things - which also is what we think of when you say "weak dollar". Furthermore, this COULD be caused by people just having too much currency (Zimbabwe, anyone?) so they bid up the dollar price of goods that are in limited supply.

If those aren't the things you talk about when you say "inflation" and "weak dollar" then I think you're going to lose a lot of your audience. We're definitely not a "finance circle". If you avoid the shorthand and use a more precise term for what you're talking about, that will at least prompt some of us to use Google before we just go "huh?" or challenging your assertions. (Even better, use the precise terms and provide a 'trog' explanation of what it means, but in the past asking you to explain things better hasn't always resulted in easier-to-understand information, so maybe this isn't realistic.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yeah, I agree.

But I dislike the "too much money per goods" inflation definition because it implies that the new price delta (the difference) went to the producers when in fact it went to the banks.

And currencies themselves, become commodities. That was the cow thing, but don't fret on the cow because that is an analogy that isn't going to work far, so I need to re-think it.

[ August 14, 2008, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1