Law BBB/ Inflation Reduction Act: Signed into Law

Jack V Savage said:
:) Not even sure where to start. Pretty much every sentence of this is wrong. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised (and that you should maybe read some real analysis).
Click to expand...

Ok, start somewhere.
The more money you print, the less valuable it becomes.
If another country found an enormous surplus of gold treasure and flooded the market with gold, gold would become less valuable.
If you have a Babe Ruth rookie card, and there are only a few originals in mint condition, then some guy finds 1000 in grandma's attic, the value of yours goes down.
If you have an exclusive one of a kind ocean front house, the only one on the market in say Hawaii, then a new volcano pops up and creates 2000 more exclusive ocean front houses just like yours, the value of your house goes down.
America just printed a ton of money and gave most of it away for free, it is less valuable, we immediately saw inflation.

Trump and George W. did this also. The last President to at least balance the budget was Bill Clinton. We could use him now.

Once the government started printing this money, I banked heavy on inflation and for the first time in my life, did really really well as an investor. How can you not count on it? I think this new bill will keep inflation up, push back the crash, but the crash is coming.
 
fedorthegoat777 said:
Ok, start somewhere.
The more money you print, the less valuable it becomes.
If another country found an enormous surplus of gold treasure and flooded the market with gold, gold would become less valuable.
Click to expand...

Your model of money creation is wrong, for one thing. You can do some research into that.

fedorthegoat777 said:
Trump and George W. did this also. The last President to at least balance the budget was Bill Clinton. We could use him now.
Click to expand...

This is also wrong. Presidents don't balance budgets. Spending bills originate in the House, but it's more complicated than that. We were headed for balanced budgets before Clinton took office (though Republicans did try to use that to justify more tax cuts for the rich, which Clinton pushed back on). No recent president has done more to bring long-term debt down than Obama, but the IRA does also close the gap a bit (and the more IRS enforcement leads to higher revenue, the more it closes the gap--hence my earlier point).

fedorthegoat777 said:
Once the government started printing this money, I banked heavy on inflation and for the first time in my life, did really really well as an investor. How can you not count on it? I think this new bill will keep inflation up, push back the crash, but the crash is coming.
Click to expand...

If you make bets based on astrology, sometimes they'll pay off (more often than betting based on your understanding of the economy, actually). Note that clueless Internet posters have been predicting and losing money from predicting a jump in inflation for over a decade.
 
White Whale said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election
Clinton's and Obama's policies hurt the working class. The article above was written by a lifelong Democrat.

America doesn't need another Clinton it needs someone that will balance the budget and help the working an middle class.
Click to expand...

I pretty sure I saw a video of Rand Paul standing before congress with a plan to put us on a budget, cut spending and would get us out of debt in 5 years… I’ll see if I can find the video
 
ShadowRun said:
There’s no way you can honestly believe that is polices don’t have impacts on supply and demand
Click to expand...
He said almost which is how he worms around in his comments. You can point out something which clearly show the impact and he’ll say “see! I said almost so I knew about that.”
 
ShadowRun said:
There’s no way you can honestly believe that is polices don’t have impacts on supply and demand
Click to expand...

Well, that's not what I said. But I think if you walk through the logic, you'll see that GOP propaganda on this doesn't add up. First, the U.S. accounts for 18.5% of total global oil production. Second, the bulk of that number (which, again, is less than a fifth of the total) is going to be stable. From 2020 to 2021, it went up from 11,168 thousand barrels per day to 11,634 (i.e., 4.2%--of 18.5%). The impact of policy change would be on the rate of change rather than the level, right? And the portion of level changes that are due to policy change as opposed to market factors, new innovation, discovery, etc. is what? Pretty small, right? You can use your own assumptions, but however you plug them into the math, you'll find no significant impact of U.S. policy changes on global production (minimal impact even on U.S. production). So what about demand? Well, if we mandate more energy efficiency and subsidize alternate energy, we lower demand, which could help (very slightly) with prices, but again, U.S. demand is only 20% of the total market. On top of all that, negligibly reduced demand could have a negligible impact on supply, making the impact even smaller.

I'd also argue, to invert your point, that not only is what I said clearly true, no one sincerely believes otherwise. Before Obama was re-elected in 2012, oil prices had gone up a little, and many Republicans predicted a huge spike in prices if he won (Gingrich famously predicted $10/gallon before the end of Obama's term). Didn't happen, of course. Did that mean that Republicans said, "wow, Obama did a great job with gas prices?" No, of course not. What happened is that they didn't talk about it except to note (correctly) that of course presidents don't affect gas prices. Similarly, following the recent decline, no one who was pretending to think that the increase was due to Biden has given him credit for the fall. It's all just political bullshit. If you really believed changes or levels are determined by U.S. policy, you would believe it all the time--not just when you think it's politically profitable to say you believe it.

On this issue, as with many others, there are different "lanes." There are people who analyze gas prices for investing purposes (or selling to investors), people who evaluate it because they are major market participants (producers and large buyers), and people who talk about it because they think it helps people they support win elections. Guess which two groups barely mention U.S. policy and guess which one is obsessed with attributing negative (but not positive) moves to people they oppose?

Rob Battisti said:
He said almost which is how he worms around in his comments. You can point out something which clearly show the impact and he’ll say “see! I said almost so I knew about that.”
Click to expand...

I'm so weaselly with my insistence on telling the truth instead of just lying whenever it's convenient, like you guys do. Christians don't believe in honesty?
 
Last edited:
Jack V Savage said:
Well, that's not what I said. But I think if you walk through the logic, you'll see that GOP propaganda on this doesn't add up. First, the U.S. accounts for 18.5% of total global oil production. Second, the bulk of that number (which, again, is less than a fifth of the total) is going to be stable. From 2020 to 2021, it went up from 11,168 thousand barrels per day to 11,634 (i.e., 4.2%--of 18.5%). The impact of policy change would be on the rate of change rather than the level, right? And the portion of level changes that are due to policy change as opposed to market factors, new innovation, discovery, etc. is what? Pretty small, right? You can use your own assumptions, but however you plug them into the math, you'll find no significant impact of U.S. policy changes on global production (minimal impact even on U.S. production). So what about demand? Well, if we mandate more energy efficiency and subsidize alternate energy, we lower demand, which could help (very slightly) with prices, but again, U.S. demand is only 20% of the total market. On top of all that, negligibly reduced demand could have a negligible impact on supply, making the impact even smaller.

I'd also argue, to invert your point, that not only is what I said clearly true, no one sincerely believes otherwise. Before Obama was re-elected in 2020, oil prices had gone up a little, and many Republicans predicted a huge spike in prices if he won (Gingrich famously predicted $10/gallon before the end of Obama's term). Didn't happen, of course. Did that mean that Republicans said, "wow, Obama did a great job with gas prices?" No, of course not. What happened is that they didn't talk about it except to note (correctly) that of course presidents don't affect gas prices. Similarly, following the recent decline, no one who was pretending to think that the increase was due to Biden has given him credit for the fall. It's all just political bullshit. If you really believed changes or levels are determined by U.S. policy, you would believe it all the time--not just when you think it's politically profitable to say you believe it.

On this issue, as with many others, there are different "lanes." There are people who analyze gas prices for investing purposes (or selling to investors), people who evaluate it because they are major market participants (producers and large buyers), and people who talk about it because they think it helps people they support win elections. Guess which two groups barely mention U.S. policy and guess which one is obsessed with attributing negative (but not positive) moves to people they oppose?



I'm so weaselly with my insistence on telling the truth instead of just lying whenever it's convenient, like you guys do. Christians don't believe in honesty?
Click to expand...
Before Obama was re-elected in 2020?
Typo I assume
 
What we get as U.S. Citizens:
  • Inflation
  • 87,000 New IRS assholes in our world.
  • No improvements in Global Warming
  • Attacks on Small Businesses
  • Big Payoffs for Democratic Party Donors
What a Goat Rodeo. This is the Democrats last big money grab before they lose Congressional power.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Well, that's not what I said. But I think if you walk through the logic, you'll see that GOP propaganda on this doesn't add up. First, the U.S. accounts for 18.5% of total global oil production. Second, the bulk of that number (which, again, is less than a fifth of the total) is going to be stable. From 2020 to 2021, it went up from 11,168 thousand barrels per day to 11,634 (i.e., 4.2%--of 18.5%). The impact of policy change would be on the rate of change rather than the level, right? And the portion of level changes that are due to policy change as opposed to market factors, new innovation, discovery, etc. is what? Pretty small, right? You can use your own assumptions, but however you plug them into the math, you'll find no significant impact of U.S. policy changes on global production (minimal impact even on U.S. production). So what about demand? Well, if we mandate more energy efficiency and subsidize alternate energy, we lower demand, which could help (very slightly) with prices, but again, U.S. demand is only 20% of the total market. On top of all that, negligibly reduced demand could have a negligible impact on supply, making the impact even smaller.

I'd also argue, to invert your point, that not only is what I said clearly true, no one sincerely believes otherwise. Before Obama was re-elected in 2012, oil prices had gone up a little, and many Republicans predicted a huge spike in prices if he won (Gingrich famously predicted $10/gallon before the end of Obama's term). Didn't happen, of course. Did that mean that Republicans said, "wow, Obama did a great job with gas prices?" No, of course not. What happened is that they didn't talk about it except to note (correctly) that of course presidents don't affect gas prices. Similarly, following the recent decline, no one who was pretending to think that the increase was due to Biden has given him credit for the fall. It's all just political bullshit. If you really believed changes or levels are determined by U.S. policy, you would believe it all the time--not just when you think it's politically profitable to say you believe it.

On this issue, as with many others, there are different "lanes." There are people who analyze gas prices for investing purposes (or selling to investors), people who evaluate it because they are major market participants (producers and large buyers), and people who talk about it because they think it helps people they support win elections. Guess which two groups barely mention U.S. policy and guess which one is obsessed with attributing negative (but not positive) moves to people they oppose?



I'm so weaselly with my insistence on telling the truth instead of just lying whenever it's convenient, like you guys do. Christians don't believe in honesty?
Click to expand...
See? Told you he’d rely on the “almost”. Just Jack Gaslighting
 
Rob Battisti said:
See? Told you he’d rely on the “almost”. Just Jack Gaslighting
Click to expand...

If "gaslighting" means walking him step by step through the logic in a way that demonstrates conclusively that my point is correct. But I get it. People who don't blindly swallow GOP propaganda are subhuman in your eyes. What a way to live.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Well, that's not what I said. But I think if you walk through the logic, you'll see that GOP propaganda on this doesn't add up. First, the U.S. accounts for 18.5% of total global oil production. Second, the bulk of that number (which, again, is less than a fifth of the total) is going to be stable. From 2020 to 2021, it went up from 11,168 thousand barrels per day to 11,634 (i.e., 4.2%--of 18.5%). The impact of policy change would be on the rate of change rather than the level, right? And the portion of level changes that are due to policy change as opposed to market factors, new innovation, discovery, etc. is what? Pretty small, right? You can use your own assumptions, but however you plug them into the math, you'll find no significant impact of U.S. policy changes on global production (minimal impact even on U.S. production). So what about demand? Well, if we mandate more energy efficiency and subsidize alternate energy, we lower demand, which could help (very slightly) with prices, but again, U.S. demand is only 20% of the total market. On top of all that, negligibly reduced demand could have a negligible impact on supply, making the impact even smaller.

I'd also argue, to invert your point, that not only is what I said clearly true, no one sincerely believes otherwise. Before Obama was re-elected in 2012, oil prices had gone up a little, and many Republicans predicted a huge spike in prices if he won (Gingrich famously predicted $10/gallon before the end of Obama's term). Didn't happen, of course. Did that mean that Republicans said, "wow, Obama did a great job with gas prices?" No, of course not. What happened is that they didn't talk about it except to note (correctly) that of course presidents don't affect gas prices. Similarly, following the recent decline, no one who was pretending to think that the increase was due to Biden has given him credit for the fall. It's all just political bullshit. If you really believed changes or levels are determined by U.S. policy, you would believe it all the time--not just when you think it's politically profitable to say you believe it.

On this issue, as with many others, there are different "lanes." There are people who analyze gas prices for investing purposes (or selling to investors), people who evaluate it because they are major market participants (producers and large buyers), and people who talk about it because they think it helps people they support win elections. Guess which two groups barely mention U.S. policy and guess which one is obsessed with attributing negative (but not positive) moves to people they oppose?



I'm so weaselly with my insistence on telling the truth instead of just lying whenever it's convenient, like you guys do. Christians don't believe in honesty?
Click to expand...
Good post I get the numbers and of course political doomsday predictions on both differs are deranged. Biden said in 2012 Mitt would have blacks in slaves did you believe that ?
More regulations = more hoops businesses has to jump through, add more taxes logical correlation means higher prices. Now add in the hardcore anti fossil fuel/ pro green energy that drives speculation is a factor.
 
ShadowRun said:
Good post I get the numbers and of course political doomsday predictions on both differs are deranged. Biden said in 2012 Mitt would have blacks in slaves did you believe that ?
More regulations = more hoops businesses has to jump through, add more taxes logical correlation means higher prices. Now add in the hardcore anti fossil fuel/ pro green energy that drives speculation is a factor.
Click to expand...

Not really what he said. Here's the quote: ""[Romney] said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains." Metaphorically speaking. I agree that "unchaining Wall Street," would be bad.

Anyway, to summarize the point: the U.S. is just one producer and the rate of change in U.S. production is determined by a combination of factors with regulation being a small part of it. As I pointed out, production was up 4% in Biden's first year. Not sure what regulations you're actually referring to, but say hypothetically (and wildly unrealistically), the growth rate would have doubled without them. What impact would that have had on prices? There's no way to do the math in such a way that it's even a noticeable impact.
 
Last edited:
Jack V Savage said:
If "gaslighting" means walking him step by step through the logic in a way that demonstrates conclusively that my point is correct. But I get it. People who don't blindly swallow GOP propaganda are subhuman in your eyes. What a way to live.
Click to expand...

Kind of like a weather man in their predictions. “It may rain”.
 
It makes sense that hardcore Leftists like Jack have zero clue about the speculators that greatly influence the price and their reaction to government actions like the anti-Fossil Fuel moves by the Biden Administration.
 
Rob Battisti said:
Kind of like a weather man in their predictions. “It may rain”.
Click to expand...

Well, anyone who knows what they're talking about and is honest (so, you know...) is going to frame their thinking in probabilistic terms. But that's not even what we're talking about here. I made the point that U.S. policy has a negligible impact and walked through the logic on it. No response to that. Just the usual personal attacks. "Jack is thinking for himself instead of pushing the Party Line so he's an evil monster."

Whippy McGee said:
It makes sense that hardcore Leftists like Jack have zero clue about the speculators that greatly influence the price and their reaction to government actions like the anti-Fossil Fuel moves by the Biden Administration.
Click to expand...

Why do you think markets are so ineffective here? What's the reasoning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whippy McGee
Crime IRS’s Most Wanted - The Middle Class is Targeted by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party
9 10 11
Replies
200
Views
5K
Andy Capp
Andy Capp

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,414
Messages
55,490,246
Members
174,787
Latest member
nicenhot

Share this page

Back
Top