Kamala Harris interviewed by Brett Baier

[Bradskii]

Only if you add an apostrophe "S" to it.

Do you need a link? I can give you one if you like.

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you need a link? I can give you one if you like.

To Jack Smith's accusations? Nah. I'd rather read one of AOC's speeches.

 

[Bradskii]

To Jack Smith's accusations? Nah. I'd rather read one of AOC's speeches.

Then you're going to find it difficult to argue against evidence that you haven't seen.

 

[A2SG]

It's always a good idea to read the article cited before posting. The article agrees with me. Stimulating demand in the face of a supply problem is exactly what not to do.

Misjudgments of the economic effects of covid-era fiscal programs are one potential explanation of the failure to forecast the subsequent inflation. Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecasts of inflation changed little between the September 2020 and June 2021 iterations of the Survey of Economic Projections, and the Committee continued to expect that inflation would return close to the Fed’s 2 percent target by 2023, despite congressional passage of a bill in December 2020 that included $900 billion for covid relief and the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan signed by President Biden in March 2021. These two programs came on top of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, passed in March 2020 and signed by President Trump, which had already strengthened firms’ and households’ balance sheets and increased future ability to spend. Overall, as a share of GDP, the headline costs of these three covid-era fiscal packages were about 4-1/2 times the size of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing recession.1​

​

Indeed, some early analyses of the American Rescue Plan using standard fiscal multipliers concluded that the additional federal spending would indeed overheat the economy, possibly leading to higher inflation (Blanchard, 2021; Edelberg and Sheiner, 2021).​

​

This sectoral demand shift was augmented by increases in overall consumer spending driven by supportive monetary and fiscal policies. On the supply side, global supply chains and transportation networks were disrupted by pandemic-induced shutdowns, constraining production in key sectors, and even those industries not affected by such problems were in many instances pushed to the limits of their capacity. The combination of an increased demand for goods and limited supply resulted, not surprisingly, in sharp rises in prices in a number of sectors.​

​

Ultimately, as many have recognized, the inflation largely reflected strong aggregate demand, the product of easy fiscal and monetary policies, excess savings accumulated during the pandemic, and the reopening of locked-down economies. ​

See you after the election.

Again, I'm not an economist, so I'm trying to understand this....but it seems to me, the point wasn't that increased spending doesn't increase inflation; clearly it can, and usually does. But the point was that, in the case of the current Biden administration, the rise in inflation wasn't due exclusively to increased spending, as you allege, but to several different factors, with covid being an especially significant one. And the fact that inflation has increased world-wide, in places where Biden's spending policies didn't apply, but covid did, seems to bear that out.

Keep in mind, I didn't claim spending had no effect on inflation. What I said was: "But....I'm pretty sure covid had some bearing on inflation, so it can't be blamed entirely on any spending issues."

-- A2SG, before and after the election, I'll be here.....

 

[o_mlly]

If Donald Trump has been chosen by God, (as evidenced by his win in ‘16), then anyone who believes in this God really has no choice but to stick with Trump, no matter what!

Since your conditional is false so we can stop reading and ignore your consequent.

 

[o_mlly]

You are saying that if you think someone you don't support has done something immoral then that will excuse literally every immoral thing that someone you do support has done.

? Who I do and do not support doesn't matter. Can you finish this quote? "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world ...."

 

[o_mlly]

Then you're going to find it difficult to argue against evidence that you haven't seen.

That's rich. Self-righteous indignation is not a good look. Even though acting as if one is prosecutor, judge and jury, you still have not seen accusations proven to be evidence.

Did you know the vests we garbage people wear are only visible to others because of the retro-reflexive material sewn into the vest? Retro-reflexive material returns the available light to its source. I suppose you can figure out why dim lighted sources have such difficulty seeing us.

 

[o_mlly]

But the point was that, in the case of the current Biden administration, the rise in inflation wasn't due exclusively to increased spending ...

As the article concludes, loose fiscal policy funded with incurring more debt is the direct cause of inflation. Monetary policy reacts to that bad fiscal policy attempting to contain the inflationary damage already done by poor fiscal policy. One can imagine indirect causes to adopt such poor fiscal policy. Some may be valid, some not.

The supply shortages caused by policies enacted to contain the Covid disease were ineffective, to say the least. Highly contagious viruses that are highly lethal never persist long. A recipe for inflation is to throw more money and increase demand for a shrinking supply of goods.

 

[A2SG]

As the article concludes, loose fiscal policy funded with incurring more debt is the direct cause of inflation. Monetary policy reacts to that bad fiscal policy attempting to contain the inflationary damage already done by poor fiscal policy. One can imagine indirect causes to adopt such poor fiscal policy. Some may be valid, some not.

As I've said, spending is a factor, and I'm not saying it didn't contribute, but, since massive inflation occurred in many different countries also affected by covid, that must be considered a significant factor.

What also needs to be considered is that, through Biden's fiscal policies,, the US recovered quicker than most other countries, to the point that inflation is currently way down from where it was.

The supply shortages caused by policies enacted to contain the Covid disease were ineffective, to say the least. Highly contagious viruses that are highly lethal never persist long. A recipe for inflation is to throw more money and increase demand for a shrinking supply of goods.

If your analysis of economics in general, and Biden's fiscal policies specifically were correct, then we'd expect to still have massive inflation.

We don't.

-- A2SG, if I had a mic, I'd drop it....hitting send just isn't as dramatic.....

 

[o_mlly]

As I've said, spending is a factor, and I'm not saying it didn't contribute, but, since massive inflation occurred in many different countries also affected by covid, that must be considered a significant factor.

Massive inflation in other countries was caused in the same way -- more money chasing after fewer goods.

What also needs to be considered is that, through Biden's fiscal policies ...

Selling off the strategic oil reserve endangering our national security is not fiscal policy? And the act is about as effective as a bee-bee gun shot to drop an elephant. What else do you cite as Biden fiscal policy that brought down the inflation rate?

Hint: The major reason the rate of inflation was reduced is the Fed's reaction to the inflation caused by Biden with its monetary policy (not controlled by Biden).

...US recovered quicker than most other countries ...

Other countries have different situations to deal with. Which country specifically are you referring to?

If your analysis of economics in general, and Biden's fiscal policies specifically were correct ...

Give credit where credit is due -- to the Fed.

... if I had a mic, I'd drop it...

Drop your mic. As your posts are admittedly and shown to be ignorant regarding economics, leave the mic on the floor and pick up a book on macroeconomics or a book on money, credit and banking. To continue punching down is just not a good look for me.

 

[Aldebaran]

Then you're going to find it difficult to argue against evidence that you haven't seen.

Accusations aren't evidence, even when made by a democrat.

 

[Bradskii]

Who I do and do not support doesn't matter.

Of course it does. Who you support gives us an indication of the moral standards you expect in candidates. Moral standards that you consider to be acceptable.

 

[Bradskii]

That's rich. Self-righteous indignation is not a good look. Even though acting as if one is prosecutor, judge and jury, you still have not seen accusations proven to be evidence.

The evidence is there for all to see. Though I doubt many have looked. You are, of course, free to read the brief yourself and discuss any evidence that you feel lacks merit. I'd start a thread but I can't honestly see those who support Trump wanting to get involved. They'd have to confront page after page of facts that they'd prefer to ignore.

 

[Bradskii]

Accusations aren't evidence, even when made by a democrat.

It's not dozens of pages of accusations, my friend. It's dozens of pages of evidence. From which an accusation will be made.

Again, I urge you to read it so that you'll know.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not dozens of pages of accusations, my friend. It's dozens of pages of evidence. From which an accusation will be made.

Again, I urge you to read it so that you'll know.

I've heard it all before, both in the news media and on this site. It doesn't interest me.

 

[Bradskii]

I've heard it all before, both in the news media and on this site. It doesn't interest me.

The man you think will win this election is likely going to be charged with trying to overthrow the last election and it doesn't interest you? I think that this willful dismissal of all that he has said and done is what has got you to where you are now.

If Harris wins then it's very likely Trump will serve time. If I were you I'd certainly be taking an interest. Any arguments that you make in his favour will be worthless unless you know the details.

 

[Aldebaran]

The man you think will win this election is likely going to be charged with trying to overthrow the last election and it doesn't interest you? I think that this willful dismissal of all that he has said and done is what has got you to where you are now.

If Harris wins then it's very likely Trump will serve time. If I were you I'd certainly be taking an interest. Any arguments that you make in his favour will be worthless unless you know the details.

So once again, it's about me. LOL!
It's inevitable that he's going to be accused of something and charged with some sort of crime for as long as he has the ability to run for office. That's been the pattern of lawfare that has been going on from his haters since he first ran for office in 2016.
Much disinformation continues to be spread about him, and I've seen more being generated even today, even though it is obviously false accusations that are being made. It's simply a Hail Mary attempt by his opponents to win the election because they know their time is short.

 

[Bradskii]

It's inevitable that he's going to be accused of something...

You really need to read the brief.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000192-4ed8-d086-a1fe-7edb0e150000

 

[Aldebaran]

You really need to read the brief.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000192-4ed8-d086-a1fe-7edb0e150000

All those redactions make it unreadable.

 

[Bradskii]

All those redactions make it unreadable.

It's only the names of those involved and it causes no problem whatsoever. In fact, I'm not really sure why just the names are redacted. We know who they are. They redact someone's name and insert P8 and then refer to P8 as the VP's Chief of Staff. And 'Georgia Governor P17'. CC1 (co-conspirator 1) is obviously Giuliani.

If you really can't work out who is who, here's a list: Who's Who in Jack Smith's Immunity Brief

That ain't an excuse for not reading it.