PDA

View Full Version : I called it...



sack316
11-04-2010, 03:33 PM
some time ago I wrote about what we were doing to the dollar, how we'd ALL feel the crunch, especially middle and lower class. How rising costs would eventually be passed on to the consumer (you and me). Of course I was met with a lot of reassuring denials that "No, pumping all this money will help things get better". That inflation was not as inevitable as I, myself, thought... or at worst I was blowing it out of proportion.

Now let's look at how our grocery bills compare from just a year ago until today (if anyone happens to save receipts).

In case you don't:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506404575592313664715360.html

It's hard to gauge, but although the inflation rate of the dollar itself per-say is one thing (and bad enough, mind you)... the food inflation is disproportionally going up at a much higher rate. These are staple items, things we all must buy. Which means what kiddos? Less money to spend on other things. Which means what kiddos? Less chances of a smooth economic recovery here.

Why? Because with the increased cost of things like cotton, what, sugar, etc. etc. etc. our food companies and manufacturers have two choices: Either cut back costs (which would usually be labor, which means even less jobs-- what they have been doing the last year or two) or increase prices on their end goods (which is what is happening right now). And neither is a good thing for us.

The purchasing power of our dollar is decreasing. Though our current modest inflation rate (1.14% as of September) is very acceptable... it doesn't tell the whole story. And it is about to jump up. Don't believe me? Go today and buy a list of staple items from your local grocery store. For the next few months, go buy the same list of items. I'd be willing to bet by March the cost will be 2-4% more than it even is today with the already increased prices from last year. I plan on doing this experiment, and would be interested in how others from different areas turn out.

I hope this time I'm wrong.

Sack

Sev
11-04-2010, 03:50 PM
Not to mention that due to lackluster yeald this year in corn feed for livestock is high and farmers and ranchers have not replenished their herds due to costs. Pig levels are at there lowest since the 70's if I recall correctly.

Have you looked at the price of beef and pork lately?

Sev
11-04-2010, 03:52 PM
OH and you will be glad to hear that the fed had decided to do Quantitative Easing Part II.

Roll printing presses. Roll!!!

wolfdancer
11-04-2010, 03:53 PM
Wow !!
You must have studied economics at Wharton? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
The country has always gone through economic cycles, as I remember.
Recessions, Depressions, Regressions. This time though I really don't understand how we have kept our collective heads up, out of the water, as we are drowning in debt, our jobs have gone to third world nations, etc.
Well as demand drops, prices will fall, and maybe we can once again, Get that $.05 cup of coffee, and have a chicken in every pot.
In the meantime, I am growing apples to sell, and building a pushcart.

sack316
11-04-2010, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well as demand drops, prices will fall, and maybe we can once again, Get that $.05 cup of coffee, and have a chicken in every pot.
</div></div>

Twenty years ago you would have been right, and the cycle would have taken care of itself eventually doing just as we have been doing.

But today, it is not so because we won't see demand on such things drop as we would have in the past. For those many years WE were THE big consumer for goods such as those staples myself and Sev mentioned. Our own supply and demand here could basically affect the "standard" let's call it.

Now, it's global. With many other countries developing and growing, a decrease in demand here in the US doesn't mean a decrease in overall demand, because demand worldwide as a whole may still actually be increasing (as is the case here).

Not to mention I am talking about staple goods we all must buy. We need bread, milk, toilet paper, etc. The demand for such things is relatively inelastic. We may choose to purchase the uglier label store brand, instead... but we'll still have relatively the same demand for such items regardless. Until we can't afford them at least /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I'll take one of those apples

Sack

pooltchr
11-04-2010, 05:02 PM
There was a story on this subject on the evening news tonight. One of the drivers is the worldwide increase in demand for wheat, causing the price to rise. Products such as bread, cereal, pasta, and such will necessarily be going up. And since wheat is a feed source for livestock, watch beef and pork prices to increase as well.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-04-2010, 06:03 PM
I'd love to see Sack do a comparison price analysis, from 2001 through 2008, on groceries, health costs, pharmaceutical costs and oil and gas, wouldn't you?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
11-04-2010, 06:18 PM
Even more interesting would be from 2003 to 2010.

Steve

Stretch
11-04-2010, 07:02 PM
All the food manufacturers instead of raising prices (a whole lot) are cutting the size of their containors. It's deceptive, take for instance those cereal boxes. They look the same size on the shelf but you see how skinny they are now? Jeeze you're pinching the sides together just to grab it and pour! And the list of downsized fooditems disguised in larger than neccesary packaging goes on and on! Classic slight of hand. Pay more and get less. St.

Deeman3
11-04-2010, 07:22 PM
They call it consumer packaging by customer demand. Yes, consumers are demanding less product for the same price! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
11-04-2010, 11:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd love to see Sack do a comparison price analysis, from 2001 through 2008, on groceries, health costs, pharmaceutical costs and oil and gas, wouldn't you?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

</div></div>

Wow, another "let's look at Bush". Yep, costs on all those things rose under Bush. It sucked. He did a poor job.

Now, onto present times... we <u>continue</u> to take actions and make poor decisions which not only continue this trend... but are accelerating it. If you would care to converse on that, or take any issue with any of the points I brought up in the original post I would be glad to hear them!

Otherwise, your opinion is Bush sucked (as is everyone's). We've gathered that much by now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Sack

LWW
11-05-2010, 03:46 AM
The destruction of the dollar should come as no surprise.

George Soros has made billions by destroying the currencies of nations.

He has now decided to go for the big one ... and has bought and paid for the US democratic party to act as his agents.

LWW

Qtec
11-05-2010, 06:49 AM
The dollar is kept artificially high because most countries had loads of dollars. Even China, the arch enemy , moves to support the dollar because if the dollar dropped 10% they would lose 100,s of billions.

You can't keep printing money and expect that it will continue forever without consequences.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-05-2010, 11:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd love to see Sack do a comparison price analysis, from 2001 through 2008, on groceries, health costs, pharmaceutical costs and oil and gas, wouldn't you?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

</div></div>

Wow, another "let's look at Bush". Yep, costs on all those things rose under Bush. It sucked. He did a poor job.

Now, onto present times... we <u>continue</u> to take actions and make poor decisions which not only continue this trend... but are accelerating it. If you would care to converse on that, or take any issue with any of the points I brought up in the original post I would be glad to hear them!

Otherwise, your opinion is Bush sucked (as is everyone's). We've gathered that much by now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Sack

</div></div>

True, but you're all still voting for, and defending his same failed policies. That's the point. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Deeman3
11-05-2010, 12:09 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img] /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Sack



<span style="color: #FF0000"> I was not sure of the left's position on Bush so I am glad that was finally cleared up for us! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

We were all left wondering for a while....</span>

Gayle in MD
11-06-2010, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img] /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Sack

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I was not sure of the left's position on Bush so I am glad that was finally cleared up for us! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

We were all left wondering for a while....</span>

Not the left, the world's opinion.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif Bush was running the show, and had been for six years, with a republican majority, when the economy began to tank to the degree that they couldn't hide it annymore.

Republican policies, of cutting taxes, in the midst of extremely expensive wars, and borrowiing to pay for all of it, while pushing for the housing regulators and Wall Street, to aid in his "Ownership society" with t9oo loose oversight, put us in the mess we're still trying to get out of.

Now if you have any proof to blow away those statements, please provide it, instead of just posting another sarcastic remark, that does not do a single thing, to disprove what I am saying.

Sure, you don't want to hear it, because it's you and your party's agenda, to blame Democratics, and Obama, for the mess we're in, but unfinanced tax cuts, during war time, and supporting as much deregulation as possible, while failing to audit or even care about all of money that was totally wasted in Iraq, while Republiccns spent like drunken sailors, and borrowing us into a debt pit, were all Bush/Republican policies, now you're voting for the same offenders, AGAIN! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Republican policies are to double the national debt....Reagan/Bush/Bush....

Do you deny that both W., and Reagan doubled the National debt????

Unbelievable!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif Facts are facts!

G.

Gayle in MD
11-06-2010, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">some time ago I wrote about what we were doing to the dollar, how we'd ALL feel the crunch, especially middle and lower class. How rising costs would eventually be passed on to the consumer (you and me). Of course I was met with a lot of reassuring denials that "No, pumping all this money will help things get better". That inflation was not as inevitable as I, myself, thought... or at worst I was blowing it out of proportion.

Now let's look at how our grocery bills compare from just a year ago until today (if anyone happens to save receipts).

In case you don't:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506404575592313664715360.html

It's hard to gauge, but although the inflation rate of the dollar itself per-say is one thing (and bad enough, mind you)... the food inflation is disproportionally going up at a much higher rate. These are staple items, things we all must buy. Which means what kiddos? Less money to spend on other things. Which means what kiddos? Less chances of a smooth economic recovery here.

Why? Because with the increased cost of things like cotton, what, sugar, etc. etc. etc. our food companies and manufacturers have two choices: Either cut back costs (which would usually be labor, which means even less jobs-- what they have been doing the last year or two) or increase prices on their end goods (which is what is happening right now). And neither is a good thing for us.

The purchasing power of our dollar is decreasing. Though our current modest inflation rate (1.14% as of September) is very acceptable... it doesn't tell the whole story. And it is about to jump up. Don't believe me? Go today and buy a list of staple items from your local grocery store. For the next few months, go buy the same list of items. I'd be willing to bet by March the cost will be 2-4% more than it even is today with the already increased prices from last year. I plan on doing this experiment, and would be interested in how others from different areas turn out.

I hope this time I'm wrong.

Sack </div></div>

Food prices are also being impacted by Globalo Warming:

Thomas Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya of NOAA stated in 2004 that warming induced by greenhouse gas may lead to increasing occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms. Vecchi and Soden find that wind shear, the increase of which acts to inhibit tropical cyclones, also changes in model-projections of global warming. There are projected increases of wind shear in the tropical Atlantic and East Pacific associated with the deceleration of the Walker circulation, as well as decreases of wind shear in the western and central Pacific.The study does not make claims about the net effect on Atlantic and East Pacific hurricanes of the warming and moistening atmospheres, and the model-projected increases in Atlantic wind shear.

A substantially higher risk of extreme weather does not necessarily mean a noticeably greater risk of slightly-above-average weather. However, the evidence is clear that severe weather and moderate rainfall are also increasing. Increases in temperature are expected to produce more intense convection over land and a higher frequency of the most severe storms.

Stephen Mwakifwamba, national co-ordinator of the Centre for Energy, Environment, Science and Technology which prepared the Tanzanian government's climate change report to the UN says that change is happening in Tanzania right now. "In the past, we had a drought about every 10 years", he says. "Now we just don't know when they will come. They are more frequent, but then so are floods. The climate is far less predictable. We might have floods in May or droughts every three years. Upland areas, which were never affected by mosquitoes, now are. Water levels are decreasing every day. The rains come at the wrong time for farmers and it is leading to many problems".

Greg Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said on April 24, 2006, "The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change," and that the wind and warmer water conditions that fuel storms when they form in the Caribbean are, "increasingly due to greenhouse gases. There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw." Holland said, "The large bulk of the scientific community say what we are seeing now is linked directly to greenhouse gases." (See also "Global warming?" in tropical cyclone)


Increased evaporation
Over the course of the 20th century, evaporation rates have reduced worldwide this is thought by many to be explained by global dimming. As the climate grows warmer and the causes of global dimming are reduced, evaporation will increase due to warmer oceans. Because the world is a closed system this will cause heavier rainfall, with more erosion. This erosion, in turn, can in vulnerable tropical areas (especially in Africa) lead to desertification. On the other hand, in other areas, increased rainfall lead to growth of forests in dry desert areas.

Scientists have found evidence that increased evaporation could result in more extreme weather as global warming progresses. The IPCC Third Annual Report says: "...global average water vapor concentration and precipitation are projected to increase during the 21st century. By the second half of the 21st century, it is likely that precipitation will have increased over northern mid- to high latitudes and Antarctica in winter. At low latitudes there are both regional increases and decreases over land areas. Larger year to year variations in precipitation are very likely over most areas where an increase in mean precipitation is projected.

http://www.clickabove.com/weather.htm

pooltchr
11-06-2010, 05:28 PM
Gayle,
Didn't you get the memo? There is no more Global Warming. The new term is "Climate change". That way, you don't have to keep bouncing back and forth when the cycles change from warming to cooling.

Get with the program!

Steve

sack316
11-08-2010, 12:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
True, but you're all still voting for, and defending his same failed policies. That's the point. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

You have no idea who or what I've voted for. And not that it has one iota to do with this thread, but based on your comment here I think you'd actually be pretty surprised at what my ballot looked like.

Sack

LWW
11-08-2010, 04:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Food prices are also being impacted by Global<s>o</s> Warming:</div></div>

If you want to argue that they could be impacted by GW I agree.

- GW would expand growing seasons.

- GW would expand the amount of acreage available to farming.

Thereby GW would lower food costs and not increase them.

You can quote an inaccurate and politically driven bit of junk :SCIENCE" all that you want ... it won't breathe the life of truth into it.

LWW

Qtec
11-08-2010, 06:42 AM
What if you got no rain for 2 years?
What if when it rained you got a whole years worth in one week?
Still sound good?

Q

Gayle in MD
11-08-2010, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
True, but you're all still voting for, and defending his same failed policies. That's the point. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

You have no idea who or what I've voted for. And not that it has one iota to do with this thread, but based on your comment here I think you'd actually be pretty surprised at what my ballot looked like.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
I know your views, trickle down, for example, which has played a huge roll in the demise of the Middle Class.

Additionally, nothing drives up prices, on everything, as much as energy costs, particularly, OIL.

Republicans hahve blocked every bill that would address our issues with OIL!
Republicans have blocked and made fun of scientific PROOF, of human health hazards, linkied to burning dirty fuel.

Republicans have actually censored results of studies that prove the scientific community is right about global warming.

Scientists are finding poisons in the environment, linked to the cause of vanishing Bees, linked to every third mouthful of food!


No, I don't know who you voted for, that's true, and also your priviledge, as it is for all of us, but you seem to doubt global warming, and the historic failure of Voodoo economics, Trickle down, and the importance of living in a country which commits itself to the principle that all of it's citizens have a human right, to decent health care, not just the wealthy, and that a corporation should be allowed to buy our representatives, choosing those who will vote to support them as they outsource Americans jobs, and pollute the environement.....and buy our representavies in order to continue to do so?

I can only go by what you write here, and it seems that you support most of the economic views of the right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you deny the Republicans are committed to protecting the crooked pigs on Wall Street, protecting the corrupt oil industry, the corrupt Health insurance industry?

Wasn't it a Republicans who apologized to BP? Isn't it always Republicans who block cap and trade, the most significant attempt to force the polluters to devalop clean fuels, instead of just buying up air time for commercials, and pretending they give a damn about it.

We have decades to go by, Republicans protect and enhance the opportunities for the rich, corporate polluters, and Wall Street greedy and corrupted pigs.

Eveything that could support a thriving middle class, Workers Unions, Higher educational financial commitment, cleaner renewable fules, tighter regulations to prevent those crooks on Wall Street from doing it again? Repubs are against all of that, and have been for a long time. I am going by your own posts, and you seem to me to be right in line with their views.

G.

sack316
11-08-2010, 08:22 AM
Unfortunately I don't have time to answer your post very throughly at the moment. But in a nutshell, you are correct that my views on economics and policy making is a more conservative view in many instances. What is incorrect is that "that" is necessarily an auto-support for republicans, as over the last decade, as I have said several times, are associated with "conservatism" in name only... but most definitely NOT in actions.

As such, my votes go where I feel the person would do the best job. Where I feel the campaign was run with integrity, and where I personally believe the words coming out of the candidates mouth. I have my thoughts, I have my beliefs... but I'm also aware enough that what I believe is not necessarily <u>always</u> the best choice, or a candidate that <u>sounds</u> like they may be more my speed isn't always the right one to put into office. I won't go into details of our local election, but an example would be if Palin were running in 2012. Her rhetoric and thoughts on policy making would indeed be closer to my personal views. But even so, I don't feel she would do a good job and I doubt I'd even vote for her if a gun were put to my head.

Basically, a candidate WILL NOT get my vote <u>just</u> because someone has an (R) by their name and they happen to (at least) say their policy would be closer to my personal belief system. I vote for who I think would be best for my country/state/city/county... even if I don't necessarily agree with them on all issues.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-08-2010, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately I don't have time to answer your post very throughly at the moment. But in a nutshell, you are correct that my views on economics and policy making is a more conservative view in many instances. What is incorrect is that "that" is necessarily an auto-support for republicans, as over the last decade, as I have said several times, are associated with "conservatism" in name only... but most definitely NOT in actions.

As such, my votes go where I feel the person would do the best job. Where I feel the campaign was run with integrity, and where I personally believe the words coming out of the candidates mouth. I have my thoughts, I have my beliefs... but I'm also aware enough that what I believe is not necessarily <u>always</u> the best choice, or a candidate that <u>sounds</u> like they may be more my speed isn't always the right one to put into office. I won't go into details of our local election, but an example would be if Palin were running in 2012. Her rhetoric and thoughts on policy making would indeed be closer to my personal views. But even so, I don't feel she would do a good job and I doubt I'd even vote for her if a gun were put to my head.

Basically, a candidate WILL NOT get my vote <u>just</u> because someone has an (R) by their name and they happen to (at least) say their policy would be closer to my personal belief system. I vote for who I think would be best for my country/state/city/county... even if I don't necessarily agree with them on all issues.

Sack </div></div>

I vote against the party which ruined the country, and is still embracing the same policies which destroyed us.

I vote against the party which distorts the meaning of the Constitution OF The United States Of America.

I vote against the Party of racism, and homophobia, and is against women'I voted against the Party that always SAYS s rights, and removing the separation of church and state.rotects the worst polluters in the country.

I voted against the Party obstructed progress, in the midst of one of our worst economic disasters, after spending like drunken sailors, for over a decade.

I voted this time against the Party most responsible for creating the CRASH, and which still seeks to protect those crooks who were most responsible for bringing it about...

I vote for the Party which best seeks to protect the environment, our citizens, our humane principles, our Constitution, and the best interests of the common man, instead of the Party which allowed outssourcing to destroy our econoomy, and financed those who outsourced American Jobs, with subsidies and tax cuts.

G.

pooltchr
11-08-2010, 12:37 PM
In other words, you wouldn't vote for God Almighty if He had an (R) after his name, but would vote for the devil with a capital D.

We know. You've admitted this particular blind spot before.

Steve

sack316
11-08-2010, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately I don't have time to answer your post very throughly at the moment. But in a nutshell, you are correct that my views on economics and policy making is a more conservative view in many instances. What is incorrect is that "that" is necessarily an auto-support for republicans, as over the last decade, as I have said several times, are associated with "conservatism" in name only... but most definitely NOT in actions.

As such, my votes go where I feel the person would do the best job. Where I feel the campaign was run with integrity, and where I personally believe the words coming out of the candidates mouth. I have my thoughts, I have my beliefs... but I'm also aware enough that what I believe is not necessarily <u>always</u> the best choice, or a candidate that <u>sounds</u> like they may be more my speed isn't always the right one to put into office. I won't go into details of our local election, but an example would be if Palin were running in 2012. Her rhetoric and thoughts on policy making would indeed be closer to my personal views. But even so, I don't feel she would do a good job and I doubt I'd even vote for her if a gun were put to my head.

Basically, a candidate WILL NOT get my vote <u>just</u> because someone has an (R) by their name and they happen to (at least) say their policy would be closer to my personal belief system. I vote for who I think would be best for my country/state/city/county... even if I don't necessarily agree with them on all issues.

Sack </div></div>

I vote against the party which ruined the country, and is still embracing the same policies which destroyed us.

I vote against the party which distorts the meaning of the Constitution OF The United States Of America.

I vote against the Party of racism, and homophobia, and is against women'I voted against the Party that always SAYS s rights, and removing the separation of church and state.rotects the worst polluters in the country.

I voted against the Party obstructed progress, in the midst of one of our worst economic disasters, after spending like drunken sailors, for over a decade.

I voted this time against the Party most responsible for creating the CRASH, and which still seeks to protect those crooks who were most responsible for bringing it about...

I vote for the Party which best seeks to protect the environment, our citizens, our humane principles, our Constitution, and the best interests of the common man, instead of the Party which allowed outssourcing to destroy our econoomy, and financed those who outsourced American Jobs, with subsidies and tax cuts.

G.

</div></div>

Well that's fine for you, and perfectly understandable and respectable given your position/personal opinions/interpretation of things. Nobody can tell us these things we hold in our hearts are right or wrong.

It just happens to be that I vote for individuals, not party affiliation. There are bad republicans. There are bad democrats. There are good republicans. There are good democrats. There are good and bad independents. And so on, and so on. Sure there are some elements of uniformity in either party, but in the end each representative is an individual. I do my best to research and understand the individual candidate rather than base my personal vote on party affiliation alone.

Luckily we live in a country where we can both decide for ourselves the manner in which we cast our decisions.

Sack

pooltchr
11-08-2010, 02:31 PM
I would be willing to bet that you and I probably voted for more Democrats last week, than she did Republicans.

Such total partisanship is exactly why we can't expect any compromise in government. Some people are too ignorant to think beyond partisan politics.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 12:55 AM
Sack,
Have you seen this?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In what can only be called a valiant effort, Sarah Palin has defended her monetary policy remarks from the Wall Street Journal's pointed criticism.

On her Facebook page, Palin claims the WSJ reporter who has pointed out a factual error in her speech is himself in the wrong. "Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?," her Facebook note asks.

In remarks delivered at a Phoenix convention, and first leaked by the The National Review, Palin criticized the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policy, in which the bank will purchase up to $600 billion of new U.S. government debt (as part of a plan that could reach $900 billion), and urged Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to "cease and desist."

As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
Even more unusual were the specifics of Palin's critique: As WSJ's Sudeep Reddy pointed out Monday, she doesn't get all of her facts right. In response to Palin's assertion that "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so," Reddy wrote Monday that "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact." He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year. It's the lowest rate on record -- so low that it inspired a high-profile Twitter fight late last month.</span>But Palin would have none of it. She wrote in her Facebook note, "That's odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy's own Wall Street Journal titled 'Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.' She continued:

Now I realize I'm just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I'm surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn't.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Reddy has responded to Palin on Twitter, pointing out that she has actually misread the WSJ article she refers to. As Reddy notes, the article's first sentence discusses "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades."</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>
The source of confusion comes in the next paragraph. The article says the cost of goods has risen, a burden that food sellers must decide whether to pass on to customers via prices. The rise in prices hasn't actually happened yet.</span> Palin omits this key fact.

Reddy has also re-tweeted a tweet from Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum, who defends Reddy and blasts Palin for misquoting the WSJ story about prices. Here's Chittum:

Palin has a journalism degree, so I'm guessing she knows what an ethical no-no it is to misquote somebody like that. It ought to be awfully hard for her to get on her pedestal and condemn the media when she can't even quote somebody honestly. How about to make it up to Reddy, Palin lets a real reporter like him fly out to Wasilla to interview her for once instead of going to her house folks at Fox News?
UPDATE:
Sudeep Reddy has responded in the WSJ to Palin's Facebook note. He cites Labor Department data to reiterate that Palin's argument about food prices is not grounded in fact, and he continues:

Weak demand, high unemployment and thrifty shoppers have led retailers to keep many prices from rising despite the rising cost of some commodities, including coffee and sugar. ... Critics of the Fed's quantitative easing policy are focused primarily on concerns about potential future inflation.
Sarah Palin is a news analyst for Fox News, whose parent company also owns the Wall Street Journal.
</div></div>

Did you and Sara, both misunderstand the article? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

LWW
11-10-2010, 03:49 AM
That article is O-cult doublethink denial taken to the extreme.

The premise is that there hasn't been big inflation due to printing money, but that it is built into the system and about to explode.

There actually is some truth to that.

The low inflation rate of food is due mostly to a recession in which more people are using generics, thus yielding a low increase in the amount spent because less expensive items are being purchased more often. Comparing like with like demonstrates a different story.

This is further compounded by massive numbers of people having to live on food stamps ... which again pushes people more towards generics and away from preferred name brands.

LWW

sack316
11-10-2010, 06:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Did you and Sara, both misunderstand the article? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

As I said, you just watch.

And make sure you read things all the way, such as my posts and articles. For example, your quote says the article's first sentence begins with discussion on "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades." The entire sentence reads "<u>An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants</u>, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades."

And what you seem to think you are correcting me on here, is actually what I said in my post anyway:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either cut back costs (which would usually be labor, which means even less jobs-- what they have been doing the last year or two) </div></div>

See, what this means is they have been cutting back costs to try to keep prices as low as possible to remain competitive. The costs of what it takes to make the food, for example, is now getting so high that they will no longer have a choice but to increase costs.

Then again, I'm not sure I should be surprised you read my post and read about what Palin said, and think we were saying the same thing.

Sack

sack316
11-10-2010, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year.</div></div>

As much as I hate to admit it, Palin was actually right too... he must not read WSJ articles, as the article says
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The food index rose 1.4%, however.</div></div>

Couple that with inflation (do the math) and you can figure out the purchasing power of the dollars decrease over that time. Which, while not good, is in fact NOT extremely alarming for that portion of time.

But now take the estimation of food inflation increasing 2-3% over the next year, combined with the artificial lower pricing of food over the previous year or two, with a dash of what the inflation rate is expected to be over the next year... and then you'll understand the point of my post.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year.</div></div>

As much as I hate to admit it, Palin was actually right too... he must not read WSJ articles, as the article says
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The food index rose 1.4%, however.</div></div>

Couple that with inflation (do the math) and you can figure out the purchasing power of the dollars decrease over that time. Which, while not good, is in fact NOT extremely alarming for that portion of time.

But now take the estimation of food inflation increasing 2-3% over the next year, combined with the artificial lower pricing of food over the previous year or two, with a dash of what the inflation rate is expected to be over the next year... and then you'll understand the point of my post.

Sack
</div></div>

I understood your post completely, sack.

You wre clearly addressing what you said were rising costs over the last year....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now let's look at how our grocery bills compare from just a year ago until today (if anyone happens to save receipts).

<span style="color: #CC0000">AND: </span>

I'd be willing to bet by March the cost will be 2-4% more than it even is today <span style='font-size: 14pt'>with the already increased prices from last year.</span> </div></div>

The author is saying they are actually lower over the last year, than the normal inflation rate....

If you are saying Palin is right, all I can say is the author is clearly saying, she interpreted his article, incorrectly.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Even more unusual were the specifics of Palin's critique: As WSJ's Sudeep Reddy pointed out Monday, she doesn't get all of her facts right. In response to Palin's assertion that "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so," Reddy wrote Monday that "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact." He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year. It's the lowest rate on record -- so low that it inspired a high-profile Twitter fight late last month.</span> </div></div>
G.

sack316
11-10-2010, 02:07 PM
lower than the normal inflation rate of food (in terms of end consumer costs)... yes. But an increase in price nonetheless. Normal in terms of production costs for manufacturers, no. Which is what is about to hit us, and is what I spoke of quite some time ago on here.

Also of note, a "normal" or even slightly less than "normal" increase in end cost for consumers sounds pretty OK. But think of the times we are in. We do not have "normal" incomes as a whole. People have less money. The money we do have is worth less. And the goods are costing more. All elements together do not a good situation make. I should have expanded on that further in my original post, apologies for not doing so.

Sack

wolfdancer
11-10-2010, 11:50 PM
I thought,.... maybe you called a straight flush, with two pair.....

LWW
11-11-2010, 03:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lower than the normal inflation rate of food (in terms of end consumer costs)... yes. But an increase in price nonetheless. Normal in terms of production costs for manufacturers, no. Which is what is about to hit us, and is what I spoke of quite some time ago on here.

Also of note, a "normal" or even slightly less than "normal" increase in end cost for consumers sounds pretty OK. But think of the times we are in. We do not have "normal" incomes as a whole. People have less money. The money we do have is worth less. And the goods are costing more. All elements together do not a good situation make. I should have expanded on that further in my original post, apologies for not doing so.

Sack </div></div>

Fear not, for it will be declared Bush's fault nonetheless.

LWW