Bad News Thread

espola said:
Which "they" are you referring to?

I was responding to Dad4'a claim "I’ve read scientific evidence for a lab leak" in response to a scholarly review article that said there was no such evidence.

Just looking for clarity.
Click to expand...
They, them...the gubment. Apparently the scholarly review article is not held in high regard by the government, who now thinks a lab leak is possible. Funny how this all works. . Who to believe? I suppose we will wait for another scholarly article to be published.
 
what-happened said:
They, them...the gubment. Apparently the scholarly review article is not held in high regard by the government, who now thinks a lab leak is possible. Funny how this all works. . Who to believe? I suppose we will wait for another scholarly article to be published.
Click to expand...

You're babbling.
 
Desert Hound said:
Actually it is 4.1 trillion. This is as of a few days ago.


"What’s in the $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure Agreement?
Democratic legislators reached a $3.5 trillion Budget Committee agreement to make the “biggest investment in the middle class in decades and act on the climate crisis.” The agreement, combined with the $600 billion bipartisan plan, would add up to $4.1 trillion."

Biden's Infrastructure Bills: Inside the $3 Trillion Plan - SmartAsset

Biden's infrastructure plan will invest roughly $3 trillion on roads, electricity and broadband, as well as Medicare, education and climate change.
smartasset.com

The spending will be done over a period of years. What is interesting and sucks is that they will "pay for it" over a much longer period of time.

In terms of supply chain and inflation?

That is a 2 parter. 1 part is covid related...as in shutdowns, slowdowns, etc have affected supply chains. The 2nd part is prices everywhere are going up. Labor, raw materials, etc. We have spent way to much money and that has put upward pressure on all prices.

You also have changes to energy. Energy prices are more expensive. The new policies are more restrictive. That puts upward pressure on energy. That in turn means shipping, transportation, manufacturing, etc become more expensive.

Between covid and the spending our gov is doing prices are going up.
Click to expand...
Here's a breakdown of the US COVID spend. I don't see how this is an inflation driver. The only one that might be is the direct payments, but that's less than a quarter of the total, and for everyone who didn't need that, there's probably someone else who did to pay rent/mortgage etc., i.e. every day bills and not just blowing it.

COVID Money Tracker

See how much COVID relief has been spent and where the money has gone with the #COVIDMoneyTracker tool.
www.covidmoneytracker.org www.covidmoneytracker.org

Inflation is being driven by the supply chain problems with Covid, as best I can tell. Americans have a higher saving rate now than in decades, so its not demand - its limited supply driving up prices which drive up the indices used to calculate inflation. I expect this will settle down. If the Fed is estimating inflation at 3.4% for the rest of the year but not upping interest rates, I expect they are not that concerned, and they know more than me on this subject.

BTW, inflation (low digits) is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
whatithink said:
Covid impacted supply chains and prices have gone up - I get that. Once the supply chains get back on track, prices will start to decline - e.g. the new/used car market is a good example of that (and was one of the main drivers of inflation in May). That's got nothing to do with government spending impacting inflation.
Click to expand...
Higher prices related to supply chain disruptions will change in a downward manner once the disruptions are minimized/gone. That said they will still be higher because of our current inflation. And that inflation is absolutely is a result of our printing/spending money.

whatithink said:
Governments all over the world have spent unprecedented amounts, for good reason.
Click to expand...

That spending will also come back to haunt their constituents as well...assuming they went on the wild spending spree we are doing.


whatithink said:
I'm not sure the $4T can be called infrastructure and, in any case, it'll never get through.
Click to expand...

I fully agree on this one. Much of what they are peddling as infrastructure has nothing to do with infrastructure. But by calling it infrastructure many people assume that is what it is. And unfortunately the press is rather uninterested in calling out what they really want to do.
 
espola said:
DII SIAC mandates vaccinations --

www.espn.com

Division II conference first to require vaccinations

The Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, which competes in Division II, on Tuesday became the first conference on record to mandate vaccinations.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
Well here is part of their non scientific/false statement.

"Within the context of rising COVID-19 infection rates, student-athletes are a particularly vulnerable stakeholder group"

CDC stats show that college age individuals have basically zero risk from covid.
 
Inflation is getting real bad folks. The new goal for super rich dad is to now go up to space for $21,000,000 for freaking 10 minutes. Anyway, I just stay home and mine my business and hope things get better. My pal told me about combo deals now at Edwards. BTW, it's been theraputic for me to sit back and watch all this play out. Remember, it's not a "Us vs Them." Its always US!!!! Stay thirsty for the truth my friends and never be afraid to ask questions :)

1626911572885.png
 
Desert Hound said:
Higher prices related to supply chain disruptions will change in a downward manner once the disruptions are minimized/gone. That said they will still be higher because of our current inflation. And that inflation is absolutely is a result of our printing/spending money.

That spending will also come back to haunt their constituents as well...assuming they went on the wild spending spree we are doing.

I fully agree on this one. Much of what they are peddling as infrastructure has nothing to do with infrastructure. But by calling it infrastructure many people assume that is what it is. And unfortunately the press is rather uninterested in calling out what they really want to do.
Click to expand...
Printing money via quantitative easing didn't drive inflation for the last decade. I linked to a breakdown of Covid spending and again, not driving inflation imv.

I agree on the supply chain piece.

The level of national debt this is all adding to is interesting, or maybe just the level of national debt is a different conversation. Any fiscal conservatism seems to go out the window when politicians get power. Borrowing during Covid is 100% justified. Borrowing annually or in a booming economy with no intention of ever balancing the books isn't.
 
whatithink said:
Printing money via quantitative easing didn't drive inflation for the last decade. I linked to a breakdown of Covid spending and again, not driving inflation imv
Click to expand...
The problem with easing is...

1) government likes it because it lowers the cost of borrowing. They have kept rates artificially low now for some time. They aren't printing money...but have created a scenario where they can spend more (borrow more) for less money.
2) This in turn has harmed savers.. ie retired individuals who want less risky investments.
 
whatithink said:
Any fiscal conservatism seems to go out the window when politicians get power.
Click to expand...
The problem we have is that politicians do not get elected to save money. You get elected to "fix a problem" which inevitably costs money.

The Dems are the worst in this category. The Repubs just get there later..ie they also want to solve problems but their solutions are less expensive. But in the end the Repubs are spending money they don't have.. the difference is they tend to do it at a slower rate.

Either option is irresponsible.
 
By the way be it printing money or quantitative easing...neither option benefits the public.

Both in their own ways allow politicians to spend money they don't have in order to further their political fortunes.
 
Desert Hound said:
The problem we have is that politicians do not get elected to save money. You get elected to "fix a problem" which inevitably costs money.

The Dems are the worst in this category. The Repubs just get there later..ie they also want to solve problems but their solutions are less expensive. But in the end the Repubs are spending money they don't have.. the difference is they tend to do it at a slower rate.

Either option is irresponsible.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that both are problematic. They are equally bad but in different ways. I would characterize it differently mind, i.e. The Ds want to increase revenue (taxes) and expenses, driving up borrowing, whereas the Repubs want to reduce revenue (taxes) while spending the same or slightly more, driving up borrowing. There's also the spending priorities obviously.

I note one item of contention in the infrastructure negotiations is more investment in the IRS so that they can conduct more audits. Its estimated they could bring in another $1T over 10-15 years, just doing that. The contention is whether to invest the money, bizarrely I've not read any contention over the estimate they could bring in.
 
Desert Hound said:
By the way be it printing money or quantitative easing...neither option benefits the public.

Both in their own ways allow politicians to spend money they don't have in order to further their political fortunes.
Click to expand...
If they drive economic stability, then they do benefit everyone. They've been used by governments worldwide for the last decade to ease the global economy out of the last crash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top