[johnu]

awm, on 2024-August-17, 11:17, said:

And of course, even if we stop inflation that doesn't mean prices go down. Not to mention that deflation is actually bad, and we're pretty close to the fed's 2% inflation target today.

Everybody can see inflation by looking at price tags from one week to the next. Understanding the cause of inflation is something entirely different. And yes, as noted, inflation is way down to average historical levels.

A couple of examples in the US:

Eggs and egg related products. Egg prices in the US have spiked in the past 2+ years as almost 100 million chickens were culled because of continued cases of bird flu. That has led to huge increases in the price of mayonnaise, whose principle ingredient is eggs. To get prices down, there has to be an increase in the number of eggs available, and to do that, there has to be an increase in the number of chickens. How do farmers do that when they keep losing chickens to bird flu? And is it to the farmer's benefit to supply enough eggs to drop the price of eggs back to previous levels? I'm no agricultural expert, but it's likely that the supply curve math says that farmers could make a bigger profit by not producing the maximum number of eggs. So, the questions are when will bird flu be under control, and how willing are farmers going to be, if ever, to produce enough eggs to drop prices to pre bird flu levels, even with inflation.

Gasoline. The US is actually producing more oil today than at any time in its history, and is the world's leading oil producer in the world. EVs are becoming more popular every month, and they don't use gasoline, so gasoline prices should be going down to pre covid levels, right? Gasoline prices plummeted during the early months of Covid and oil refineries scaled back production to avoid oversupply. There was Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine which led to boycotts of Russian fossil fuels and Russia was around 13% of the world's crude oil production. All that Russian fossil fuel had to be replaced so other sources had to be ramped up.

Still, why are gasoline prices consistently very high? Well, for one thing, oil companies are making record profits today, even much more profits under Biden than they made under supposedly pro-oil Trump. Oil companies are notorious for quickly raising prices, but being very reluctant to lower them. Another thing is that while the US is the biggest oil producer, oil is a world market, and the US imports oil as well as exporting oil (US is now the EU's biggest source of oil). Gas prices are very high in Europe and if it was up to oil companies, gas prices would be just as high in the US.

So when will gasoline prices drop in the US to pre-Covid levels with inflation? Who knows. My only solution if gasoline prices are your main concern it to buy an EV, either as your primary or secondary car and avoid the high gas prices.

[kenberg]

I have been thinking, partly about the Dem convention, partly about my own, well, ignorance or at least about my lack of understanding of economic issues for those who might be on the Trump/Harris border.


So let's try an example. Let Susan be a 34 year old single woman and suppose she has one child, an 8 year old son,and suppose she receives no child support from the child's father. Let's suppose she has a decent job, say 50 K a year working in an office. Some do better, many do worse. I do not have a good feeling for her situation. Let's say she is renting and would like to buy. Can she? If she had help with the down payment could she afford the monthly payments to follow? I am guessing that, at least in some areas of the country the answer might be yes, but probably for a town house, not for a detached house. Does she get government help with food? Or with child care costs? How much is she likely to be paying in rent? I am not so isolated that I don't know anyone who falls roughly into this category but there is no one that discusses their economic details with me.

If I could perform miracles I would introduce her to a good 36 year old single man who is also making 50 K a year and is raising a 12 yeart old on his own, they would get married and become a two parent two child household with a 100K annual income. But neither I nor the government can bring that about.

So where are we? I suspect she does not spend much time worrying about either the plight or the danger of Venezuelan immigrants, she has immediate concerns of her own to keep her occupied. Is she a typical exampe of someone whose vote might go either way? Will the Democratic convention sway her vote?

As I say, I am pretty uninformwed about the details here.

[awm]

 kenberg, on 2024-August-19, 06:04, said:

I have been thinking, partly about the Dem convention, partly about my own, well, ignorance or at least about my lack of understanding of economic issues for those who might be on the Trump/Harris border.


So let's try an example. Let Susan be a 34 year old single woman and suppose she has one child, an 8 year old son,and suppose she receives no child support from the child's father. Let's suppose she has a decent job, say 50 K a year working in an office. Some do better, many do worse. I do not have a good feeling for her situation. Let's say she is renting and would like to buy. Can she? If she had help with the down payment could she afford the monthly payments to follow? I am guessing that, at least in some areas of the country the answer might be yes, but probably for a town house, not for a detached house. Does she get government help with food? Or with child care costs? How much is she likely to be paying in rent? I am not so isolated that I don't know anyone who falls roughly into this category but there is no one that discusses their economic details with me.

If I could perform miracles I would introduce her to a good 36 year old single man who is also making 50 K a year and is raising a 12 yeart old on his own, they would get married and become a two parent two child household with a 100K annual income. But neither I nor the government can bring that about.

So where are we? I suspect she does not spend much time worrying about either the plight or the danger of Venezuelan immigrants, she has immediate concerns of her own to keep her occupied. Is she a typical exampe of someone whose vote might go either way? Will the Democratic convention sway her vote?

As I say, I am pretty uninformwed about the details here.

I don't know much about the current economic details in the US either, but I remember that when we bought a place in 2013, the total monthly payment on our mortgage (interest plus principle) was less than our rent where we lived before. It was also quite affordable on a single salary for a high school teacher with ~10 years experience, and we thought it was unfortunate that a friend of ours (who was a single parent with two kids on just such a salary) was stuck renting because she couldn't save the down payment for a similar place. When we sold four years later to move to Switzerland, the gains from the sale more than compensated us for all our interest costs (so basically, we had a nice place to live for free for four years, subject to being able to afford the down payment).

Of course, interest rates have increased a lot since then and all of this is dependent on the part of the country and so forth. But it definitely seems believable to me that there are people who could afford the monthly payment on a mortgage (and would be paying less than they currently pay in monthly rent) but can't manage to save the 20% or so down payment.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2024-August-19, 06:35, said:

I don't know much about the current economic details in the US either, but I remember that when we bought a place in 2013, the total monthly payment on our mortgage (interest plus principle) was less than our rent where we lived before. It was also quite affordable on a single salary for a high school teacher with ~10 years experience, and we thought it was unfortunate that a friend of ours (who was a single parent with two kids on just such a salary) was stuck renting because she couldn't save the down payment for a similar place. When we sold four years later to move to Switzerland, the gains from the sale more than compensated us for all our interest costs (so basically, we had a nice place to live for free for four years, subject to being able to afford the down payment).

Of course, interest rates have increased a lot since then and all of this is dependent on the part of the country and so forth. But it definitely seems believable to me that there are people who could afford the monthly payment on a mortgage (and would be paying less than they currently pay in monthly rent) but can't manage to save the 20% or so down payment.

Thanks. This is the general thing I am looking for. The idea of inflation being something that can be at least partially coped with providing you get some help to get in has merit. my exprience mirrors yours. In 1970 we bought a townhouse. 3, or maybe it was 4, years later we sold it at a sunbstantial profit and bought a detached house. If I had not first bought the townhouse I never could have afforded the downpayment on the house we bought in 73/74/. Unfortumately my marriage ended a couple of years later but we stil sold the house for a substantial profit. So help getting onto this escalator could indeed be useful

Generally this reflects my idea of well designed help. It not only helps immeditatly, it helps a person need less help later. I am not rigid about this. When someone is in a serious jam, they need help and they need it now, we can worry about future issues later. But I do thing the long run is worthy of thought.


Added: I conjured up Susan, with her 50K annual salary, thinkig well maybe she could afford monthly payments if she could get past the downpayment problem. But I really do not have a good feel for whether this is so. And of course there a lot of single parents makinig less. as wheter a single parent with one child qualifies for rederal help with child care costs, I would like to hear about it. About all I have heard directly frmo people that are somewhat in Susan's ballpark situation is that the rules and criteria can be complicated ans smotimes vague.

[kenberg]

I gather Biden made a pretty good speech last night. Maybe if the current president, who is also an ardent Harris supporter, is going to give a speech the Denocratic National Committee should arrange things so that the speech takes place before half the East Coast audience, including me, is in bed.

Ok, it is recorded. I'll watch it later. Maybe.

[PassedOut]

I stayed up too late watching the show, but what were they thinking about that timing?? Maybe the rest of the week will have better scheduling (knock on wood). Hillary Clinton made a great speech, and they all did pretty well.

[awm]

Michelle Obama gives a good answer to Al Phalpha's question about how Kamala Harris can be doing so well in an election where most voters are unhappy about the direction of the country.

To quote the article:

The speech crystallized something fascinating about how the presidential contest has changed in the past month — namely, that Harris seems to have become the “change” candidate who can channel hopes for the future, even though her administration currently runs Washington and she is the incumbent vice president.

In part, that’s because Harris is younger — not being an octogenarian or even a septuagenarian — and because her election would be a demographic first.

But it’s also because her opponent Donald Trump has already served as president, and has incessantly dominated the nation’s politics and much of its mental mindshare for the past decade. Not only is Trump obsessed with relitigating controversies and grudges from his first term, but he also has too much of a political history at this point to credibly promise he could lead the country in a truly new direction.

[pilowsky]

You know, there's a worrying possibility that Harris could complete two terms, Trump could get out of prison and, at the youthful age of 87, run for yet another term.
Tighten your seat belts and raise your tray tables.

The plane's not out of the woods yet.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2024-August-21, 01:23, said:

Michelle Obama gives a good answer to Al Phalpha's question about how Kamala Harris can be doing so well in an election where most voters are unhappy about the direction of the country.

To quote the article:

The speech crystallized something fascinating about how the presidential contest has changed in the past month — namely, that Harris seems to have become the "change" candidate who can channel hopes for the future, even though her administration currently runs Washington and she is the incumbent vice president.

In part, that's because Harris is younger — not being an octogenarian or even a septuagenarian — and because her election would be a demographic first.

But it's also because her opponent Donald Trump has already served as president, and has incessantly dominated the nation's politics and much of its mental mindshare for the past decade. Not only is Trump obsessed with relitigating controversies and grudges from his first term, but he also has too much of a political history at this point to credibly promise he could lead the country in a truly new direction.

I agree, very much agree, with all of this. NOw that I have heard Biden's speech (I recorded it), I want to say a few words about it. Of course some of the wild enthusiasm was no doubt planned out, but still. Biden grew up in a three bedroom house. So did I. Biden went to the University of Delaware. I went to the University of Minnesota. There are a lot of us out there who grew up in three bedroom houses and went to state universities. I, and apparently Biden, look back on our early days with pleasure and gratitude. Harris's parents had Ph. D.s, my father finished eight grade, but I still see her youth as much like mine. Adequate money, not rich.When my father died there wsa very little money to argue about or to cheat anyone out of. So different from DT.

Speaking of happy childhoods, I regard my bicycle as very important. I rode far and wide. When I was 12 my friend Denny and I rode 20+ miles to Excelsior Amusement Park where I had my first roller coaster ride. When I was 13 my friend Roger and I packed tents, cooking equipment and food on our bikes and road about 40 miles to camp for a few days along the St. Croix river. We did it for pleasure, but we learned a bit about independence. When we speak of what kids need, I suggest we think back a bit on our own childhood. My guess is that Biden and I could speak of similar experiences.

Kamal Harris is a good deal younger than I am, she is a woman, she has mixed racial heritage, still I see her as much much more like me than Donald Trump is. I can imagine being at, say, a dinner party with her and enjoying the conversation. With DT I could, if needed, maybe chat for five minutes but then I would be headed for the door.

Kamala Harris still must make her case, lay out her plans, but she is off to a very good start. The simple fact is that a lot of people were waiting for something other than what we have, Biden is a good guy, a very good guy, but age is taking its toll. Being old is ok, sort of ok, I am old, but not being able to complete a sentence means it is time to retire. And Trump? What is there to say? He doesn't think all that well of medal of honor recipients. He scuttled a bipartisan deal on border security He is a convicted felon. And a few (?) more things. So yeah, Harris is looking like what we need.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2024-August-21, 08:24, said:

Kamal Harris is a good deal younger than I am, she is a woman, she has mixed racial heritage, still I see her as much much more like me than Donald Trump is.

That's not saying much. I see a chimpanzee at the zoo as much more like me than Trump.

Quote

I can imagine being at, say, a dinner party with her and enjoying the conversation.

She'll laugh like crazy at all your cute anecdotes about the good old days.

[Winstonm]

Neighbor, Tim Walz was so good last night he may have even appeased the irascible Kenberg.

[PassedOut]

Tim Walz's family was appealing too. And Ken knows what it's like in Minnesota!

I know some about Minnesota, having lived in Duluth for a year and a half when I was in elementary school and having worked in the Twin Cities for a year after my freshman year in college, and the neighborliness there is generally similar to that in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

In the UP, you just don't pass up someone stuck in the snow without helping -- no matter whether you disagree politically or don't know them at all. Sadly, that's not true everywhere.

One of my good friends from college lives in Hawaii and had to escape from the volcano eruption (lava flowed within 20 feet of her house). Driving down the mountain alone in her pickup truck, she blew out a tire. She had to change it alone while car after car passed by. I still can't imagine it.

Of course, nothing is 100%. A kid in Hancock in the UP pulled out an old guy's Trump signs and then ran over him with an ATV when the guy was putting them back up. We really need to dial the emotions back down.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-August-22, 06:53, said:

Neighbor, Tim Walz was so good last night he may have even appeased the irascible Kenberg.

Who, me, irascible? Well, better that than cute!.

But yeah, it was a good speech. And I agree with Passed about his family.

[mycroft]

I wonder if "young guy in the UP" had been attacked in the only bar in town, sometime in the last 8 years, for "being a f-" (no matter his orientation). Or had a sister who married a "non-white Hispanic". Or who lives in Florida and has to worry about getting pregnant. Or...

I'm sure he, too, would help the guy with the "F[canadian flag] Trudeau" sticker on the truck (oh, sorry, too far south for that. The US or UP equivalent. I'm sure there is one) when he had a flat tire in -20 in November on the way to the polls. Well, maybe he'd vote first, then come back and help, just in case this "flat" was designed to be another delay tactic.

I've spent decades here in Extremely North Texas having to deal with the "lifetime political fundraiser for the Conservative Party" and the "unions are responsible for everything bad" and the "welfare bums on free healthcare" people spouting off their "obvious" ideas with quiet smiles and nods. A couple of times, my response has been very personal, because it seems to have been the first [-]ing time anybody they liked didn't agree with them (or, in my case, was only alive because the policies were Different Back Then). It's been interesting to watch. But I shouldn't *have to* put up with this, should I?

In other words, "I agree. You first."

[akwoo]

kenberg, on 2024-August-19, 06:54, said:

Added: I conjured up Susan, with her 50K annual salary, thinkig well maybe she could afford monthly payments if she could get past the downpayment problem. But I really do not have a good feel for whether this is so.

At least here, Susan could've afforded payments 5 years ago, but not now. House prices have almost doubled, and interest rates have almost doubled, which means a mortgage now costs about 3 times rent rather than a little less. Indeed, at current price levels, houses are only borderline affordable for professors without a working spouse.

[Winstonm]

I hope Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as well as the entire Democratiic pary line up behind the most important fact that came out at the third night of the Democratic Convention: Bill Clintons's claim that since the end of the cold war in 1989, Democratic presidents have created 50 million jobs while Republican presidents hav e produced 1 million jobs. Fact checker Phiilip Bump of the Washington Post verified the accuracy of the claim and dug deep to find there is still a huge discrepancy if you go back to WWII The party good for the economy is the Democratic party. Republicans want oligarchy.

https://www.rawstory...ton-dnc-speech/

(PS: I would normally link to the WaPo but it is behind a paywall.)

[kenberg]

I'll take a chance that WaPo will forgive me for posting the exact fact check respons:

Quote

"Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created about 51 million new jobs. I swear I checked this three times. Even I couldn't believe it. What's the score? Democrats 50, Republicans 1."

Former president Bill Clinton





This is a cleverly cherry-picked fact. Clinton starts with the end of the Cold War, presumably the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, which (economically speaking) is somewhat arbitrary. Economic trends such as job growth are not determined by presidential terms but often economic forces beyond a president's control

Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that nearly 50 million jobs were created from November 1989 through July of this year.

By starting during George H.W. Bush's term, Clinton skips over Ronald Reagan, a Republican who oversaw the creation of 16 million jobs. Instead, the period covered by his statistic included three Republicans — Bush, his son George W. Bush and Trump — who had poor jobs records. About 1 million jobs were created from November 1989 to the end of the first Bush term, 1.4 million under his son, and then a negative 2.7 million under Trump (because of the pandemic). All three Republicans ended their terms with the country in economic downturns.

By contrast, 22.9 million jobs were created under Clinton, 11.6 million under Barack Obama and 15.8 million under President Joe Biden.



You will note that gives the Democrats 50.3 million jobs and the Republicans a negative 300,000. Perhaps Clinton thought that would sound too fantastical. So it appears as if he dated his statistic from January 1989, which results in a total of 51.5 million jobs, with about 1.3 million for Republicans.[/font][/color]

My guess is that the econmicconsequeces of the end of the Cold War is a pretty complicated topic. But yeah, the Dems did well.

[pilowsky]

The policy goal of conservatives is to redistribute wealth upwards.
The policy goal of people that work for a living is to get a fair crack of the whip and not risk the prior probability of drowning in a yacht in the Med.

[kenberg]

She will win. That's the message for today.

[barmar]

Last night (Thursday) was the only night that I watched most of the DNC, the other nights I just got the highlights from the late night talk shows and the news the next day.

I thought one of the best speeches came from Adam Kinziger, the former Republican representative who is now staunchly anti-Trump. His characterizations of Trump were spot-on -- a weak man pretending to be strong. He never said "An idiot trying to sound intelligent" -- Trump might think he's doing that, but he mostly just sounds like an idiot (like when he talks about Hannibal Lecter).

I hope that the enthusiasm about Harris will get Dems to the polls similarly to the way Obama got elected. And if we can get more Republicans like Kinziger explaining to their people why Trump is not really the man for them, that should push her over.