Yes.  I'm willing to increase inflation from the 2% we have now (his $100 is being eroded already) to 5%, costing him that additional $156 year, in the hopes that the millions of additional people working and earning incomes again lifts the overall economy up, giving Mr $100 a realistic shot at improving his income. 

Would that be because you have no clue as to the struggles of people who live check to check?

Isn't it easier to say "I'm willing to take that chance" when it will NOT have an immediate effect on you?

Does this appropriately sum up your feelings?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Would that be because you have no clue as to the struggles of people who live check to check?

Isn't it easier to say "I'm willing to take that chance" when it will NOT have an immediate effect on you?

It will have an immediate effect on me.  My income is significantly more than $100 a week, but I still have expenses that will increase in price.  The job of the fed isn't to make sure that no one is effected negatively by their policy.

Are you sure you understand the difference between stretching a can of beans to cover an extra day til payday and deciding to have the $12 dessert instead of the $18 dessert after finishing your $83 meal?

If you're stretching that can of beans, the 2% inflation we have now is just as problematic.  You certainly aren't suggesting that the fed take contractionary measures to bring inflation down to zero, are you? 

Don't you think one stretching a can of beans has enough trouble dealing with 2%?
Does increasing it to 4-5% really help him?

You obviously don't care about your $100 a week guy.  You sit there surfing the web all day, buying stuff from yankeesruleses.com and jetesforpres.com, posting about sports on web forums, and the 2% inflation rate we have is literally eating the floor out from under him.  How is he going to afford his rice next week?  The $3.45 bag of rice is now going to cost him $3.52.  How is he going to survive?  TEH OUTRAGE!!!!

How did this become about me?   Have I been the one saying "Well, he'll just have to deal with my policy-influenced inflation until the wealth trickles down to him"?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/22/2012 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2012 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/21/2012 8:59:00 PM (view original):
I understand it well. You on the other hand...

. . . understand it better, because I know that adding inflation on top of an already ****** economy might NOT be the best thing for the country right now?

But somehow you don't understand that allowing slightly more inflation is acceptable if it means unemployment goes down.

Have you contacted Chairman Bernanke about this to tell him the good news, that you have a plan to save America?  Or do you think he monitors this thread and is already on it?

Someone needs to ask cresten how inflation affects him...

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2012 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/22/2012 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2012 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/21/2012 8:59:00 PM (view original):
I understand it well. You on the other hand...

. . . understand it better, because I know that adding inflation on top of an already ****** economy might NOT be the best thing for the country right now?

But somehow you don't understand that allowing slightly more inflation is acceptable if it means unemployment goes down.

Have you contacted Chairman Bernanke about this to tell him the good news, that you have a plan to save America?  Or do you think he monitors this thread and is already on it?

Forbes thinks he already knows this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/04/04/ben-bernankes-secret-inflation-plan/

 

I’m suggesting that the Fed is not waiting for the rest of government to develop a fiscal policy that can restore financial sanity. Bernanke is expanding monetary policy in an effort to get the nation’s finances at the federal, state and local levels back into balance with expected revenues, including trillions in unfunded entitlements and mandates.

Because of the sheer magnitude of this task and a lack of political will to do so, it’s unlikely this can be accomplished through growth and cost-­cutting. So the Fed has settled upon inflation as the remedy.

Inflation is well-known for its long-term corrosive effects, but few ever speak of inflation’s short-term benefits.

"Long-term corrosive effects".

Who knew?

Now you're just being dense on purpose. For such an old ****, you sure are good at bad faith arguments. No one is arguing that inflation is a great long term solution.

Government debt is a long term problem too, but in the short term, large cuts to spending would be disastrous for the economy.