Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: Thoughts on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022?

  1. #1
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Thoughts on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022?

    The proposed bill aims to raise $739 billion in revenue, spend $433 billion on climate change initiatives and health care subsidies, and reduce the budget deficit by about $300 billion.

    Increased government revenue from:
    - setting a minimum corporate tax at 15%
    - closing existing corporate tax loopholes
    - eliminating carried interest loophole
    - increased tax enforcement
    - allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies over prescription drug costs

    Government spending on:
    - clean energy tax credits, including a $7.5k tax credit for purchasing a new electric car and $4k for purchasing a used EV
    - initiatives to reduce environmental pollution
    - expansion of health care subsidies

  2. #2
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1501 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's good legislation, as is typical of Democrat administrations. It reduces the budget deficit and makes investments in areas which will benefit the greatest number of people, rather than being a budget from extremist Republicans which tends to blow up the budget (read, steal money now for the rich and make the average person pay for it in the future), which basically destroys civilization for the benefit of a few rich people.

  3. #3
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It won't get passed unless we put Manchin and Sinema in a gas chamber

  4. #4
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    It's good legislation, as is typical of Democrat administrations. It reduces the budget deficit and makes investments in areas which will benefit the greatest number of people, rather than being a budget from extremist Republicans which tends to blow up the budget (read, steal money now for the rich and make the average person pay for it in the future), which basically destroys civilization for the benefit of a few rich people.
    Eh, in real world terms inflation effects the poor more than it does the rich... the poor are the ones that can't afford gas and food, where those things make up a third of their budget. To a rich person... they don't even notice the difference. Climate change is an important issue to address, but not really for the cause of reducing our current inflation... Investing in it might reduce inflation in the very long term, like after most cars and trucks are electric (it's gona take many decades) ... assuming the stimulus actually makes the critical difference in the adoption of that technology, which is questionable. But if you really wanted to address inflation in the short term you'd reincentivize domestic oil drilling. Inflation is a short term problem in that people could already barely scrape by prior. Also... you say another bill would steal money for the rich - the bill is for 700B$... clean energy companies make money the same as dirty energy companies. The issue is what's practical and needed.
    If you want to deal with climate change that's fine, I think we do need to address it, but it's not addressing the current problem with inflation.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 07-29-2022 at 02:29 PM.

  5. #5
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    It won't get passed unless we put Manchin and Sinema in a gas chamber
    Lol. Apparently a meeting with Larry Summers can achieve results similar to a gas chamber

  6. #6
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1501 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    It won't get passed unless we put Manchin and Sinema in a gas chamber
    Maybe the exhaust on Manchin's Maserati could be rerouted to the passenger compartment.

  7. #7
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Maybe the exhaust on Manchin's Maserati could be rerouted to the passenger compartment.
    Via a tube taped to his mouth

  8. #8
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Lol. Apparently a meeting with Larry Summers can achieve results similar to a gas chamber
    I guess Larry has the stale smell of someone that hasn't showered since the 90s.

  9. #9
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,778
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Via a tube taped to his mouth
    The benevolent Democrats of today.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  10. #10
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,778
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    It's good legislation, as is typical of Democrat administrations.
    I mean yeah, and anyone who disagrees belongs in a gas chamber.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  11. #11
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,778
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    American liberals: Expressing their benevolence to humanity and to their country, one nazi death camp reference at a time.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  12. #12
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    American liberals: Expressing their benevolence to humanity and to their country, one nazi death camp reference at a time.
    Lol you have a warped idea of the left. Many of us distance ourselves from "liberals" who think the world gets better by niceness and not realpolitik, which is part of the reason our country keeps getting worse. As far as corrupt politicians like Manchin, if it really was a matter of common disagreement, of course I wouldn't think he deserves a noose, but he's bought off like so many of our politicians and committing treason every day because of it. For someone like him, I have no hesitation in saying he ought to be removed. I want idiots like him to get out of the way of us actually having the better world we say we want.

  13. #13
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personally I think we should replace our senators with 100 of the 121 forum members who logged into 16types today

  14. #14
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Personally I think we should replace our senators with 100 of the 121 forum members who logged into 16types today
    There you might actually see a congress that's dysfunctional just because people disagree lol

  15. #15
    Kardashev Scale Blade Runner 2017 2049 Bunny BunnyFairyWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Macroverse MtBattle ScholarsGarden RealMadridLive SuperNexus InfinitiesUltimate AllSpectraEverywhere
    TIM
    WiredforBattleShingo
    Posts
    3,207
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Personally I think we should replace our senators with 100 of the 121 forum members who logged into 16types today
    Ya, this sounds reasonable. Most of our officials are just greedy and power hungry people that suck the life out of genuine blueprints of the heros soul.

    The city of tomorrow at least though can emerge through our freedom of religion and speech.
    https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/9systemswishes
    https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/evolvedraichu
    Pokemon is somewhere fun over the Rainbow emblazoned by the Power of 4ever. The clouds soar and the island escalates a Lugia petal dance tempest blizzarding shiny Ash. Evanescence sparkles glistening auroras of mirth and high frequency channels embarking with the winds of new beginnings. This magical adventure turns on at the dawn of time in 2000. Ceremony and enchantment dazzle the world with colors galore. Mania and extravagance shape shift and transform into the greatest show on earth, the evolution of Pokemon
    Something has arrived. That threatens to throw everything terribly out of balance. When it comes, will you accept your destiny? And when its your chance to be a hero, will you rise to the challenge? This year, discover how 1 person can make all the difference! Pokemon the Movie 2000 The Power of 1

  16. #16
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,778
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Lol you have a warped idea of the left. Many of us distance ourselves from "liberals" who think the world gets better by niceness and not realpolitik, which is part of the reason our country keeps getting worse. As far as corrupt politicians like Manchin, if it really was a matter of common disagreement, of course I wouldn't think he deserves a noose, but he's bought off like so many of our politicians and committing treason every day because of it. For someone like him, I have no hesitation in saying he ought to be removed. I want idiots like him to get out of the way of us actually having the better world we say we want.
    I probably do have a warped idea of the American left. My experience is limited to the 90s and early 00s and I haven't been back to America since then, and I'm sure alot has changed since then. I admit I have a hard time understanding the attitudes that liberals have nowadays, they seem to act like bullies towards those who disagree with them, or at least, towards those who vote for things they disagree with. I don't consider this 'realpolitik', as if it was, it would have worked by now lol. I just think alot of these liberals are frustrated, but I also don't think this is a constructive way to go about things. It probably makes the liberals feel tougher when dealing with conservatives (who have been playing dirty politics for a long time), but what has it accomplished?

    As far as Manchin goes, I don't know a huge amount about him, I know he's a democratic senator from West Virginia, and often votes against his own party's lines, which to me doesn't seem like treason. I think he is going along with what his constituents want, which admittedly is cowardly, but not corrupt.

    Also you say you want a better world, but do you consider that politicians voting for the bills you want may also be corrupt? If the ones voting against it are corrupt, then why would the other side be exempt from corruption? Corruption usually infects a whole system. That said, I don't think the whole system in America is corrupt, but yeah.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  17. #17
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    My experience is limited to the 90s and early 00s and I haven't been back to America since then
    The culture has gotten dramatically worse and the country much more divided since the 90s / 2000s.

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    That said, I don't think the whole system in America is corrupt, but yeah.
    Corruption and greed are often used as catch-all explanations. People want to feel like they understand things, even if they have no context on them. It's stupid, but it's the norm.
    Politicians vote the ways they do for all kinds of reasons... to appeal to constituencies or to the general public; to satisfy some deranged, half formed opinions they have; because a different vote wouldn't effect the outcome; to make political allies to advance other causes, because this is how the system is set up currently... etc. Or in alot of cases the vote may be perfectly reasonable given a full understanding of the issue, but just happen to rile up the toddlers in the public who involve themselves in politics (of which there are far too many).

  18. #18
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1501 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    The culture has gotten dramatically worse and the country much more divided since the 90s / 2000s.


    Corruption and greed are often used as catch-all explanations. People want to feel like they understand things, even if they have no context on them. It's stupid, but it's the norm.
    Politicians vote the ways they do for all kinds of reasons... to appeal to constituencies or to the general public; to satisfy some deranged, half formed opinions they have; because a different vote wouldn't effect the outcome; to make political allies to advance other causes, because this is how the system is set up currently... etc. Or in alot of cases the vote may be perfectly reasonable given a full understanding of the issue, but just happen to rile up the toddlers in the public who involve themselves in politics (of which there are far too many).
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...tion-fox-news/

  19. #19
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Case in point, people acting like toddlers and involving themselves in politics - refusing to reason, characterizing the opposition with slogans, being entrenched in their shallow partisan viewpoints, etc. I was actually one of the strongest opponents I knew to Bush during the Bush years, I've also been very strongly against the anti-vaccine hysteria, and generally am an independent, but because this moron needs a way of explaining away contrary opinions, to maintain his sense of partisan inner harmony, he has to resort to this.

    It's rare in the US to find a political discussion that isn't completely dominated by this sort of idiocy.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 07-30-2022 at 01:22 PM.

  20. #20
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can we talk about the bill, pls? Partisanship is a big topic in American politics and probably deserves its own thread

  21. #21
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    Eh, in real world terms inflation effects the poor more than it does the rich... the poor are the ones that can't afford gas and food, where those things make up a third of their budget. To a rich person... they don't even notice the difference. Climate change is an important issue to address, but not really for the cause of reducing our current inflation... Investing in it might reduce inflation in the very long term, like after most cars and trucks are electric (it's gona take many decades) ... assuming the stimulus actually makes the critical difference in the adoption of that technology, which is questionable. But if you really wanted to address inflation in the short term you'd reincentivize domestic oil drilling. Inflation is a short term problem in that people could already barely scrape by prior. Also... you say another bill would steal money for the rich - the bill is for 700B$... clean energy companies make money the same as dirty energy companies. The issue is what's practical and needed.
    If you want to deal with climate change that's fine, I think we do need to address it, but it's not addressing the current problem with inflation.
    Yeah I doubt this bill is our silver bullet to inflation. I think the idea is that these policies, when taken as a whole, have a net deflationary effect on the economy. A reduction in the deficit is a reduction in public spending and the overall level of demand, which in theory should lead to lower prices over time. Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with prescription drug companies is a policy that directly targets healthcare spending and should reduce costs for consumers and the federal government. Increased enforcement of existing tax laws reduces demand by lessening the deficit and taking money out of the economy that would otherwise probably be spent on consumer goods. I guess that investing in clean energy should increase supply over the long term, but yeah I agree that won’t change the $10 price tag on bacon at my grocery store. I also wonder how car buyers will take advantage of the EV tax credits when there’s already a shortage of electric vehicles that will probably get worse when car buyers see a $7.5k slash in price

    These policies have an overall deflationary effect on the economy. I suspect the magnitude of this effect won’t be enough to solve inflation by itself. Monetary policy is set by the federal reserve, not congress. I think the name of the bill is mostly just political marketing.

  22. #22
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another thought about the EV tax credits- California has mandated that all new cars sold within the state must have zero emissions by 2035. Hopefully congress has a plan for someday letting the government off the hook for these tax credits? Eventually the government will have to subsidize every car buyer’s purchase.

  23. #23
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The 2022 Nissan Leaf MSRP is $27,400, which means the EV tax credit lowers the cost to $19,900. For comparison, a new 2022 Toyota Corolla costs $20,425.

  24. #24
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    I probably do have a warped idea of the American left. My experience is limited to the 90s and early 00s and I haven't been back to America since then, and I'm sure alot has changed since then. I admit I have a hard time understanding the attitudes that liberals have nowadays, they seem to act like bullies towards those who disagree with them, or at least, towards those who vote for things they disagree with. I don't consider this 'realpolitik', as if it was, it would have worked by now lol. I just think alot of these liberals are frustrated, but I also don't think this is a constructive way to go about things. It probably makes the liberals feel tougher when dealing with conservatives (who have been playing dirty politics for a long time), but what has it accomplished?

    As far as Manchin goes, I don't know a huge amount about him, I know he's a democratic senator from West Virginia, and often votes against his own party's lines, which to me doesn't seem like treason. I think he is going along with what his constituents want, which admittedly is cowardly, but not corrupt.

    Also you say you want a better world, but do you consider that politicians voting for the bills you want may also be corrupt? If the ones voting against it are corrupt, then why would the other side be exempt from corruption? Corruption usually infects a whole system. That said, I don't think the whole system in America is corrupt, but yeah.
    Dude, just read about it. I don't have time to hold your hand through everything. Manchin does not vote with the desires of his constituents.

  25. #25
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    A reduction in the deficit is a reduction in public spending and the overall level of demand, which in theory should lead to lower prices over time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Increased enforcement of existing tax laws reduces demand by lessening the deficit and taking money out of the economy that would otherwise probably be spent on consumer goods.
    I've heard this said a couple times, but it doesn't make sense to me. If the reduction in the deficit was achieved through a reduction in government spending then yes, people would have less money and they could spend less on consumer goods... such a bill would be appropriate if there were some kind of money bubble, like if the public had large amounts of excess money and this was driving inflation. The policy would need to be targeted toward the segment of the public that had the excess cash, which... those that live off entitlements aren't exactly rolling in cash. But there isn't a large spending bubble out there today anyway, far from it...
    But if you reduce the deficit by increasing corporate tax rates, as this bill did, that's not going to reduce the publics available cash. It'll reduce companies available cash... I don't see how that would translate into less consumer spending and inflation reduction. Not unless you mean to drive wages down, dry up jobs, or reduce the number of goods on the market... it's not a targeted policy aimed at a specific spending bubble, it's just slowing down the whole economy.... It will take a long time for these effects to accrue... and there isn't a spending bubble anyway, what's driving inflation is the price of gas, and that's a supply problem. The solution would be to drill domestic oil. Democrats ideas prohibit them from doing that... so, instead of addressing the issue directly we have this weird logic about how increasing corporate tax rates will dry up consumer spending somehow, which isn't even the problem...
    You can slow down the economy all you like, the price of gas won't drop until you fix the supply problem, in the meantime you're just creating stagflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with prescription drug companies is a policy that directly targets healthcare spending and should reduce costs for consumers and the federal government.
    What amazes me in hearing this is that Medicare wasn't already able to negotiate prices with drug companies. So to me this sounds like more of a marketing slogan than a serious policy change, because it seems like something that should have been done a very long time ago for reasons totally unrelated to inflation. If they couldn't get it done then.... why are they doing it now? I haven't actually read the bill, admittedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    I guess that investing in clean energy should increase supply over the long term, but yeah I agree that won’t change the $10 price tag on bacon at my grocery store. I also wonder how car buyers will take advantage of the EV tax credits when there’s already a shortage of electric vehicles that will probably get worse when car buyers see a $7.5k slash in price
    Agreed
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    These policies have an overall deflationary effect on the economy. I suspect the magnitude of this effect won’t be enough to solve inflation by itself. Monetary policy is set by the federal reserve, not congress.
    Certainly moving to electric vehicles will have a very stabilizing effect on the economy long term, and I'm fine with that policy. It's not going to reduce our inflation now, as you've pointed out... but it's generally a good idea, and I could live with this part of the bill. Im probably gona buy myself an EV in the coming years

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    I think the name of the bill is mostly just political marketing.
    Yes, that's what it all comes down to - the midterms are in less than 3 and a half months. The democrats are getting killed in the polls and that's mainly due to inflation, they have to address this.. so here comes along a bill, it's named the "inflation reduction act". The vast majority of the public are not going to read the bill, or understand it, thus whether it actually addresses inflation is actually irrelevant - inflation reduction can be accomplished by releasing oil from the strategic oil reserves for the next 4 months - which is what they're also doing. What matters is that the bill contains material for important talking points, and satisfies the constituents, which means raising the corporate tax rate and incentivizing electric vehicles - regardless of how this effects inflation.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 07-31-2022 at 12:45 AM.

  26. #26
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,778
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Dude, just read about it. I don't have time to hold your hand through everything. Manchin does not vote with the desires of his constituents.
    No need to be such a flippant asshole. I'm not asking you to hold my hand, my main point isn't about Manchin, anyways, but about how the left behaves, and you haven't addressed those points. I have seen liberals try to intimidate and bully those who are in disagreement with them (read not just those who are 'corrupt'), perhaps this doesn't a apply to you but it applies to many. Have fun with your 'realpolitik' of insulting people over the internet, I hear the democrats are getting tons more votes now that they can flex their political muscles on Twitter.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  27. #27
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    No need to be such a flippant asshole. I'm not asking you to hold my hand, my main point isn't about Manchin, anyways, but about how the left behaves, and you haven't addressed those points. I have seen liberals try to intimidate and bully those who are in disagreement with them (read not just those who are 'corrupt'), perhaps this doesn't a apply to you but it applies to many. Have fun with your 'realpolitik' of insulting people over the internet, I hear the democrats are getting tons more votes now that they can flex their political muscles on Twitter.
    lol. Our only tool is to complain because our politicians don't actually fight for anything. They are the ones that need to do the realpolitik. I don't know about bullying, I haven't really seen that.

    Everyone in gov is bought and paid for because it's baked into the system. It's very much a "get in line" type of system in favor of corporations and other special interests. Republicans straight up favor these special interests and Democrats have a thin veneer of pretending not to. There is a shift occurring where more people favor Democratic politicians who are not corrupt, go figure. Crazy right?

  28. #28
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    If it doesn't involve abolishing the Fed and getting the government out of money, it won't solve a goddamn thing, and can only make the situation worse.

  29. #29
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    It will take a long time for these effects to accrue... and there isn't a spending bubble anyway, what's driving inflation is the price of gas, and that's a supply problem. The solution would be to drill domestic oil.
    Higher oil prices drive up costs in other areas, but inflation was rising before the price of oil went up, and the steady decline in gas prices weve seen for over a month isnt mirrored by a decline in overall prices in the economy. I agree that the US could drill more oil, Im just not that gas prices are the primary cause of this inflation.

    I've heard this said a couple times, but it doesn't make sense to me. If the reduction in the deficit was achieved through a reduction in government spending then yes, people would have less money - they'd be bogged down in paying for more of their own expenses - and they could spend less on consumer goods... such a bill would be appropriate if there were some kind of money bubble, like if the public had large amounts of excess money and this was driving inflation. The policy would need to be targeted toward the segment of the public that had the excess cash, which... those that live off entitlements aren't exactly rolling in cash.
    Can you explain what you mean by money bubble? Im not familiar with that term. Increased tax enforcement will target higher earners because its more profitable to recover unpaid taxes from high earners who owe more taxes. Tbh all of this is nothing compared to the amount of money in the economy. I agree with you that the bill is unlikely to reduce inflation in any meaningful way, I was just trying to explain why its technically deflationary. It reminds me of weighing yourself after you pee and hoping the scale will go down lol.

  30. #30
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Higher oil prices drive up costs in other areas, but inflation was rising before the price of oil went up, and costs of other goods haven’t mirrored the steady decline in gas prices we’ve seen for over a month. I agree that the US could drill more oil, I’m just not that gas prices are the primary cause of this inflation.
    Well what do you think is driving inflation? When gas increases... the prices of goods have to increase, it costs more to ship them. So gas will definitely contribute to some portion of the issue. It might take a while, probably more than a month, for the problem to correct itself after oil prices begin reducing... But there might be other reasons too, I'm not an economist, and have never really studied economics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Can you explain what you mean by money bubble? I’m not familiar with that term.
    By money bubble I mean some portion of consumers that have a bloated amount of cash available to spend on consumer goods, causing the prices of the goods they consume to increase... often it happens because of some government program injecting the cash... but it can also happen naturally, the gold rush is one example of it happening naturally... Best example coming to mind is the student loan bubble... I paid 250$ for a calculus book from the university bookstore, and it came without a cover to save students money. I buy alot of books... 50$ is an expensive book. It's rare that I see books above 70$. A 250$ book is something you'd only find in a university bookstore, or in the list of current, standard university textbooks.
    And that happens partly because the textbooks are standardized, but also because there's this giant swell of cash available (pretty much everything on campus costs double what it should). Basically there's a homeostasis maintained between the money supply and the cost of items.
    So to reduce the inflation - reduce the price of the $250 book - you could theoretically pop the student loan bubble.. the book would return to an affordable price. Thus the government can roll back its spending and reduce inflation.
    This bill doesn't cut spending, this bill is simply raising the corporate tax rate... it's reducing the money that's in the hands of the companies, not the consumers... and it isn't clear to me how this actually is claimed to translate into a reduction in inflation, the only way I can think of is it may stagnate wages or reduce job growth... eventually reducing the total money that the public has across the board. But you wouldn't do this, since it has effects across the board and only may reduce inflation after this long chain of effects... really you'd find the cause of the inflation and address it in a targeted manner. But tbh I think the whole thing is just an elaborate ploy never really designed to reduce inflation, just intended to prepare for the midterms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Increased tax enforcement will target higher earners because it’s more profitable to recover unpaid taxes from high earners who owe more taxes. Tbh all of this is nothing compared to the amount of money in the economy. I agree with you that the bill is unlikely to reduce inflation in any meaningful way, I was just trying to explain why it’s technically deflationary. It reminds me of weighing yourself after you pee and hoping the scale will go down lol.
    It's aimed at the companies though, not the rich consumers, so how does this effect inflation? How does a company drive inflation?
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 07-31-2022 at 11:41 PM.

  31. #31
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Right now the gov is hiking interest rates, which hurts consumers. Most inflation-reducing measures I'm aware of that don't just hurt normal people involve attempts to trap money in place so that it isn't in circulation, e.g. bond yields via the gov taking on more debt rather than less. Honestly, I don't see how any of the bullet points above trap money, in fact it looks like they encourage spending. It does try to fight healthcare inflation (the kind we are seeing right now with oil, where it's the equivalent of a professor issuing homework like they're the only class you're taking) it looks like, but I'm not sure if I believe in the government's ability to negotiate. That just looks like a reason for companies to beef up their legal talent.

  32. #32
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    Certainly moving to electric vehicles will have a very stabilizing effect on the economy long term, and I'm fine with that policy. It's not going to reduce our inflation now, as you've pointed out... but it's generally a good idea, and I could live with this part of the bill. Im probably gona buy myself an EV in the coming years
    Im excited about the move towards electric vehicles, too. I expect my next car will be an EV, but thats a few years down the road for me since I dont really need a new car. Plus Im waiting for better EV charging infrastructure to pop up, and Id want to live somewhere with room to store a power generator in case of an outage. But yeah, Im excited for electric cars. Itll be interesting to watch the shift.

  33. #33
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    Well what do you think is driving inflation? When gas increases... the prices of goods have to increase, it costs more to ship them. So gas will definitely contribute to some portion of the issue. It might take a while, probably more than a month, for the problem to correct itself after oil prices begin reducing... But there might be other reasons too, I'm not an economist, and have never really studied economics.
    I don’t know tbh. I think a combination of factors—most of which boil down to intermittent disruptions to supply chains and unusual changes in demand—threw the economy out of whack and created a situation where supply cannot keep up with demand. I think the high cost of oil is one of those factors and a main driver of inflation.

    There’s a controversial theory called “wage push inflation” which says that increasing wages lead to inflation when businesses raise prices to keep up with their growing cost of production, of which cost of labor is the largest share. Some people suggest that wage increases are contributing to inflation because unemployment has sustained at bottomed out levels for a long time now, and businesses offer higher wages to workers who are short in supply.

    It's aimed at the companies though, not the rich consumers, so how does this effect inflation? How does a company drive inflation?
    It’s for individual tax payers. Apparently rich people have a lot of unpaid taxes

  34. #34
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,779
    Mentioned
    595 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems fair, compassionate and reasonable - so naturally I'm cynical it will get passed and instead the Republicunts will have their way and create more problems and then blame everything on blacks, women and gays like they always do.

    Despite my Te Polr I got an A+ in law and I shoulda utilized that and made more of a real difference for others instead of being a useless weeb that plays too many video games but I guess I was too afraid I'd fuck things up that I didn't try to fight people that I should have been fighting.

  35. #35
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,609
    Mentioned
    426 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Inflation Reduction Act is not Designed to Reduce Inflation

    The bigger issue is that the United States suffers from a chronic lack of state capacity. It struggles to pass all but the most paltry legislation. It cannot get out in front of its problems and it cannot even solve crises as they arise. So, it papers over its dysfunction by measuring spending in decades rather than in years, by sticking that extra zero on the end of every number. Seven hundred billion sounds much better than seventy billion. It almost sounds like somebody’s doing something. But it’s the sound of silence.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 08-08-2022 at 08:07 AM.
    "I like elephants, and God likes elephants. Here's a realistic elephant...Anyway, uh, so if you don't wanna go for realism, you can go for better than realism. Whaddya mean better than realism? How 'bout an elephant with blue eyes?"

  36. #36
    Post-Post-Truth Coeruleum Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Hheres und Hchstes
    Posts
    4,375
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Of course, it's designed to give money to the IRS and the IRA (OK, an IRA is certainly something very different from the IRA.)
    HAMLET I will speak to this fellow.
    Whose graves this, sirrah?

    GRAVEDIGGER Mine, sir.
    O, a pit of clay for to be made
    For such a guest is meet.

    HAMLET I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in t.

    GRAVEDIGGER You lie out on t, sir, and therefore tis
    not yours. For my part, I do not lie in t, yet it is
    mine.

    HAMLET Thou dost lie in t, to be in t and say it is thine.
    Tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou
    liest.

    GRAVEDIGGER Tis a quick lie, sir; twill away again
    from me to you.

    HAMLET What man dost thou dig it for?

    GRAVEDIGGER For no man, sir.

    HAMLET What woman then?

    GRAVEDIGGER For none, neither.

    HAMLET Who is to be buried in t?

    GRAVEDIGGER One that was a woman, sir, but, rest
    her soul, shes dead.



  37. #37

  38. #38
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    To fight inflation, the government would need to be doing some combination of three things:

    It could actively work with other countries to unblock supply chains or establish replacement trade links.
    This might involve, say, talking to the Venezuelans or the Iranians and normalizing relations with them in a bid to drive down oil prices. Or it might involve asking our trade partners in East Asia to relax their zero-COVID policies to reduce interruptions in production. The federal government wont do these things, because it is loathe to admit to Venezuela, Iran, China, and other countries that it needs their help. It has no desire to make any concessions to any of these states. It would rather allow American workers to suffer than look so sheepish. It certainly would rather let inflation run loose than negotiate with the Russians on an end to the war in Ukraine.

    Im not an expert in international relationscould it really be that simple? China would end its zero-covid policies if only the US asked them nicely?


    It could embark on a longer, slower project of creating new industries in the United States to alleviate the cost of living crisis.

    For instance, the government could start a publicly run energy company and use that energy company to offer energy to ordinary Americans at a subsidized cost. Mexico has a state-owned oil company, called Pemex. Because Pemex belongs to the Mexican state, Mexico can subsidize the oil Pemex drills, offering immediate relief to Mexican consumers. We could do something similar here. Private oil companies would not like having an American state-owned competitor, and the political obstacles would be sizable. But a president serious about alleviating pain at the pump could use this crisis to mobilize the public. Once prices are alleviated, a public energy company could be a source of future revenue, and it could lead to the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. Norway does something similar. No one in American politics seriously discusses any of these possibilities, because no one is serious about actually helping Americans deal with the cost-of-living crisis. The Democrats are happy to use higher gas prices to push Americans to buy electric cars, while the Republican strategy is to open nature preserves to private drilling. Neither will make any near-term difference to inflation.

    Setting aside that the bill incentivizes clean energy development in the long-run, and never mind that his suggestion is a change of ownership and not a creation of a new industry. Is a public take-over of the fossil fuel industry really the most cost-effective policy? No one in American politics seriously discusses any of these possibilities, because no one is serious about actually helping Americans deal with the cost-of-living crisis. I dont like this bloggers assumption here. People can disagree with him on policy and want to help the country at the same time lol.



    It could dramatically raise taxes on wealthy oligarchs, and use the revenue to fund the above.

    Conservatives like to propose tax cuts during periods of high inflation, because they think taxes discourage the private sector from expanding production and resolving supply chain issues. But sometimes the private sector isnt capable of resolving supply chain issues in a timely manner, and state investment is necessary to bring immediate relief. It must also be remembered that wealthy people have contributed to inflation by bidding up the value of all sorts of assets. Theyve dumped money into the stock market and the housing market, and their speculation has fueled a series of bubbles in things like cryptocurrencies and NFTs. Too much investment chasing too few profitable sectors leads to bubbles and herd behavior. It would be much better if the state took some of that money and used it to solve the actual, existing supply chain problems. In the long run, private investors would have better opportunities if the state acted in a more proactive manner.
    The bigger issue is that the United States suffers from a chronic lack of state capacity. It struggles to pass all but the most paltry legislation. It cannot get out in front of its problems and it cannot even solve crises as they arise. So, it papers over its dysfunction by measuring spending in decades rather than in years, by sticking that extra zero on the end of every number. Seven hundred billion sounds much better than seventy billion. It almost sounds like somebodys doing something. But its the sound of silence.
    The CBO makes long term projections. This is nothing new and literally happens all of the time.

  39. #39
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,609
    Mentioned
    426 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    I’m not an expert in international relations—could it really be that simple? China would end it’s zero-covid policies if only the US asked them nicely?
    "Asking them nicely" is not what was suggested, and hostilities with Iran and Venezuela are something that the US could easily work to change, if it had any interest in that.

    Setting aside that the bill incentivizes clean energy development in the long-run, and never mind that his suggestion is a change of ownership and not a creation of a new industry. Is a public take-over of the fossil fuel industry really the most cost-effective policy?
    Who exactly do you think should create these new industries? Why aren't they doing that now?

    The article gave examples of states using their oil wealth for the public good. These models are successful; the suggestion was to consider emulating them.

    “No one in American politics seriously discusses any of these possibilities, because no one is serious about actually helping Americans deal with the cost-of-living crisis.” I don’t like this blogger’s assumption here. People can disagree with him on policy and want to help the country at the same time lol.
    Who is "people?"

    The CBO makes long term projections. This is nothing new and literally happens all of the time.
    I don't know what your point is, and secondly the country in a spiral of terminal decline; what Congress does "all the time" is part of that process.
    "I like elephants, and God likes elephants. Here's a realistic elephant...Anyway, uh, so if you don't wanna go for realism, you can go for better than realism. Whaddya mean better than realism? How 'bout an elephant with blue eyes?"

  40. #40
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,959
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    "Asking them nicely" is not what was suggested, and hostilities with Iran and Venezuela are something that the US could easily work to change, if it had any interest in that.
    Was referring to China's zero-covid policies wrt supply shocks, and "asking them nicely" is what he suggests here: "Or it might involve asking our trade partners in East Asia to relax their zero-COVID policies to reduce interruptions in production. The federal government won’t do these things, because it is loathe to admit to Venezuela, Iran, China, and other countries that it needs their help."



    The article gave examples of states using their oil wealth for the public good. These models are successful; the suggestion was to consider emulating them.
    Right, and I asked if nationalizing the fossil fuel industry would be the best policy for making gas cheaper for Americans.


    Who exactly do you think should create these new industries? Why aren't they doing that now?
    I don't understand this question.


    I don't know what your point is, and secondly the country in a spiral of terminal decline; what Congress does "all the time" is part of that process.
    The CBO is not congress. My point is that the blogger is grasping at straws here: "So, it papers over its dysfunction by measuring spending in decades rather than in years, by sticking that extra zero on the end of every number. Seven hundred billion sounds much better than seventy billion. It almost sounds like somebody’s doing something".

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •