TPS

I lived in Hawaii for 6 years, he was also an honorable representative for the state. As I recall, the 442nd was the most decorated unit from the war.

I don't think they hold much sway at the federal level anymore. They get lip service. Their numbers are at an all-time low as a % of the workforce.

How can one not be cynical about a government that is more responsive to Wall Street, military contractors, big media, big pharma, corporate farms and food than its people? There are a handful of good people, but the rest are bought and paid for. They also are highly rewarded in their careers, and if their careers end short, they get jobs in those industries or on boards, and still end up with a better pension and healthcare than most Americans. Cynical, damn straight.

Yes, I'm choosing the typical PPP response. Aren't you being a bit melodramatic? Fight for all sides to reach a conclusion? He wasn't elected by the republicans. These are divisive economic issues between the parties. What does it mean to fight for the entire US? Is that what Romney would've done? What is the best economic policy for the entire US? Maintaining tax cuts for the rich? Maintaining the largest military budget in the world? Maybe the majority thinks he IS trying to do what's best for the majority of the country. Income continues to get more and more concentrated at the top, so, yeah, the folks at the bottom will vote for someone who will hopefully maintain the crumbs that they get. That's what the long term fight is about. If we want to maintain some minimum standard of life for the majority of people in this country into retirement, then, starting about 2020, more resources will be needed to meet those needs. That most likely will mean less funding for military and more taxes for the 20% who have 50% of the income. So, yes, my response that "the other guys do it too" was done to make the point that you're being hypocritical. I hope BO does play it political and makes the republicans take the fall. I hope he gets everything he asks for too, because the working class has been given the shaft for too long. Now, all this said, and pay attention here, I doubt it will happen. I will bet a pitcher of beer that BO will cut entitlements as part of a grand bargain. The good cop-bad cop routine is done to make us think that one party really tries to protect the majority.

Oh, and the republicans are different how?

So is this a criticism? Isn't that part of political negotiation? There is no reason for BO to cut a deal before the year is out, and, in fact, it will probably give him more clout to get an even better deal to his liking if he doesn't.

Since there is an article posted on TBD with that lead, it reminded me that it looked to me like there was a blatant hold on Carrington as he tried to turn back and hit Lynch. Anyone else see that? Not that it mattered much...

The issue is with your logic, or lack thereof. You are saying the "thing" that caused an other "thing" is irrelevant to a discussion about that other thing? How can you understand the hyperinflation in Germany if you don't discuss the causes, both economic and political? Why couldn't the government raise taxes? What were the politics that caused the economic situation? These are "things" that allowed the situation to occur, so you'd think that you'd want to understand those priors? This does help me understand why you don't understand the current non-inflationary situation in the US.

You must've written Wiki's bit on this, since you claim to be a student of history... They didn't provide an explanation either.

CPI dropped by 0.3% last month, but of course the government manipulates the numbers....

Way to encourage the Trogs Simon. If she isn't a communist fighting, free market, pro-finance person, she can't be qualified....

Hey, there's only person at PPP who's allowed to use the "i'm smart and know what I'm talking about" defense, and it's not you (or me).....

No, I'm saying that the amount the Fed gets when it unwinds the assets has no impact on the Fed's operations or taxpayers. The Fed doesn't mark2market and it's not a profit-making corporation. Btw, the fiscal mess started in 1981 with supply-side economics...

The competition begins in the 1960s--it didn't take twenty years to re-build. Why would taxpayers be on the hook for assets the Fed buys? Taxpayers don't fund the Fed (directly) or its asset purchases.

Yes, Bush Bad.

Read the post again. I agree that it doesn't work, and you support my reasoning--I've argued that exact point about commodity speculation...uh...demand. Did Japan suffer hyperinflation? Once again, I have NOT argued QE works; I have argued it won't cause hyperinflation.

Short-sighted. Financial regulations (Glass-Steagall, FDIC, among others) created financial stability in the US until deregulation took hold in 1980. Social Security created a safety net. The NIRA gave firms pricing power and workers bargaining power which allowed workers to match wage growth to productivity growth until the mid-1970s. And this is the crux of the issue in this thread. Since the mid to late 1970s, the wage share has been stagnant even though productivity has continued to rise. There has been a systematic shift of income from wages to profits, consistent with rising inequality. Workers have been on the run for too long, and they are fighting back. And the size of the Fed's BS matters to what/whom?

I've written previously (over 2 years ago) on why QE doesn't and won't work. My disagreement is that it won't cause hyperinflation in the US. Printing money in countries that are capital deficient (in the physical sense like hammers) fits your model; that does not describe the US. The US is operating at <80% capacity and the formal unemployment measure is almost 8%. Because your monetary beliefs are a one-size-fits-all, you can't see this.

Did so.

Yes, the democrats brought Hitler to power and caused WW2. Sheesh!

The New Deal worked out pretty decent for the working class.

Yes, and watch out for the bond vigilantes. Wait a second, Holy Crap! They must be Keynesians too!http://www.bloomberg...-inflation.html So, how many of you here still think this will cause hyperinflation? Einstein said something about expecting different results and insanity...

They better start paying their fair share of taxes too, the takers. And we better cut SS and Medicare, because they are getting too good of a deal. Damn unions.

I am talking about physical capacity utilization, not financial capital. There is NO scarcity of financial capital right now. If you look at the CBO's deficit projections, the primary deficit is expected to be in balance, so, yes, the interest expense is what is projected to drive growing deficits in the medium term.

And this describes precisely why you should increase the supply of money now because the money in circulation is less than the real supply of physical goods we can create right now. My story changes when resources (labor and capital) become scarce. It's as simple as that.