How much is $17 trillion? Visualized for reference.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by Bucketlist2012

Again, the readers will decide from this thread what they think, and you are a lone wolf..No one believes what you believe.

Food costs are up, and the size of the products are down. So an increase of 30% in costs, and a reduction of the size of the product by 20% is Inflation, plain and simple.

I am pretty aligned with what JP believes (or at least his level headed approach), I just don't feel like arguing about it.

What I will say is that I heard something on NPR about a study that demonstrated the fairly obvious concept that people choose to access news/media that aligns with what they already believe.

Granted you could say I was listening to liberal government funded NPR because I believe X or Y, and just ignore whatever I have to say but the source shouldn't matter. Doesn't it just make sense that people would do that?

My point is only that it's good to listen to people with other opinions, and it's pretty weak to attack people that have different views because you just may be wrong.

[Bucketlist2012]

Originally Posted by realcoray

I am pretty aligned with what JP believes (or at least his level headed approach), I just don't feel like arguing about it.

What I will say is that I heard something on NPR about a study that demonstrated the fairly obvious concept that people choose to access news/media that aligns with what they already believe.

Granted you could say I was listening to liberal government funded NPR because I believe X or Y, and just ignore whatever I have to say but the source shouldn't matter. Doesn't it just make sense that people would do that?

My point is only that it's good to listen to people with other opinions, and it's pretty weak to attack people that have different views because you just may be wrong.

You miss my point and call it a weak attack..The point is that one person can post all the "facts" that they want, and we all know that they are just cooked numbers. Reality in the real world,it tell us different. You cannot say that inflation is not happening if you are out buying products.It is obvious that it is here.

Why do you think I post to let the readers decide ? I did not "attack" him.

I own tons of several assets that are Commodity based..I see my profits.I know what is happening..I don't worry about food or gasoline because others are paying me for it.

It is obvious that we will never change each others minds. That isn't what the thread is about..It is to post ALL sides, and let people decide for themselves... Everyone will have their own view, no doctored figures will change my mind, or your mind, and that is what is cool about it. We don't have to think like each other.

So with that, I welcome John's posts, and your thoughts, because the readers need both sides to make their own choice. I personally don't care what someone thinks, I for sure am not posting to win the"argument". There is no arguing.We all have our beliefs and one thread won't change that.

And I really appreciate your post. It makes me realize that I am wasting my time on this thread. Nothing will change, and no one may be reading this but us few people..So I will leave it at that and let the facts speak in the real world, and not on paper, or the Internet.

[parsonsj]

Policy choices take time, and need to be done based on reasonable and continuing trends. Excluding volatile data helps keep policies on that path. Commodity prices do get reflected into core inflation as they change long term wages and business costs.

As an example look at Headline inflation in the chart from my previous post. If the US and/or the Fed had reacted to the spikes and valleys in those numbers during the recession of 2008/09, we might have seen an amplification of them, rather than damping.

I was hoping we could discuss these matters using facts -- but we seem to have trouble even agreeing on those.

[parsonsj]

Originally Posted by Mike

No one believes what you believe.

Many message boards tend to have echo-chamber tendencies, and this one is no different. But I must point out that there are millions of people, nations even, of people with views different than one's own. We ignore the possibility of being wrong at our own peril.

[Tony_SS]

Originally Posted by parsonsj

We ignore the possibility of being wrong at our own peril.

A-men!

Here you go:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...67650600562607

But in reality John, you should be riding high. The Fed is in power, along with Wall St and they are running the show, so what are you so concerned about? The policy of govt stimulus and creating more fiat money is in full effect.. What are you warning us about?

[parsonsj]

Originally Posted by Tony

The policy of govt stimulus and creating more fiat money is in full effect.. What are you warning us about?

True enough, though I don't think I'm warning anybody. I'm just trying to round out the discussion a bit. Let's go back to the title of the thread, which implies that $17T is bad. Just... because. It's worth a discussion to see if there is more to it than that. It would be better for us in the long term if we were to do more stimulus to put millions of people back to work, and then pay down the debt with a healthy economy.

We've done it before: after WWII, and again after the 80s.

[ErikLS2]

Originally Posted by parsonsj

We've done it before: after WWII, and again after the 80s.

I've enjoyed this discussion although I havn't got much to contribute, both sides make some good points. But, isn't this point in time "just another one of those things" that happens in our system that eventually corrects itself and we then see another period of greater prosperity? Since we can't really do much about it, I guess we should just try to educate ourselves on how to survive periods like this.

[Tony_SS]

Originally Posted by parsonsj

True enough, though I don't think I'm warning anybody. I'm just trying to round out the discussion a bit. Let's go back to the title of the thread, which implies that $17T is bad. Just... because. It's worth a discussion to see if there is more to it than that. It would be better for us in the long term if we were to do more stimulus to put millions of people back to work, and then pay down the debt with a healthy economy.

We've done it before: after WWII, and again after the 80s.

I've said this already, but you seem to ignore it. We had prosperity after WW1 for 3 reasons, and it was not fiat stimulus. More money in the economy resulted from the govt taking less out of it. Not to mention that consumers are spend happy after wars are over and troops return home.

My theory is when we end these wars and spending overseas, bring our troops home, we will immediately see more consumer confidence and service men and women buying houses, cars and spending their govt money here at home. Just like after WW2.

But people like Dick Cheney saying deficits don't matter is bunk. And it's why our Sec of Treasury was fired after a year, because he said they do matter. In came Hank Paulson, ex Goldman Sachs CEO and the govt got even more in debt and bailed out his old employer.

You need to look at who benefits from govt spending. And there have been plenty in govt to warn against it. The problem is, they seem to get rooted out.

Now back to your theory about stimulus. If that was true, we would have 4-5% official unemployment and a great economy due to QE1 and 2. But like they've tried, they didn't work as we can see now. This is why you and Krugman have such a hard time selling this idea. But like I said, your people are in power, so why aren't things better?

And the myth that more debt = higher value is almost too crazy to talk about. Debt is the antithesis of value, it's negative equity. % of GDP is what matters, and ours is on track for well over 200% which will lead to an even more worthless dollar, that is now worth 95% since 1913, the birth of the Fed. What do you think of that data?

But instead of arguing data, I like to discuss principle. It's a simple idea that we are arguing, who controls the market and the value of its currency. You say it should be done by a monopoly: the Fed and the govt. I say it should be by a free market: the people.

[Bucketlist2012]

Originally Posted by parsonsj

Many message boards tend to have echo-chamber tendencies, and this one is no different. But I must point out that there are millions of people, nations even, of people with views different than one's own. We ignore the possibility of being wrong at our own peril.

OK , my statement was a little harsh and wrong..

I guess what I should have said, is many believe that there is Inflation..My other statement was kinda Hypocritical on my part.

The reason I say that I am wrong is I believe that the government thinks exactly like you, and will print and spend more money.

So in fact my statement was way off...Many do think like you, and I was wrong.

The cool thing is that I have set my Investment for a crushed and devalued dollar. So while I may think it is the wrong thing to do, I plan that they will do exactly as you say that we should do. I do it solely for an Investment strategy and not for my personal beliefs.

So I won't be in any peril at all. In fact every time that Stimulus is used, my assets soar.. So I am not worried if my personal beliefs are wrong, I will still profit from it.

But again, my statement was wrong, and many do think like you, so sorry about the harsh comment...But if I am wrong I win, and if I am right, I win.

What I personally think may be bad for the country means nothing to how I invest.

So either way it goes I am ready..I don't Invest according to my beliefs, but according to what I think the powers that be will do...

I guess if you would warn people about anything, it would be to invest for more Stimulus. And against the Fiat Currency. That may be a tip to tell people.

[sniper]

Originally Posted by Bucketlist2012

No one believes what you believe.

Our nation is currently lead by people who share his beliefs.

Originally Posted by realcoray

I am pretty aligned with what JP believes (or at least his level headed approach), I just don't feel like arguing about it.

What I will say is that I heard something on NPR about a study that demonstrated the fairly obvious concept that people choose to access news/media that aligns with what they already believe.

Granted you could say I was listening to liberal government funded NPR because I believe X or Y, and just ignore whatever I have to say but the source shouldn't matter. Doesn't it just make sense that people would do that?

My point is only that it's good to listen to people with other opinions, and it's pretty weak to attack people that have different views because you just may be wrong.

Sounds like you have your fingers in your ears yelling, LA, LA, LA.
I mean come on, there is no arguing in this thread. What is wrong with differing views expressing them?

Originally Posted by parsonsj

I was hoping we could discuss these matters using facts -- but we seem to have trouble even agreeing on those.

As stated earlier, facts are undisputed. All the figures a governments use will have some sort of twist to them including or excluding data, to achieve their desired results.

Originally Posted by parsonsj

Many message boards tend to have echo-chamber tendencies, and this one is no different. But I must point out that there are millions of people, nations even, of people with views different than one's own. We ignore the possibility of being wrong at our own peril.

Would it be possible this is not an echo chamber but people who might just actually agree with one another with a view that differs from yours?

What do we know is that spending trillions of dollars DOES NOT make Americans better off.