INFLATION--Uh, oh.....Trump plans to weaken the dollar

Headline CPI for January reported as 3.1%. Only items above 3% were shelter and food away from home at 5-6%. I did not see the line item for insurance.
 
- We get the ball. 1st and 10 from the 20

- 1st Down: 10 yard QB sack - That sucks, we're now back 10 yards to our own 10 yard line

- 2nd Down: 5 yard run - that was good, but now we're at the 15 yard line -- STILL 5 YARDS WORSE THAN WHERE WE STARTED OUT AT.

- 3rd Down: 2 yard QB scramble. Ok, but we're now at our 17 yard line -- STILL 3 YARDS WORSE THAN WHERE WE STARTED AT.

And that series was a failure, we have to punt.
 
- We get the ball. 1st and 10 from the 20

- 1st Down: 10 yard QB sack - That sucks, we're now back 10 yards to our own 10 yard line

- 2nd Down: 5 yard run - that was good, but now we're at the 15 yard line -- STILL 5 YARDS WORSE THAN WHERE WE STARTED OUT AT.

- 3rd Down: 2 yard QB scramble. Ok, but we're now at our 17 yard line -- STILL 3 YARDS WORSE THAN WHERE WE STARTED AT.

And that series was a failure, we have to punt.
You are talking about one series. What about the next series? And the one after that? What happens when the run game starts clicking in the 2nd half?
 
I have heard that car insurance increases resulted from the mass illegal immigration. It has caused spikes in traffic which means more wrecks and illegals aren't insured.
 
I have heard that car insurance increases resulted from the mass illegal immigration. It has caused spikes in traffic which means more wrecks and illegals aren't insured.

I'm sure it does. Very few illegal immigrants carry auto insurance, and many of those who do, carry ghetto minimum policies with exclusions.
 
mc
I understand your point and know you are right from a definition standpoint.
But to people paying out more each month for costs that rose a month or 2 ago it doesn't matter .
 
mc
I understand your point and know you are right from a definition standpoint.
But to people paying out more each month for costs that rose a month or 2 ago it doesn't matter .

I'm paying almost double for home insurance now in deep east texas than I did in Sunnyvale (dallas burb) 3yrs ago. Current home is less than half market value what our Sunnyvale home was. No claims in 5 years. Makes no sense
 
I think movie theatres may have crossed the inflation/price tipping point, where big chunks of their customers no longer go, or go less frequently due to price, thereby digging into profits.

1. The streaming services now have many first run movies for rental. Most folks have big screen tvs with good audio as well. A family of four can comfortably see the movie (and pause it for bathroom and popcorn breaks) for $20. That same family of four would spend around $50 on tickets alone, then there's the overpriced refreshments.

2. The overall filthy and disgusting state of many theatres is another turn off. I like the big new recliner chairs in theatres, but most of those places are still on the dirty and disgusting side.

I'll still go for the sort of movie that needs to be seen on the big screen. Godzilla minus one is the perfect recent example. For comedies, drama, and most movies, it may be better just to watch it in the comfort of home.
 
Annualized CPI the past 3 mo is 2.8%, higher than anyone wants. Take out shelter? It drops to 1.1%! Suggesting we are seeing some major improvements on inflation across the board, with likely better shelter data coming.
 
IMG_8428.jpeg
 
No to going back to the gold standard. It puts too much power in the hands of the big gold mining countries--of which we are not close to #1.

Now, if the dollar was somehow tied to a market basket of grains (maybe add livestock to the mix of grains), that might be a winner. We'd be looking good. Our new pal in Argentina would also rejoice, as would the Canadians. Tying it to oil would be a double-edged sword.

Tying the dollar to any commodity, or group of commodities, would make it much more volatile. And that could be a real problem.

The onus on proving that any of this would be better than the current system is on the proponent of change.
 
No to going back to the gold standard. It puts too much power in the hands of the big gold mining countries--of which we are not close to #1.

It really doesn't though. That is why at one point there was a global gold standard that worked very well. Gold prices are very inelastic due to changing the supply. So gold producers can't control price like with diamonds.

Now, if the dollar was somehow tied to a market basket of grains (maybe add livestock to the mix of grains), that might be a winner. We'd be looking good. Our new pal in Argentina would also rejoice, as would the Canadians. Tying it to oil would be a double-edged sword.

The big weakness of this concept, like the proposed BRICS currency, is that "a basket of grains" or other commodities isn't fungible since it is based on different commodities, it can't/won't be held in bank vaults, and it can't/won't be redeemable from banks.

What must be added back to banking systems is accountability. That only comes from being able to pull your asset out of the bank. I'm not talking about paper notes, but the hard currency. That is why gold and silver were answer during the industrial age.

The onus on proving that any of this would be better than the current system is on the proponent of change.

There are many reforms to make to the US$ system before changing would make sense. Government should balance the budget. Government overall spending should be cut in half. Federal Reserve should be dissolved. You do those things and inflation would come way down and it would prevent future inflation.
 

100 Day Countdown 2024

Help us count down to game day with your favorite player pics.

100 Day Countdown 2024

Recent Threads

Back
Top