The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[Pommer]

At the time, the country was suffering from a wage/price spiral in part initiated by OPEC punitive policies on Western democracies.

In macroeconomics, a wage-price spiral is an explanation for inflation, in which wage increases cause price increases which in turn cause wage increases, in a positive feedback loop. The economy is dynamic, not static. The present spiral was in large part a result of Bidenomics.

The present inflationary problem can be understood as initiated by a supply shortage caused by the COVID pandemic. Bidenomics response was to fuel the inflation that naturally occurs due to supply shortages by providing "relief" via cash giveaways thereby increasing the demand for goods and services that did not exist. Predictably, Inflation spiked.

I recall one “cash payment” during Biden’s time, were there more?
The PPP loans (that didn’t have to be repaid if certain hoops were jumped), had nothing to do with this “spike”?
huh.

 

[Pommer]

I guess denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Anecdotally speaking, I am paying about $150-$200 more for groceries for my family of 4 every month than I was a few years ago. Once upon a time in a land about 2 years ago, I could grab some fast food with my family of 4 for around $25. Now, try hard to keep the bill under $40 (if we can).

You're living in an alternate universe if you don't think people are paying more for everyday items than they were just a few years ago. The reasons are irrelevant. As long as people are feeling the pinch, it will ALWAYS be bad for the incumbent.

And I could get a loaf of day-old bread for 5¢ in 1972.

 

[o_mlly]

But the budget guides much (albeit not all) of the outlays. Receipts are impacted by a number of things including legislation that passed prior to that fiscal year.

If true then there is no such thing as "Bidenomics" or "Reganomics".

The President, the Senators and the Congress know that their first job is to keep their job. Past legislation and executive action show the Democrats more likely to use public funds to initiate programs to buy votes with giveaways. Once the people have been given their bread and circus, anyone who threatens to take it away loses their job.

 

[probinson]

And I could get a loaf of day-old bread for 5¢ in 1972.

I'm not sure why you're pretending like the prices 52 years ago are in any relevant to what people were paying just 3-4 years ago.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If true then there is no such thing as "Bidenomics" or "Reganomics".

How do you figure? I understood both of those terms to refer to philosophies or sets of policies. Applying either of them to a set of economic conditions at a particular point in time (if that's what you're referring to) strikes me as pretty silly, regardless of who's doing it.

Past legislation and executive action show the Democrats more likely to use public funds to initiate programs to buy votes with giveaways.

Does it? How do you know this? Do you have a tally somewhere? Because I can come up with a bunch of programs where Republicans are the initiators and/or at least as guilty as Dems, e.g. it's not Dem voters growing a bunch of ethanol corn or clamoring for school vouchers.

 

[NxNW]

I'm not sure why you're pretending like the prices 52 years ago are in any relevant to what people were paying just 3-4 years ago.

Exactly how far back is relevant, and why?

 

[probinson]

Exactly how far back is relevant, and why?

"Prices have gone up over the last 52 years" is not even remotely relevant to this conversation. The implied point appears to be that prices always go up. And that's true. But not nearly as rapidly and universally as they have in the last 3-4 years.

But if you are going to reference irrelevant tidbits, at least get the facts right. Google says a loaf of bread was more like 25¢ in 1972.

 

[NxNW]

Google says a loaf of bread was more like 25¢ in 1972.

I'm paying $9 for a loaf of sourdough from my neighbor's business. Thanks, Obama.

 

[o_mlly]

Because I can come up with a bunch of programs where Republicans are the initiators and/or at least as guilty as Dems, e.g. it's not Dem voters growing a bunch of ethanol corn or clamoring for school vouchers.

You would be hard pressed to come up with a list that surpasses FDR's and LBJ's just for starters. But I'm willing to look at your list.

BTW, school vouchers are individual state programs and a variety of way are used to fund them. The most popular is to transfer funds from the failing public education program to parents. The ethanol debacle is an example of how once given federal clawbacks are political suicide,

The governors of most Corn Belt states joined in sending Trump warning him than any cutback in the Renewable Fuel Standard program’s subsidies would be “highly disruptive, unprecedented and potentially catastrophic.” Understanding the US Federal Ethanol Subsidy

 

[iluvatar5150]

You would be hard pressed to come up with a list that surpasses FDR's and LBJ's just for starters. But I'm willing to look at your list.

Oh, we're going back that far?

BTW, school vouchers are individual state programs and a variety of way are used to fund them. The most popular is to transfer funds from the failing public education program to parents.

So? That's still an example of using "public funds to initiate programs to buy votes with giveaways."

The ethanol debacle is an example of how once given federal clawbacks are political suicide,

The governors of most Corn Belt states joined in sending Trump warning him than any cutback in the Renewable Fuel Standard program’s subsidies would be “highly disruptive, unprecedented and potentially catastrophic.” Understanding the US Federal Ethanol Subsidy

Sounds like "[using] public funds to ... buy votes with giveaways."