Stagflation And Slow Growth

[AdvancingTime]

Words like stagflation and slow growth may be the cornerstone of the global economy for years to come. As I have written before, currencies are the "Trojan Horse" of governments, and a weapon that will be used to fleece the average citizen out of his wealth. To think those in charge of our central banks and economies have the wisdom to guide us on the path to prosperity is a bit naive.

A tectonic change or shift is taking place in the economies of countries across the world. This may be the result of our economic institutions reaching a more mature state and the world reaching a point where long-term sustainability is becoming more of an issue. This has become more obvious as we now find we are busy jostling for position in the economic food chain, but this is not just for ourselves, it is for the future of both our children and our country.

Knowing that many of those leading us honed their skills in the noncompetitive ivory towers of academia rather than in the arena of commerce should give us pause. Even before you factor in things like hidden agendas and arrogance it would not be wise to follow them blindly. The article below delves deeper into this subject.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/06/stagflation-and-slow-growth.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Words like stagflation and slow growth may be the cornerstone of the global economy for years to come. As I have written before, currencies are the "Trojan Horse" of governments, and a weapon that will be used to fleece the average citizen out of his wealth. To think those in charge of our central banks and economies have the wisdom to guide us on the path to prosperity is a bit naive.

A tectonic change or shift is taking place in the economies of countries across the world. This may be the result of our economic institutions reaching a more mature state and the world reaching a point where long-term sustainability is becoming more of an issue. This has become more obvious as we now find we are busy jostling for position in the economic food chain, but this is not just for ourselves, it is for the future of both our children and our country.

Knowing that many of those leading us honed their skills in the noncompetitive ivory towers of academia rather than in the arena of commerce should give us pause. Even before you factor in things like hidden agendas and arrogance it would not be wise to follow them blindly. The article below delves deeper into this subject.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/06/stagflation-and-slow-growth.html

no idea what the point is??

 

[Jomama]

Words like stagflation and slow growth may be the cornerstone of the global economy for years to come... A tectonic change or shift is taking place in the economies of countries across the world. This may be the result of our economic institutions reaching a more mature state and the world reaching a point where long-term sustainability is becoming more of an issue.

Agreed. Our American political system may also have outlived the ability to deal with these issues.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Words like stagflation and slow growth may be the cornerstone of the global economy for years to come... A tectonic change or shift is taking place in the economies of countries across the world. This may be the result of our economic institutions reaching a more mature state and the world reaching a point where long-term sustainability is becoming more of an issue.

Agreed. Our American political system may also have outlived the ability to deal with these issues.

.

What BS the only problem with our system is the cancer of liberalism.

 

[waltky]

Still slow growing out of the recession...

Fed Chair: 'Economic Growth Has Been Very Slow'; Productivity Growth 'Very, Very Low'
September 29, 2016 | "Economic growth as measured by the nation's gross domestic product increased 0.8 percent in the first quarter and 1.1 percent in the second quarter -- "and that's extremely disappointing," Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen told Congress on Wednesday.

She said productivity growth in particular has been "very, very low," which she called a "depressing finding." (Paycheck increases in the long run are driven by productivity growth, she noted.) "In that sense, the economy is not doing well," Yellen told the House Financial Services Committee. "But we are creating a lot of jobs," she said -- around 180,000 a month. And she noted that the unemployment rate, now at 4.9 percent, "has declined to the neighborhood of what most of us would consider to be full employment."

Yellen added that the labor force participation rate (62.8 percent), now hovering at a 38-year low, is feeling "significant downward pressure" from the aging of the population, as more and more Baby Boomers retire and leave the labor force. "Aging of the population maybe one factor," Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) agreed. "The other factor is that unemployment is coming down, not for a good reason, but for the wrong reason -- namely, that there's a frustrated workforce out there that's completely given up looking for work."

Barr said he worries that some of the drag on the economy is due to "regulatory overreach." "Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about," he told Yellen. "In the post Dodd-Frank world, financial firms are supervised by multiple agencies, more than ever before -- the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the OCC, the NCOA, the SEC, the CFTC, the CFPB, the FSOC. "These agencies are promulgating regulations, they're performing examinations. With respect to rule makings, the approach of market regulators sometimes conflicts with the safety and soundness regulators, which in turn can conflict with the consumer protection regulator. "And on supervision, often the substance of examinations overlap, but the time tables don't. And so data collection among financial regulators can be duplicative and uncoordinated. So, this is not only a burden on financial firms -- an undue burden on financial firms that may be a drag on our economy, but it also may lead to gaps in supervision." He pointed to the problems at Wells Fargo.

Barr asked Yellen, "Do you acknowledge that maybe the lack of regulatory coordination and inefficiency maybe a problem? And secondly, what do you think about proposals to consolidate or at least reduce the number of financial regulators to reduce regulatory incompetence, to reduce regulatory duplication or conflicts, or at least consolidate examinations and data collection efforts between and among regulators?" Yellen responded, "Well we have a complicated regulatory system, there's no doubt about it. And we recognize that the issues you're discussing can create a great deal of burden." Multiple questions about fiinancial regulation came up throughout the three-and-a-half hour hearing, as some lawmakers expressed concern about the burden placed on small community banks.

Fed Chair: 'Economic Growth Has Been Very Slow'; Productivity Growth 'Very, Very Low'

 

[AdvancingTime]

The GDP can be a master illusion when we look at how it filters down to both society and the Main Street economy. The first comprehensive set of measures of national income was developed by economist Simon Kuznets who in 1934 told the US Congress the formula was problematic.
How we compute the GDP is a flawed system. We have allowed numbers that mean "nothing" to seep into how the gross domestic product (GDP) is calculated all in an effort to create the illusion of growth.
In 1962 Kuznets again emphasized that we must keep in mind the important difference between quantity and the quality of growth. More on why this is such a misleading indicator in the article below.

Advancing Time: GDP Number Is A Master Illusion

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

all in an effort to create the illusion of growth.

how is there an illusion of growth when GDP goes down and indicates a recession?

 

[Jomama]

As I have written before, currencies are the "Trojan Horse" of governments, and a weapon that will be used to fleece the average citizen out of his wealth.

Fleeced us out of wealth - When? The last 50 years, last century? Seems to me we've done pretty well over time. Perhaps (just something to consider) you are making an illogical argument?

.

 

[Rshermr]

Words like stagflation and slow growth may be the cornerstone of the global economy for years to come. As I have written before, currencies are the "Trojan Horse" of governments, and a weapon that will be used to fleece the average citizen out of his wealth. To think those in charge of our central banks and economies have the wisdom to guide us on the path to prosperity is a bit naive.

A tectonic change or shift is taking place in the economies of countries across the world. This may be the result of our economic institutions reaching a more mature state and the world reaching a point where long-term sustainability is becoming more of an issue. This has become more obvious as we now find we are busy jostling for position in the economic food chain, but this is not just for ourselves, it is for the future of both our children and our country.

Knowing that many of those leading us honed their skills in the noncompetitive ivory towers of academia rather than in the arena of commerce should give us pause. Even before you factor in things like hidden agendas and arrogance it would not be wise to follow them blindly. The article below delves deeper into this subject.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/06/stagflation-and-slow-growth.html

Sources like Bruce Wilds are generally considered immaterial. At best. What is material is that we at least keep an leye on the facts. Saying hat stagflation is a problem today is simply stupid. Untrue. To have stagflation requires that you have both components of the word. Inflation, and stagnation in growth of GDP.
First, you require that there be inflation. And here the nut cases miss the point. The desired inflation rate is about 2% per year. During the Obama administration, since 2008, inflation has been a bit under that rate every year, and looks to be under that rate this year. So, based on that, stagflation is not occuring, and has not happened in recent years.
Stagnation is the second component of stagflation. That is more of a difficult measure. It is a suggestion that growth has stopped, in relation to inflation. If you have high growth but higher inflation, you may have stagflation. But low growth and low inflation is NOT. In other words, inflation of 1% tends to reduce growth of GDP by 1%. While sensationalists suggest that our growth rate has been under 2%, that is a lie.

So, for those with a clue, we have not been close to stagflation. It is simply untrue. Our GDP growth rate has been between 3 and 4.5 percent since the uptick at the end of the great depression. While the growth rates in 2008 and 2009 were bad, it was expected since we were at the end of the great recession of 2008,
Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2016

US GDP Growth Rate by Year

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fleeced us out of wealth - When? The last 50 years, last century? Seems to me we've done pretty well over time. Perhaps (just something to consider) you are making an illogical argument?

.

it is very logical argument indeed. Lib politicians inflate currency as yet another way to tax us and thus reduce our standard of living.

 

[Rshermr]

Fleeced us out of wealth - When? The last 50 years, last century? Seems to me we've done pretty well over time. Perhaps (just something to consider) you are making an illogical argument?

.

it is very logical argument indeed. Lib politicians inflate currency as yet another way to tax us and thus reduce our standard of living.

Ed makes nut case statements like this routinely with no proof. Problem for ed, really, is that he is a con troll and a congenital idiot. Poor idiot thinks that politicians are devaluing currency.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Poor idiot thinks that politicians are devaluing currency.

politicians control central bank, and, run up huge deficits forcing Fed to cover them. 1+1=2. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[Rshermr]

Poor idiot thinks that politicians are devaluing currency.

politicians control central bank, and, run up huge deficits forcing Fed to cover them. 1+1=2. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

That is Libertarianism, me boy. Libertarianism, like you believe in. Which is why you have pure ignorance. You believe politicians control a central bank. And deficits do not cause deficits. They are, me poor ignorant con troll, by costs being greater than income. That is, spending being greater than receipts. Probably way to difficult for you, dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You believe politicians control a central bank. .

exactly, by appointing chairman and governors and by encouraging them to buy deficits. 1+1=2

 

[Rshermr]

You believe politicians control a central bank. .

exactly, by appointing chairman and governors and by encouraging them to buy deficits. 1+1=2

Sure, me poor ignorant con troll. Are you simply trying to prove you are a con troll, and stupid? Cause it is not required. Everyone already knows.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You believe politicians control a central bank. .

exactly, by appointing chairman and governors and by encouraging them to buy deficits. 1+1=2

Sure, me poor ignorant con troll. Are you simply trying to prove you are a con troll, and stupid? Cause it is not required. Everyone already knows.

"You believe politicians control a central bank."

exactly, by appointing chairman and governors and by encouraging them to buy deficits. 1+1=2

 

[AdvancingTime]

Words like stagflation and slow growth may be the cornerstone of the global economy for years to come. As I have written before, currencies are the "Trojan Horse" of governments, and a weapon that will be used to fleece the average citizen out of his wealth. To think those in charge of our central banks and economies have the wisdom to guide us on the path to prosperity is a bit naive.

A tectonic change or shift is taking place in the economies of countries across the world. This may be the result of our economic institutions reaching a more mature state and the world reaching a point where long-term sustainability is becoming more of an issue. This has become more obvious as we now find we are busy jostling for position in the economic food chain, but this is not just for ourselves, it is for the future of both our children and our country.

Knowing that many of those leading us honed their skills in the noncompetitive ivory towers of academia rather than in the arena of commerce should give us pause. Even before you factor in things like hidden agendas and arrogance it would not be wise to follow them blindly. The article below delves deeper into this subject.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/06/stagflation-and-slow-growth.html

Sources like Bruce Wilds are generally considered immaterial. At best. What is material is that we at least keep an leye on the facts. Saying hat stagflation is a problem today is simply stupid. Untrue. To have stagflation requires that you have both components of the word. Inflation, and stagnation in growth of GDP.
First, you require that there be inflation. And here the nut cases miss the point. The desired inflation rate is about 2% per year. During the Obama administration, since 2008, inflation has been a bit under that rate every year, and looks to be under that rate this year. So, based on that, stagflation is not occuring, and has not happened in recent years.
Stagnation is the second component of stagflation. That is more of a difficult measure. It is a suggestion that growth has stopped, in relation to inflation. If you have high growth but higher inflation, you may have stagflation. But low growth and low inflation is NOT. In other words, inflation of 1% tends to reduce growth of GDP by 1%. While sensationalists suggest that our growth rate has been under 2%, that is a lie.

So, for those with a clue, we have not been close to stagflation. It is simply untrue. Our GDP growth rate has been between 3 and 4.5 percent since the uptick at the end of the great depression. While the growth rates in 2008 and 2009 were bad, it was expected since we were at the end of the great recession of 2008,
Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2016

US GDP Growth Rate by Year

To anyone who thinks we are enjoying real economic growth because of the GDP numbers remember how we figure the GDP is massively flawed. Something is very wrong when soaring healthcare costs are one of the biggest drivers in pushing America's GDP higher. This healthcare spending has slipped into the false narrative of a "growing economy" spoken by people with a poor understanding of what constitutes real growth.

While money spent on healthcare feeds the illusion of growth what we are really seeing is a transfer of wealth from one sector of the economy to another. This is much like another tax that is simply being recycled back into the system. The piece below exposes why labeling this growth is so misleading.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/06/soaring-healthcare-sector-wrongly-feeds.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what we are really seeing is a transfer of wealth from one sector of the economy to another.

and thus the total GDP numbers would accurately reflect total GDP growth. And??????????

 

[AdvancingTime]

what we are really seeing is a transfer of wealth from one sector of the economy to another.

and thus the total GDP numbers would accurately reflect total GDP growth. And??????????

But the GDP numbers do not accurately reflect total GDP growth. Gross Domestic Product is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment, and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.Within that definition, it appears those in power have discovered some wiggle room and even before that a debate exist as to what it really tells us. When we delve into all of this it is easy to see this is not simple at all and that the GDP can be a master illusion when we look at how it filters down to both society and the Main Street economy. The first comprehensive set of measures of national income was developed by economist Simon Kuznets who in 1934 told the US Congress the formula was problematic, he said.


"The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is contingent upon oversimplification."

In 1962 Kuznets again emphasized that we must keep in mind the difference between quantity and the quality of growth. He made clear a distinction exist between cost and returns, and between the long and the short run. Kuznets went further to specify we needed goals concerning both growth "of what, and for what." Other economists have agreed that GDP is an empty abstraction with a very weak link to the real economy. The framework fails to reflect the difference between real wealth expansion or capital consumption. Kuznets used the example of the government building a pyramid that added nothing to the well-being of individuals, it would be viewed as economic growth, but in reality, divert funding away from real wealth generating activities harms the generation of real wealth.

What is not stated can often be far more important than what is. The number we are spoon fed and await with such glee has little to do with real growth but most likely mirrors or is merely a reflection of monetary pumping. The GDP number fails to highlight a slew of important factors that feed directly into our standard of living and the health of our economy, such as;

* How wealth is distributed and inequality
* Taxation and how it affects both the economy and society
* Non- market transactions like volunteer and off book work
* Underground economy, illegal trade, and many cash transactions.
* Asset value, meaning GDP ignores changes in what things are worth
* The non-monetary part of the economy, bartering of goods and services
* Distinguishing between production that is subsidized and that which is not
* Quality improvements and new products
* What is being produced, bombs or butter and a better-educated populace
* The sustainability of growth or misallocation of either capital or resources
* Cross-border parity and changes in currency value
* External factors such as negative environmental effects or the health of the people

Some countries have even gone as far as to including things like prostitution and other illegal activities in a way to boost GDP and in effect lower their ratio of GDP to government debt. In 2013 in advice to their government the UK's Natural Capital Committee highlighted some of the failures of GDP when they pointed out its focus on flows can allow an economy to run down its assets while recording high levels of GDP growth until a point is reached where this begins to impact future growth. They went on to make it clear the recorded GDP growth rate is prone to overstate the sustainable growth rate. This number as with most numbers once put out there is subject to full blown manipulation and spin. Bottom-line in the words of its creator, "The GDP framework is more or less an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world."

Below is the link to the article from which this was lifted;
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/gdp-number-is-master-illusion.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what we are really seeing is a transfer of wealth from one sector of the economy to another.

and thus the total GDP numbers would accurately reflect total GDP growth. And??????????

But the GDP numbers do not accurately reflect total GDP growth. Gross Domestic Product is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment, and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.Within that definition, it appears those in power have discovered some wiggle room and even before that a debate exist as to what it really tells us. When we delve into all of this it is easy to see this is not simple at all and that the GDP can be a master illusion when we look at how it filters down to both society and the Main Street economy. The first comprehensive set of measures of national income was developed by economist Simon Kuznets who in 1934 told the US Congress the formula was problematic, he said.


"The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is contingent upon oversimplification."

In 1962 Kuznets again emphasized that we must keep in mind the difference between quantity and the quality of growth. He made clear a distinction exist between cost and returns, and between the long and the short run. Kuznets went further to specify we needed goals concerning both growth "of what, and for what." Other economists have agreed that GDP is an empty abstraction with a very weak link to the real economy. The framework fails to reflect the difference between real wealth expansion or capital consumption. Kuznets used the example of the government building a pyramid that added nothing to the well-being of individuals, it would be viewed as economic growth, but in reality, divert funding away from real wealth generating activities harms the generation of real wealth.

What is not stated can often be far more important than what is. The number we are spoon fed and await with such glee has little to do with real growth but most likely mirrors or is merely a reflection of monetary pumping. The GDP number fails to highlight a slew of important factors that feed directly into our standard of living and the health of our economy, such as;

* How wealth is distributed and inequality
* Taxation and how it affects both the economy and society
* Non- market transactions like volunteer and off book work
* Underground economy, illegal trade, and many cash transactions.
* Asset value, meaning GDP ignores changes in what things are worth
* The non-monetary part of the economy, bartering of goods and services
* Distinguishing between production that is subsidized and that which is not
* Quality improvements and new products
* What is being produced, bombs or butter and a better-educated populace
* The sustainability of growth or misallocation of either capital or resources
* Cross-border parity and changes in currency value
* External factors such as negative environmental effects or the health of the people

Some countries have even gone as far as to including things like prostitution and other illegal activities in a way to boost GDP and in effect lower their ratio of GDP to government debt. In 2013 in advice to their government the UK's Natural Capital Committee highlighted some of the failures of GDP when they pointed out its focus on flows can allow an economy to run down its assets while recording high levels of GDP growth until a point is reached where this begins to impact future growth. They went on to make it clear the recorded GDP growth rate is prone to overstate the sustainable growth rate. This number as with most numbers once put out there is subject to full blown manipulation and spin. Bottom-line in the words of its creator, "The GDP framework is more or less an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world."

Below is the link to the article from which this was lifted;
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/gdp-number-is-master-illusion.html

do you have any idea what your point is?? Care to share?