If Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are in play, we are in trouble.

This will date me but yes I am Dan Rowan. If you don’t know that reference I’ve got some years on you.
Didn't Artie Johnson used to play the part of the little pervert at the park bench on that show? Pretty sure if I remember right. I also used to kinda like " Love American style" back then.
 
Didn't Artie Johnson used to play the part of the little pervert at the park bench on that show? Pretty sure if I remember right. I also used to kinda like " Love American style" back then.
He also played the smoking German soldier. That was an amazing cast. Happy Days originated on Love American Style.
 
He also played the smoking German soldier. That was an amazing cast. Happy Days originated on Love American Style.
Yep! In the first few episodes of Happy Days Fonzi didn't wear a leather jacket either. He wore a thin light grey windbreaker.
 
Sure. When do you figure you'll tip your king? Three posts? Two?

Let’s do it. Tell me how drill baby drill addresses inflation. What should the target inflation rate be? How does Trump intend to get there. Baseline: Government methodology does not change from one administration to the next. Inflation is currently at 2.4 p% year over year. Go.
 
O.K,....Im out for awhile. I gotta go polish up my jack boots and sidearm! Election is right around the corner and Im gonna need that stuff for the big victory parade! You kids have fun.....
 
Yep! In the first few episodes of Happy Days Fonzi didn't wear a leather jacket either. He wore a thin light grey windbreaker.

He was a bit player. And he went from that to jumping the shark. Winkler made a great career playing against his typecast. Interesting guy.
 
Didn't Artie Johnson used to play the part of the little pervert at the park bench on that show? Pretty sure if I remember right. I also used to kinda like " Love American style" back then.
He also played the German soldier and the tricycle driver, but the pervert was the best bit he did.
 
Recent polling shows that the above three states are basically in a dead heat, Unless she can pull North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia, Harris needs all three of those states to win.

Currently it looks like her campaign is in some trouble, but there is still a lot of time between now and election day.
There really isn't. Folks have already begun voting.
 
Let’s do it.
Sure, as long as you don't pivot.

What should the target inflation rate be?
This is a "should'a-would'a-could'a", i.e. a subjective matter based in the subjunctive. It depends entirely on your goals. It's like asking how much gold someone should hold in his portfolio.

What are we trying to achieve?

Tell me how drill baby drill addresses inflation.
You have to answer the preceding question first. Dropping the price of hydrocarbons goes a long way to reducing inflation. Beyond that, I don't know what your presumed objectives are.

How does Trump intend to get there.
I'm not a mind reader and I haven't discussed the matter with his advisors.
 
Winkler made a great career playing against his typecast. Interesting guy.
Winkler was/is an outstanding actor. Don't forget how he made the otherwise mediocre Law & Order SVU "Greed" a pretty awesome episode.

e75737b0399af4943f5d2c662d824d8a1c4a8d25_b-w-970.jpg.jpg
 
Winkler was/is an outstanding actor. Don't forget how he made the otherwise mediocre Law & Order SVU "Greed" a pretty awesome episode.

e75737b0399af4943f5d2c662d824d8a1c4a8d25_b-w-970.jpg.jpg

I’m asking YOU what you think our target inflation rate should be. If the goal is, let’s say 4% real GDP growth and under 5% unemployment. U-3. As a Trump supporter I want you to defend your candidate’s position on controlling inflation, which is ‘drill baby, drill. What does that mean with respect to inflation. This is not new to you he says it every day.?
 
I’m asking YOU what you think our target inflation rate should be.
You used the word "should." If you are going to use that word then you need an objective as what the target should be to meet that objective.

As a Trump supporter I want you to defend your candidate’s position on controlling inflation, which is ‘drill baby, drill.
Fine. This is an economy measure, but drilling baby drilling will result in drastically lower fuel prices, which will, in turn, lower the costs of everything else. Lowering the prices of everything drops the bottom out of inflation.
 
You used the word "should." If you are going to use that word then you need an objective as what the target should be to meet that objective.


Fine. This is an economy measure, but drilling baby drilling will result in drastically lower fuel prices, which will, in turn, lower the costs of everything else. Lowering the prices of everything drops the bottom out of inflation.

Drastically is not in the least bit objective. Try to be more precise please. Oil is at around 70 dollars a barrel. It was 62 when Trump left office in the middle of a pandemic. A study showed that the secondary impact of oil going to 100 dollars a barrel would cause less than a two percent rise in prices, and that impact would only be short term. So it seems to me there are two problems with your statement. One, last year the US produced more oil than any other country has produced in the history of the world, so there is no way he can drill more oil to even have a minor impact on prices, and two, even if he COULD drill way more oil, it would have almost no impact on the price of oil, or the price of other products. If you have a study to show otherwise, please feel free to post it and we can discuss.

If inflation is at 2.4%, what does 'drop the bottom out of inflation' mean. Try to use terms that are objective and measurable if you want a serious discussion. As for your first point, there is consensus among economists that the appropriate target is two percent. I have no reason to question that. Do you? If so, why?
 
Drastically is not in the least bit objective.
Feel free to replace the word "objective" with "goal."

A study showed
Nope. Screw "studies." Who funded that study, by the way?

So it seems to me there are two problems with your statement.
Your issues are based on a "study" which is less valid than even hearsay. Bring a study I can cross-examine.

I have a novel idea. Explain, using economics, why you have problems with lowering the price of oil.

One, last year the US produced more oil than any other country has produced in the history of the world
Big F'ing deal. Trump increased the production which lowered the prices. Gasoline fell below $2.00/gallon because of Trump. The Biden/Harris Administration kept the production growth but imposed a "social cost of carbon," cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline and imposed a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters, all of which were unnecessary, damaging and caused gasoline prices to surge close to $4.00.

, so there is no way he can drill more oil to even have a minor impact on prices,
Watch and see.

and two, even if he COULD drill way more oil, it would have almost no impact on the price of oil, or the price of other products.
Watch and see.

If inflation is at 2.4%, what does 'drop the bottom out of inflation' mean.
Expect it to fall to 1.4% or lower.

Try to use terms that are objective and measurable if you want a serious discussion.
... or I could try someone who is willing to have a serious discussion.

As for your first point, there is consensus among economists that the appropriate target is two percent.
There is no such consensus among the world's economists and you don't get to speak for all of the world's economists. In fact, you only get to speak for yourself.

I have no reason to question that. Do you? If so, why?
You should always question any opinion that is devoid of all the supporting economics on which the opinion is supposedly based. Why didn't you discuss the economics of the matter rather than the opinions of some individuals?
 
Feel free to replace the word "objective" with "goal."


Nope. Screw "studies." Who funded that study, by the way?


Your issues are based on a "study" which is less valid than even hearsay. Bring a study I can cross-examine.

I have a novel idea. Explain, using economics, why you have problems with lowering the price of oil.


Big F'ing deal. Trump increased the production which lowered the prices. Gasoline fell below $2.00/gallon because of Trump. The Biden/Harris Administration kept the production growth but imposed a "social cost of carbon," cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline and imposed a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters, all of which were unnecessary, damaging and caused gasoline prices to surge close to $4.00.


Watch and see.


Watch and see.


Expect it to fall to 1.4% or lower.


... or I could try someone who is willing to have a serious discussion.


There is no such consensus among the world's economists and you don't get to speak for all of the world's economists. In fact, you only get to speak for yourself.


You should always question any opinion that is devoid of all the supporting economics on which the opinion is supposedly based. Why didn't you discuss the economics of the matter rather than the opinions of some individuals?
The target inflation number of the Fed is 2.0%. That is a datapoint, not an opinion. What factors will lower the number to 1.45%, and why would we want it to be that low. Do you believe that the current GDP growth rate is too low? Why should that be the target. Our economy currently has extremely low unemployment, solid GDP growth, and wages have outpaced inflation for the last year and a half. It seems to me this is a very strong economy. What are you willing to sacrifice in terms of slowed growth in order to achieve that number?

Your lack of specificity, your tendency for hyperbole and your partisan approach to economics indicates to me that you're a lightweight. Be glad there is no judge keeping score. Continue.
 
The target inflation number of the Fed is 2.0%.
Perhaps, for now.

That is a datapoint, not an opinion.
It's an opinion, of the Fed. The data points are the actuals as measured.

What factors will lower the number to 1.45%,
I just went over them with you.

and why would we want it to be that low.
... because we want lower prices on everything.

Do you believe that the current GDP growth rate is too low?
The wording I prefer to use is that I believe Trump can get us GDP above 3.6% and I definitely want to give him the opportunity to break 4%.

Your lack of specificity,
Quit your whining. I've been very concrete.

your tendency for hyperbole and your partisan approach
Which party would I be supporting?

Be glad there is no judge keeping score.
... because I'd be stuck in the winner's bracket all weekend, and I've got things to do.
 
Back
Top