comment #1

Mgmax says ...

Jane Austen references, that'll win them over.

comment #2

Mgmax says ...

I have to say, I question the entire premise behind this line of thinking about the race. Going back to the primaries, Obama has consistently failed to win over the large voting body, not because they're secretly Archie Bunker (no more than latte-swilling. Obama-loving yuppies who are, you'll note, very good at creating neighborhoods without people unlike themselves), not because Did You Know He's a Muslim?, but because he just hasn't made the sale. The things he's for haven't pushed him into the lead, even in a hugely favorable environment for his party. There's a growing sense his party is obstructionist on doing things to relieve the price of gas, he has some giveaway economic ideas which he doesn't seem to be pushing that hard, on foreign policy everyone has long since landed in one camp or the other and I don't expect a lot of movement between them. It's time to knock a few balls into the stands, and he's still warming up.

comment #3

Bilge says ...

All this is pre-labor day navelgazing. Candidates never "make the sale" before the Conventions - not enough people are paying enough attention. I don't know of a single non-incumbent candidate who has, in history. The Conventions -- and, to a lesser extent, the debates -- are when the candidates are supposed to "make the sale."

The only difference this year is that there's a race that's gotten the cognoscenti realy, really excited, and they're impatient for seismic shifts to happen on their clock. But most of the public, even if they've formed some opinions of the candidates, don't really start paying attention until the Conventions.

Obama has built up his expectations tremendously for his Convention speech. Let's hope he doesn't screw it up.

comment #4

Rev. Slappy says ...

A few months ago I was pretty sure Obama would win, now I am having my doubts. McCain is currently running a campaign that is staggering in its ineptitude and the race is still a dead heat. Obama never really responded well when Hillary went 24/7 negative against him and that looks to be the McCain strategy now. That Mile High Stadium convention closer doesn't seem like such a good idea any more.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "There's a growing sense his party is obstructionist on doing things to relieve the price of gas,"

Which party kept fuel-efficient cars off the road for the last 30 years again? Which party lets oil companies rip off consumers without holding them accountable? I agree with you that he needs to make a strike soon, though.

comment #6

EDouglas says ...

Yeah, that's a good way of winning over the undecided to your way of thinking, completely insult them. I would love to see if the McCain-supporting bloggers are nicer and less condescending because heck, that alone might convince me to go that way. Sheesh.

Believe me, I'm not concerned in the slightest with Obama's race, it's his inexperience. It's easy to say that you want to change the world and make everything right, it's harder to prove that you can do it... and he hasn't proven anything to me yet. If he gets my vote, it'll be due to McCain's conservative-leaning viewpoints and for that alone... or I'll just vote for whichever independent shows up on the cards. I haven't decided and I probably won't until October... because I don't have to.

comment #7

C-PhreekII says ...

I'm with Mgmax on this - there's plenty of more than semi-intelligent people who are still iffy on Obama. Oh, sure, they will end up pulling the lever for him because they can't give Bush another 4 years with surrogate McCain and they won't throw their votes away with symbolic support of Barr or Nader.

But, they are still uneasy with his relative lack of a long track record or experience. To vote for Obama is putting a lot of trust that the aura of hope and desire for change will be rewarded based on less than a mountain of evidence. There's probably also the feeling among some that if Obama blows it so soon after the Bill Clinton implosion, it will be decades before the Democrats will be in this position again.

comment #8

Mgmax says ...

"Which party kept fuel-efficient cars off the road for the last 30 years again? Which party lets oil companies rip off consumers without holding them accountable?"

Which party is driving oil prices up by increasing the fear that oil companies will come in for a regulatory whupping soon? Which party is spooking the stock market with talk about taxes and protectionism that could push recession into depression?

comment #9

quitstaringatme says ...

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You gotta come up with some fresh troll bait, Jeff, calling undecided voters fat and stupid is stale.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Edouglas: "Believe me, I'm not concerned in the slightest with Obama's race, it's his inexperience."

What does McCain know about the economy or computers again?

Mgmax: "Which party is driving oil prices up by increasing the fear that oil companies will come in for a regulatory whupping soon?"

Oil prices are increasing as the result of free-market speculation which was deregulated under the Republican Party.

"Which party is spooking the stock market with talk about taxes and protectionism that could push recession into depression?"

That's funny, since taxes never seemed to hurt Clinton's economy. As for 'protectionism', they just want to make sure that Jeff's cats don't die from the food he buys.

comment #11

Mgmax says ...

"Oil prices are increasing as the result of free-market speculation which was deregulated under the Republican Party."

Let's fix the price below cost, then. Supply will skyrocket!

comment #12

C-PhreekII says ...

D.Z.'s lesson for the day: please find a dictionary in order to educate yourself on the difference between knowledge and experience.

comment #13

Walter Sobchak says ...

Shut up, Mgmax! You should be banned for your stupid posts on here being all stupid and ignorant and stupid. Just shut up!

"Let's fix the price below cost, then. Supply will skyrocket!"

Yeah? Well Bush's grandfather painted swastikas on the Hindenburg, ran against Jesse Owens in the 1936 Olympics and help annex the Sudetenland.

http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/63/62689/ky-chms-ant-lrg.jpg

comment #14

shanana says ...

PRIDE - "The things he's for haven't pushed him into the lead, even in a hugely favorable environment for his party."

He is in the lead. Check your poll data.

PREJUDICE - "Jane Austen references, that'll win them over."

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

8 years ago America embraced a man who had very little track record, no foreign experience, a checkered past - and the masses twice elected the Greatest President of All Time.

In my recent semi-talks with "the average voter" I can assure that Obama will not easily sway those kind of folks. I was chatting with a sweet grandmother who let out a blast of " Can you imagine his kind of person living in the White House?"

When I mentioned John McCain's journey into Looney Land with his promise to end world Hunger in 4 years, she kept harping on the "he's a hero and has the kind of wife who knows how to take care of the White House."

comment #16

rockne says ...

God, you gotta love conservatives in that way you look at your cat when it misses the litter box.

MgMax already blaming Democrats for the price of gas?!
Because Democrats are being obstructionist? What's next, Dems get blamed for an ongoing war that won't end, a deficit that will hit a gazillion dollars before Bush leaves and a jobless rate that is the highest in twenty years, was it? I don't know, it doesn't matter.
Republican ineptitude and corruption has gotten this country into the state it's in and their response to that?
Blame Democrats!
And you know why conservatives can get away with the ridiculous statements that they do...
Because the toothless, no-backbone democrats don't do the obvious thing and give it right back to them, with all the ammo they've collected.
The group most screaming to be marginalized has marginalized Democrats by sheer force of will.
The school bully has won, and he's driven this country into submission.
Just give it to McCain...I want to see those who support the conservatives the most continue to get hurt the most, just because that's the only payback there is anymore.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Let's fix the price below cost, then. Supply will skyrocket!"

Works for Mexico and Venezuela. But the supply issues really are because we've finally reached the "peak oil" stage, which, like global warming, Republicans don't want to admit is real.

C-Phreekl: Well, McCain's had decades of experience needed to obtain the knowledge needed to understand economic and technology matters, but he clearly still comes off like a neophyte with those newfangled figures and thingamajigs.

rockne: The problem is they're masochists, which is why they can never feel the pain they inflict on the rest of us.

comment #18

Mgmax says ...

Just to put all of Rockne's rant in perspective:

a jobless rate that is the highest in twenty years

Wrong. It took the "biggest jump" in 20 years, month to month. That's the sort of pseudo-stat newspapers find very meaningful... during Republican administrations.

It is in fact LOWER than the entire period from August 1990 to April 1995 (that would be Clinton's entire first term), as well as most of 2002 and 2003. Indeed, the only time it's significantly higher than in the last 20 years is the Bush boom of 2006-7.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE/downloaddata

comment #19

Mgmax says ...

"Works for Mexico and Venezuela."

Have you ever been to Mexico, D.Z.?

Lovely country, but "works" is not the first word that comes to mind, government/public infrastructure-wise.

Nevertheless, I suppose if we were drilling as aggressively as those two countries, it might "work" for us too.

comment #20

shanana says ...

"It is in fact LOWER than the entire period from August 1990 to April 1995 (that would be Clinton's entire first term), as well as most of 2002 and 2003."

I thought Clinton took office in mid January of 1993, unless you have more factual facts than my media biased facts.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

D'oh! Yikes, how silly. Okay, that would be... a LOT of Clinton's first term!

comment #22

George Prager says ...

CUTTER'S WAY is one of the best movies of the `80s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbfTLmp3D80

The book is even better. Someone should get some bread together and make a new movie that is more faithful to the book. It would be awesome.

comment #23

shanana says ...

"Have you ever been to Mexico, D.Z.?
Lovely country, but "works" is not the first word that comes to mind, government/public infrastructure-wise."

Completely missing the point as usual. I believe D.Z. was trying to point out that those two countries aren't crying about their energy costs right now.

This is your cue to respond, "Yeah because they're too busy crying about...." comment which will inevitably come, yet will not refute what D.Z. is saying.

comment #24

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

Of course, none of these "slow kids" would include black voters who cast their ballots for Obama simply because of his race, right?

comment #25

Walter Sobchak says ...

"This is your cue to respond, "Yeah because they're too busy crying about...." comment which will inevitably come, yet will not refute what D.Z. is saying."

Okay, Shanana. Like D.Z. is so brilliant at point by point responses.

Poster A: Casualties in Iraq are way down.

D.Z.: Prescott Bush co-wrote 'Mien Kampf'.

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

Yeah, because they're too busy crying about...

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/02/business/LA-FIN-Venezuela-Inflation.php

Tell me exactly why this doesn't refute D.Z.'s point?

comment #27

shanana says ...

"D'oh! Yikes, how silly. Okay, that would be... a LOT of Clinton's first term!"

Actually, it would be approximately half of his first term, which means Clinton only kept those month to month numbers from jumping way up for the last 5 3/4 years of his presidency. I know, math is frightening, but overlooking the fact that the rate began to jump during George H W Bush's presidency is just plain disingenuous and misleading.

comment #28

SaveFarris says ...

""Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president?"

Obama's biggest problem is his supporters asking questions like that. "Back Obama or you're an unyielding racist" isn't the vote-winner you seem to think it is.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Wrong. It took the "biggest jump" in 20 years, month to month. That's the sort of pseudo-stat newspapers find very meaningful... during Republican administrations."

Given that your data goes back to another Republican administration, it's no wonder they're so 'negative'.
"Have you ever been to Mexico, D.Z.? Lovely country, but "works" is not the first word that comes to mind, government/public infrastructure-wise."

No one who goes over the border from the U.S. for their cheaper meds seems to complain...

"Yeah, because they're too busy crying about...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/02/business/LA-FIN-Venezuela-Inflation.php
"

Yes, and inflation here is at least double that; and we're at risk of heading into a Mugabe variation of it, to boot. So what's your point?

Manhattan: How many repressed heteros voted for Bush because they didn't want gay marriage and thought Clinton's affairs mattered more than his economic policies?

Walter: Actually, my response to casualties being down is, "Of course. It's kind of tough for an oppressed people to re-group against us when we've already killed over a million of them."

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

shanana: "Actually, it would be approximately half of his first term, which means Clinton only kept those month to month numbers from jumping way up for the last 5 3/4 years of his presidency."

So that means that he managed to improve the economy by the end of both terms.

"I know, math is frightening, but overlooking the fact that the rate began to jump during George H W Bush's presidency is just plain disingenuous and misleading."

Yes, it started with Reagan and continued with Bush I.

comment #31

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

D.Z.: Not saying these "slow kids" don't vote for Republicans, just pointing out that they're only considered as such when they do. No one voting for Obama for superficial reasons ever has their intellectual credentials called into question.

comment #32

Walter Sobchak says ...

"Walter: Actually, my response to casualties being down is, "Of course. It's kind of tough for an oppressed people to re-group against us when we've already killed over a million of them.""

Wow.

Just........wow.

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

Manhattan: I imagine the reason no one is considered an idiot, when voting for Obama, is because they know a guy who heartily declares support for 50 years of occupation is probably not very good with his history lessons-given that he's ignored the very reasons he chose not to stay in Lebanon and Somalia.

comment #34

Mgmax says ...

"Actually, it would be approximately half of his first term"

By my count it's 39 of the 48 months of his first term, which is a LOT more than half (try 80%). Oh, and "jumping way up" is greatly overstating the reality. Unemployment has been in a relatively narrow range between 4 and 6% for the last 14+ years, never rising anywhere near the 8s to 10s that it soared to in both the 70s and 80s. If you're under 35, the worst you've seen in your adult life would have been considered an improvement in the mid-70s.

And if I was trying to hide Bush I's recession, why did I mention the bad stats in 2002 and 2003? In any case, I'm certainly happy to give Clinton credit for solidly centrist economic policies, such as welfare reform.

comment #35

Mgmax says ...

"Given that your data goes back to another Republican administration, it's no wonder they're so 'negative'. "

Actually, most data of any sort over the last 40 years goes back to another Republican administration, by definition.

A fact overconfident Obama supporters might want to contemplate.

comment #36

John Cocktosten says ...

I'm going to vote for Obama, but I can't help but think Hillary would be just running roughshod over McCain by now. Just truly stomping him. She would not be acting impulsively and becoming arrogant either.

And she did not vote for telco immunity.

comment #37

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

D.Z.: Maybe so, but nothing you're saying is even answering to the issue that voting for superficial reasons and prejudices is only a negative if it's on the other side, while the many who count themselves among Obama's supporters haven't a clue about his OR McCain's policy proposals, just that he's a charismatic speaker who's the first black nominee.

comment #38

BNick says ...

D.Z.: "Yes, and inflation here is at least double that; and we're at risk of heading into a Mugabe variation of it, to boot. So what's your point?"

The inflation figure given for Venezuela in the article was 22% annually. So inflation in the U.S. is "at least" 44% annually? No, try 5 to 6 percent as of the latest data reading. Relatively high for the U.S., yes, but not high compared to "Mugabe"-style inflation, which has reached in the millions of percent annually. Zimbabwe literally can't afford to pay for the paper they print the money on, so China is giving it to them for free (just to muck things up).

This inflation has everything to do with Venezuela's subsidizing of oil prices, and their nationalizing of industry in general. It's easy for the government to promise jobs for everyone, low gas prices for everyone and generally great welfare for everyone, as long as it doesn't care about how much money it's printing. 22% inflation is a direct result of irresponsible fiscal and monetary policy. We are seeing the same thing for other countries, including China, who try to give their people artificially cheap commodity prices.

comment #39

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

My previous post should have simply said "many", not "the many".

comment #40

George Prager says ...

John McCain's computer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJIdz3V8xGQ

comment #41

George Prager says ...

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

My previous post should have simply said "darkie", not "the darkie".

comment #42

C-PhreekII says ...

I hate that Jon Stewart already used this this week (and I've been hearing it said for years), but when it comes to trying to label Obama as "arrogant" it simply begs this bit of rhetoric:

Arrogant?

The dude is running for the most powerful, important and observed position on the planet.

Who the fuck ISN'T arrogant to think Yeah, I'll be the leader of the Free World."

Or put another way, it's only arrogant when it isn't your guy.

comment #43

shanana says ...

"Tell me exactly why this doesn't refute D.Z.'s point?"

D.Z. was saying high prices at the pump were due to unregulated speculation in the market. You inferred that prices would be fixed under cost and that would effect oil supply. D.Z. responded that oil price regulation in Mexico and Venezuela seems to work. You said Mexico's government/infrastructure does not work. I pointed out that D.Z. was not talking about the entire government of Mexico, but the regulation of oil prices in both countries. Then you linked an article which discusses the rampant inflation due to the funneling of oil profits from seized oil fields by Hugo Chavez into socialist programs which is awful, but off point.

D.Z. is not talking about the price of eggs and tobacco in Venezuela. He is specifically talking about oil price regulation in both countries and how it has worked both of them. Now, both country has tons of shit wrong with them, but that is not the argument.

In regards to your math, January 2003 to April of 2005 is not 39 months. Clinton took office in mid-January of 2003, there are twelve months in a year, January of 2005 is two years= 24 months + February, March, all of April until May, 4 months,that is 28 months, and that is me giving you all of January even though he didn't take office until mid-January. Therefore, it would make it 28 out of 48 months of his first term.

P.S. John Cocktosten is my favorite line from "Fletch."

comment #44

va says ...

The reason why Obama will not win is this --- the educated, smart, white collars, and all of the voters 18-30 just will not get off their collective asses in November and vote! Just like they didn't for Kerry in 2004.

comment #45

moviemaniac2002 says ...

.....and if you thought the McCain Britney-Paris
ad was imbecilic and insulting....wait'll we get
closer to the election. By Autumn, we'll have
McCain ads that feature Bin Laden sneaking into your children's bedroom, an AK-47 in one hand, a
scimitar in the other, with the tagline .."Is this what you want happening in the next four years?"

And sadly...the "undecided Babbitt yahoo"
demographic will sit up and take notice.

comment #46

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

George Prager: I'm black you dumbass, so don't even pull that shit with me. That shouldn't be relevant, but let the record show that you went there, and now you should feel like a fool for accusing a black person's posts of racism against the black candidate.

comment #47

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

And Prager, your comment epitomizes the issue at hand: Anyone who is reluctant to cast their ballot for Obama is inherently a racist and fearful of "the darkie", yet a level-headed questioning of whether some voters prefer Obama simply BECAUSE he is black is not permitted. Not even---as in my personal case---by a black voter.

comment #48

Mgmax says ...

"Who the fuck ISN'T arrogant to think Yeah, I'll be the leader of the Free World.""

Well, yeah, but as the old saying goes-- "Sincerity, if you can fake that, you've got it made."

comment #49

Mgmax says ...

Okay, so I'm the slow kid in math today and can't count a presidential term for shit. Anyway, fact remains, 5.7% is nowhere near the high of the last 20 years* or even the high of Bush's presidency.

* The high of the last 20 years, here's something I can get right today, was 7.8% in June of '92, under Bush I.

comment #50

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Unemployment has been in a relatively narrow range between 4 and 6% for the last 14+ years, never rising anywhere near the 8s to 10s that it soared to in both the 70s and 80s."

Yes, but the only type of general employment available right now, compared to then, is the low-wage and short-term variety.

"If you're under 35, the worst you've seen in your adult life would have been considered an improvement in the mid-70s."

If you ignore the fact that, inflation-wise, you earned more in the mid-70s than you do now, sure.

"In any case, I'm certainly happy to give Clinton credit for solidly centrist economic policies, such as welfare reform."

That's not a centrist policy; that's a screw-the-poor-and-and-subsidize-the-rich policy.

"Actually, most data of any sort over the last 40 years goes back to another Republican administration, by definition. A fact overconfident Obama supporters might want to contemplate."

You technically mean 50 years. And that administration reaped the rewards of FDR's lefty policies.

Manhattan: "Maybe so, but nothing you're saying is even answering to the issue that voting for superficial reasons and prejudices is only a negative if it's on the other side, while the many who count themselves among Obama's supporters haven't a clue about his OR McCain's policy proposals, just that he's a charismatic speaker who's the first black nominee."

I think they're aware he wants to end the war, which is good enough for them...

"And Prager, your comment epitomizes the issue at hand: Anyone who is reluctant to cast their ballot for Obama is inherently a racist and fearful of "the darkie", yet a level-headed questioning of whether some voters prefer Obama simply BECAUSE he is black is not permitted."

It's permitted. It's just that, if it was solely because he was black, then Jackson and Chisholm would be in his place right now, too.

BNICK: "The inflation figure given for Venezuela in the article was 22% annually. So inflation in the U.S. is "at least" 44% annually? No, try 5 to 6 percent as of the latest data reading."

Sorry, I didn't phrase that correctly. I meant double since he stole the Presidency. Though if you count the decline of the dollar with energy costs, I imagine I'm closer to that annual ballpark. I'm not sure which period your data reading cites.

"Relatively high for the U.S., yes, but not high compared to "Mugabe"-style inflation, which has reached in the millions of percent annually. Zimbabwe literally can't afford to pay for the paper they print the money on, so China is giving it to them for free (just to muck things up)."

And what do you think they've been doing for us?

"This inflation has everything to do with Venezuela's subsidizing of oil prices, and their nationalizing of industry in general. It's easy for the government to promise jobs for everyone, low gas prices for everyone and generally great welfare for everyone, as long as it doesn't care about how much money it's printing. 22% inflation is a direct result of irresponsible fiscal and monetary policy. We are seeing the same thing for other countries, including China, who try to give their people artificially cheap commodity prices."

That's weird, because last time I checked, China's in better economic shape than us.

shanana: Thanks for defending me, but I think you meant '93 and '95.

va: Don't worry. They didn't vote for Kerry, because they still had jobs.

comment #51

BNick says ...

"I meant double since he stole the Presidency. Though if you count the decline of the dollar with energy costs, I imagine I'm closer to that annual ballpark. I'm not sure which period your data reading cites."

I'm looking at the most recent annual figure for CPI inflation published by the BLS. If you count energy costs and increased costs of imports due to the weaker dollar, CPI inflation has been 5.5% over the past 12 months, versus somewhere around 1 to 2% in the year 2001. Core inflation (ex Food & Energy) is actually slightly lower now than it was in 2001. Food and energy prices are quite volatile, and this time next year, assuming oil prices continue their decline, CPI may actually be close to zero.

Certainly, high energy prices and the weak dollar lead to higher inflation, but unlike Zimbabwe and China, the U.S. is not pursuing high rates of inflation as a matter of policy. China keeps its currency artificially weak to help exporters, and Zimbabwe....well I'm not sure what they're doing.

"And what do you think they've been doing for us?"

That's actually pretty funny. You're right that China buys U.S. debt by the ton each year, and that's certainly something to worry about. But Zimbabwe is a much different case. China and the U.S. both benefit (at least in the short-term) from China's purchasing of Treasury debt. No one benefits from China enabling the Mugabe regime.

"That's weird, because last time I checked, China's in better economic shape than us."

Check again. This time ask the people who tried to protest when China raised the price of gasoline a few weeks ago. That's "tried" to protest.

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

BNick: "If you count energy costs and increased costs of imports due to the weaker dollar, CPI inflation has been 5.5% over the past 12 months, versus somewhere around 1 to 2% in the year 2001. Core inflation (ex Food & Energy) is actually slightly lower now than it was in 2001."

I'm not sure how that's possible, considering oil and grain prices are higher than they were in 2001.

"Food and energy prices are quite volatile, and this time next year, assuming oil prices continue their decline, CPI may actually be close to zero."

The only way there can be zero inflation is if they decline to 2001 levels.

"Certainly, high energy prices and the weak dollar lead to higher inflation, but unlike Zimbabwe and China, the U.S. is not pursuing high rates of inflation as a matter of policy."

You're kidding, right? If it weren't for inflation, they wouldn't have any reason to drill oil or try to dump GMOs and other assorted chemicals into our food supply.

"China and the U.S. both benefit (at least in the short-term) from China's purchasing of Treasury debt. No one benefits from China enabling the Mugabe regime."

China benefits from the weapons sales.

"Check again. This time ask the people who tried to protest when China raised the price of gasoline a few weeks ago. That's "tried" to protest."

There's a big gap between the rich and the poor over there, but, as a whole, their country is financially solvent.

comment #53

BNick says ...

Just to address your points on inflation, inflation is the rate of change of prices. So for inflation to be negative over the next 12 months, all that has to happen is for prices to fall from where they are right now. 2001 has nothing to do with it.

Certainly prices are higher now than they were a few years ago, because inflation is nearly always positive. Think about it. Inflation is much lower now than it was in the late 1970s, but everything costs more today than it did then. It's the rate of increase, not the level of prices that matters more to policymakers. A little inflation is good. Deflation is a disaster for an economy. Just ask Japan.

comment #54

supertaster says ...

""Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president?"

HOw about, will America elect the first black president becuase of its prejudice? i.e. are there people voting for Barack to prove to themselves and others that they're not prejudiced? Not Wells, of course...he may hate women, Latinos, Italians, poor and middle-class whites, but I don't recall him saying anything bad about blacks, or those of mixed-ethnicity.

comment #55

D.Z. says ...

BNick: ". So for inflation to be negative over the next 12 months, all that has to happen is for prices to fall from where they are right now. "

There's more to it than prices falling. They have to decline to levels in which they become affordable, relative to the standard of living.

"Inflation is much lower now than it was in the late 1970s"

That's not true. Oil is much higher in price than it was in the 70s, adjusted for inflation.

"but everything costs more today than it did then. It's the rate of increase, not the level of prices that matters more to policymakers."

And the rate of increase is gotten to the point where it can be called inflation.

"A little inflation is good. Deflation is a disaster for an economy. Just ask Japan."

Yeah, an economy in which the professional jobs are out-sourced in favor of menial ones is the way to go.

comment #56

BNick says ...

"'Inflation is much lower now than it was in the late 1970s"

That's not true. Oil is much higher in price than it was in the 70s, adjusted for inflation.'"

You're still not getting it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being deliberately obtuse. Inflation is the rate of change in prices. Inflation was higher in the 1970s than it is today. Prices were increasing by 12% - 15% per year, versus only around 5% to 6% today. So yes, prices are higher today than they were in the past, but they're not increasing as quickly, believe it or not.

And any price increase is called inflation. It doesn't have to meet a threshold.

comment #57

D.Z. says ...

"Inflation is the rate of change in prices. Inflation was higher in the 1970s than it is today. Prices were increasing by 12% - 15% per year, versus only around 5% to 6% today. So yes, prices are higher today than they were in the past, but they're not increasing as quickly, believe it or not."

Well, that's only because we're one step away from the next disaster which incapacitates our resources and, consequently, our market value. In terms of standard of living, though, it's a lot worse now to keep up with inflation than it was in the 70s.

comment #58

Mgmax says ...

"In terms of standard of living, though, it's a lot worse now to keep up with inflation than it was in the 70s."

I totally agree. Back then, it was fine to eat Hamburger Helper and drink store brand pop. But now I have to have my soy latte, I need the new iPhone because everyone else has one, and have you seen what the Gap is charging this season? It's the great depression all over again!

comment #59

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I totally agree. Back then, it was fine to eat Hamburger Helper and drink store brand pop. But now I have to have my soy latte, I need the new iPhone because everyone else has one, and have you seen what the Gap is charging this season? It's the great depression all over again!"

Try paying for health insurance, rent, and utility bills on less than $25 k a year.

comment #60

BNick says ...

You know, Mgmax, I've often thought of trying to teach economics as a second career, but given my experience tonight I think I'd be too scared to walk into class and see 25 D.Z.'s staring up at me.

comment #61

D.Z. says ...

Unity Marketing, a Stevens, Pa.-based firm whose clients include retailers in the more than $322 billion U.S. luxury goods market, said its latest poll of affluent people nationwide found a 20 percent decline in spending on luxury goods in this year's second quarter, and the lowest luxury consumer confidence level in the nearly five years the survey has been conducted.

Just over half of the 1,024 respondents earning an average income of $204,800 predicted they would spend less on luxury in the coming 12 months than they did a year ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_re_us/wealthy_spending

comment #62

George Prager says ...

I love it when threads like this get a bad case of D.Z. Diarrhea.

comment #63

George Prager says ...

TakeMeBacktoManhattan: You're much too sensitive for this website.

comment #64

Mgmax says ...

"Try paying for health insurance, rent, and utility bills on less than $25 k a year."

What makes you think I haven't?

comment #65

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

Prager: Thanks for your concern, but I'm a daily reader of this website and have been since the reel.com days, and I usually read without comment. It isn't a mark of oversensitivity to react with incredulity when you accuse my post of racism. I wasn't offended, merely grateful for the opportunity to point out the foolishness of the accusation considering, you know, I'm black. Then again, I suppose the liberal blogosphere has more knowledge of the evils of racism than someone like myself.

comment #66

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: But did you do it in this economy?

comment #67

Mgmax says ...

No, the worse one of the early 80s.

comment #68

George Prager says ...

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

Of course, none of these "slow kids" would include black voters who cast their ballots for Obama simply because of his race, right?

You're right. Only a black man could write this post. It must be the use of the words "would" and "who". Very ghetto.

comment #69

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Of course, the irony of the early 80s economy is that the dollar was worth more then it is today.

comment #70

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery

comment #71

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery