Post by: Paddy on January 16, 2008, 04:45:29 PM
Consumer prices rose by 4.1 percent for all of 2007, up sharply from a 2.5 percent increase in 2006, with consumers especially feeling the pain when they filled up their gas tanks or shopped for groceries. Prices for both energy and food shot up by the largest amount since 1990.
For December, the Consumer Price Index rose by 0.3 percent, down from 0.8 percent in November, as food costs were flat for the month and energy prices rose by 0.9 percent after an even bigger 5.7 percent jump in November.
Outside of food and energy, inflation rose a more moderate 0.2 percent in December. This measure of core inflation rose by 2.4 percent for all of 2007, down slightly from a 2.6 percent increase in 2006.
The Federal Reserve is closely watching to see whether the jump in food and energy becomes more widespread and starts pushing core inflation higher.
Analysts said that with core prices generally remaining well-behaved, it will give the central bank the leeway to cut interest rates further to battle a serious economic slowdown triggered by a steep slump in housing and a spreading credit crisis.
The expectation is that the Fed will cut a key rate by a half-point when officials meet at the end of this week. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke raised hopes for further rate cuts in a speech last week when he said that economic risks had grown significantly in recent weeks.
The rising risk of a recession has prompted politicians to consider stimulus packages to give the economy a jump-start to either prevent a recession or at least mitigate its fallout. President Bush has said he may unveil a plan around his Jan. 28 State of the Union address. Democrats in Congress and presidential candidates in both parties are putting forward their own plans.
The CPI report showed that the 4.1 percent increase in overall prices was the biggest since a 6.1 percent jump in prices in 1990.
Energy costs rose by 17.4 percent this past year while food costs rose by 4.9 percent. Both were the biggest increases since 1990. Gasoline prices were up 29.6 percent, the biggest increase since they soared by 30.1 percent in 1999.
The 2.2 percent rise in prices outside of food and energy was the smallest since a 2.2 percent rise in 2005.
Clothing costs and the price of new cars actually fell for the year, both dropping by 0.3 percent, while airline fares, reflecting higher fuel costs, were up 10.6 percent and medical care, always one of the leading areas of price increases, rose by 5.2 percent for 2007.
Workers' wages failed to keep up with the higher inflation. Average weekly earnings, after adjusting for inflation, dropped by 0.9 percent in 2007, the biggest setback since a 1.5 percent fall in 2005.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U70M9G0&show_article=1
So what are we doing about it? George is over there begging the Saudis to increase production.
Pathetic.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 16, 2008, 05:15:57 PM
Despite popular misconceptions, there are some very powerful disinflationary pressures at work worldwide. Combine those with the sudden bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting defensiveness of the lending industry, and there is serious risk of deflation. Bernanke is erring on the safe side, as he should.
Post by: French G. on January 16, 2008, 06:56:29 PM
So what are we doing about it? George is over there begging the Saudis to increase production.
Pathetic.
AHHHHH, it's all bushco's fault! Your question is about word for word what Hillary said today. Shrub couldn't possibly be doing anything else over there, he is begging for oil that's it!
There is zero chance that the Fed has cooked the book on inflation for years and the proverbial chicken is coming home to the roost of the Alan "Fastest printing press in the West" Greenspan legacy.
To be fair I get itchy every time a politician says "stimulus package" but all the candidates say the same thing. People need to realize that a president has little to no impact on inflation, the best thing a government can do is not erect a bunch of stupid tax hurdles, have a real currency(we fail), and let the financial markets stand on their own rather than have the Fed twist monetary policy and the larger economy to suit the markets.
Post by: Ben on January 16, 2008, 07:12:58 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 16, 2008, 07:43:02 PM
Despite popular misconceptions, there are some very powerful disinflationary pressures at work worldwide. Combine those with the sudden bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting defensiveness of the lending industry, and there is serious risk of deflation. Bernanke is erring on the safe side, as he should.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 16, 2008, 07:49:01 PM
Might want to look at some extraneous factors for those two items. One example would be States and Congress over the last 30 years refusing to allow refinery construction, drilling in Alaska, and drilling offshore. It's finally coming back to bite us in the *expletive deleted*ss. Another would be a big increase in corn production for ethanol. That cascades through the "food chain" so to speak, and drives the prices of lots of different food up. Land that was growing corn for food is now growing it for fuel, and land that was once growing other stuff has transitioned to growing corn for fuel. Generally all comes back to supply and demand.
That's a boring explanation. You aren't blaming hated politicians. You aren't buying into the conspiracy theories we like so much. There's no scapegoat, no politician for us to deride, no way for us to Monday-morning-quarterback the professionals who understand far more about economics than we do. Your explanation is too simple, too sensible, too innocent. Your explanation doesn't make us feel good.
Post by: wooderson on January 16, 2008, 08:54:15 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 17, 2008, 02:28:27 AM
Despite popular misconceptions, there are some very powerful disinflationary pressures at work worldwide. Combine those with the sudden bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting defensiveness of the lending industry, and there is serious risk of deflation. Bernanke is erring on the safe side, as he should.
Quote
Right now, it looks as though high oil and metals prices are all that's propping prices up. Yet those commodity prices have as much to do with speculation in the futures markets as they do any real increase in cost. I'm hearing more and more average people, people who don't really understand or follow the markets, talk about commodity futures as if they easy risk-free investments with guaranteed high returns. That sort of sentiment among the general population is one of the first indications that a bubble is forming. Given the highly leveraged nature of most of those investments, a panic sell situation is creepily plausible. That could severely exacerbate disinflationary problems.
Back in the late '80s Japan experienced the synergistic effects of cheap foreign goods, lower manufacturing wages, a real estate bust, and a lending industry that was scared to lend. (Sound familiar?) Deflation set in and wrecked their economy. Their central bank couldn't fix it, not even by cutting rates to 0%. Their economy still hasn't fully recovered.
Still think there's no reason to fear deflation?
Back in the late '80s Japan experienced the synergistic effects of cheap foreign goods, lower manufacturing wages, a real estate bust, and a lending industry that was scared to lend. (Sound familiar?) Deflation set in and wrecked their economy. Their central bank couldn't fix it, not even by cutting rates to 0%. Their economy still hasn't fully recovered.
Still think there's no reason to fear deflation?
Post by: seeker_two on January 17, 2008, 03:50:20 AM
Might want to look at some extraneous factors for those two items. One example would be States and Congress over the last 30 years refusing to allow refinery construction, drilling in Alaska, and drilling offshore. It's finally coming back to bite us in the *expletive deleted*ss. Another would be a big increase in corn production for ethanol. That cascades through the "food chain" so to speak, and drives the prices of lots of different food up. Land that was growing corn for food is now growing it for fuel, and land that was once growing other stuff has transitioned to growing corn for fuel. Generally all comes back to supply and demand.
Don't forget that ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline, thereby increasing the price of gasoline due to the EPA mandate to add ethanol to all gasoline produced and maintaining "salon blends" of gas for different regions.
The Bush administration (which controls the EPA) could have suspended the regional blends requirement permanently like he did during the Katrina fiasco (his only good decision, IMHO). However, that wouldn't help his "fellow Americans" in the oil business, would it?
BTW, what investments are in the Bush family portfolio (and I mean ALL of the Bushes)?......
Post by: Ben on January 17, 2008, 04:24:58 AM
Quote
he is blaming Congress (code for the Democrats and liberals, of course)
It's probably a good idea not to put words in my mouth.
I believe several of the denials for expanding domestic production occurred during Republican controlled Congress / Senate. People want to reduce domestic production to reduce our "dependence" on oil? Fine. Then pay the resulting increased prices without whining about the absolutely logical and expected rise in cost for the less available product.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 17, 2008, 06:09:06 AM
Another would be a big increase in corn production for ethanol. That cascades through the "food chain" so to speak, and drives the prices of lots of different food up. Land that was growing corn for food is now growing it for fuel, and land that was once growing other stuff has transitioned to growing corn for fuel. Generally all comes back to supply and demand.
Someone should be along shortly to trumpet the virtues of corn ethanol and tell us how the price of tortillas is not rising.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 17, 2008, 06:23:27 AM
Despite popular misconceptions, there are some very powerful disinflationary pressures at work worldwide. Combine those with the sudden bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting defensiveness of the lending industry, and there is serious risk of deflation. Bernanke is erring on the safe side, as he should.
Quote
Right now, it looks as though high oil and metals prices are all that's propping prices up. Yet those commodity prices have as much to do with speculation in the futures markets as they do any real increase in cost. I'm hearing more and more average people, people who don't really understand or follow the markets, talk about commodity futures as if they easy risk-free investments with guaranteed high returns. That sort of sentiment among the general population is one of the first indications that a bubble is forming. Given the highly leveraged nature of most of those investments, a panic sell situation is creepily plausible. That could severely exacerbate disinflationary problems.
Back in the late '80s Japan experienced the synergistic effects of cheap foreign goods, lower manufacturing wages, a real estate bust, and a lending industry that was scared to lend. (Sound familiar?) Deflation set in and wrecked their economy. Their central bank couldn't fix it, not even by cutting rates to 0%. Their economy still hasn't fully recovered.
Still think there's no reason to fear deflation?
Back in the late '80s Japan experienced the synergistic effects of cheap foreign goods, lower manufacturing wages, a real estate bust, and a lending industry that was scared to lend. (Sound familiar?) Deflation set in and wrecked their economy. Their central bank couldn't fix it, not even by cutting rates to 0%. Their economy still hasn't fully recovered.
Still think there's no reason to fear deflation?
If you wanna debate what I said in that other thread, why don't you do so in that other thread? I'd be happy to have a rational discussion on the matter, if that's what you want.
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 07:12:32 AM
But I've suspected for years that inflation is way higher than reported.
Post by: HankB on January 17, 2008, 08:04:12 AM
Don't forget that ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline, thereby increasing the price of gasoline due to the EPA mandate to add ethanol to all gasoline produced and maintaining "salon blends" of gas for different regions.
The Bush administration (which controls the EPA) could have suspended the regional blends requirement permanently like he did during the Katrina fiasco (his only good decision, IMHO). However, that wouldn't help his "fellow Americans" in the oil business, would it?
Not necessarily the oil business, and not necessarily the Bushmen. (Who've screwed up ROYALLY on MANY issues, and continue to do so today, so don't say I'm a Bush supporter!)The Bush administration (which controls the EPA) could have suspended the regional blends requirement permanently like he did during the Katrina fiasco (his only good decision, IMHO). However, that wouldn't help his "fellow Americans" in the oil business, would it?
Some years back, long before Dubya's administration, Minnesota mandated use of ethanol in fuel. It turns out that many of the politicians pushing it hardest were also the beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Archer-Daniels Midland . . . at that time (and perhaps still today) the largest agribusiness producer of fuel ethanol in the nation.
Think things are different today?
As far as inflation is concerned . . . the way .gov is printing money to cover deficit spending - and has been for many years - I suspect it's just a case of things catching up to us.
Post by: charby on January 17, 2008, 08:07:35 AM
Some years back, long before Dubya's administration Minnesota mandated use of ethanol in fuel. It turns out that many of the politicians pushing it hardest were also the beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Archer-Daniels Midland . . . at that time (and perhaps still today) the largest agribusiness producer or fuel ethanol in the nation.
Same here in Iowa, we've had subsidized gasohol since the 1970's
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 09:06:27 AM
Bush, Bernanke endorse economic stimulus
In testimony on Hill, Fed chief says plan must be put in place quickly
WASHINGTON - President Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Thursday embraced calls for an economic stimulus package to avert recession. Bernanke said such a plan should be aimed at quickly getting cash into the hands of people, especially those with low and moderate incomes.
The Fed chief, in testimony to the House Budget Committee, said efforts that involve putting money into the hands of households and firms that would spend it in the near term would be more effective than other provisions, such as making Bushs tax cut permanent. Again, Im not taking a view one way or the other on the desirability of those long-term tax cuts being made permanent, he said.
While shying away from endorsing a specific plan, Bernanke made clear his support for the general concept of an economic rescue package and that it be temporary so that it wont complicate longer-term fiscal challenges. It is likely that any such package would include tax rebates.
Fiscal action could be helpful in principle and may provide broader support for the economy than the Fed can furnish alone through reductions in interest rates, Bernanke said. However, the design and implementation of the fiscal program are critically important, he said.
Bernanke forecast slower growth in 2008 but not a recession.
When asked by lawmakers about the potential effect of a fiscal stimulus package totaling around $100 billion, Bernanke said that the economic impact could be significant and not window dressing. Some have floated packages that would range in size from $50 billion to billion to $150 billion all of which are in the range of reasonable, Bernanke said.
Rebates can be useful, he added.
Getting money to low and moderate income people is good in the sense of getting a bang for the buck because they tend to spend it quickly, Bernanke said. Research shows that the affluent spend some of their rebates, he said.
Temporary expensing and depreciation provisions for businesses also could spur spending, which would help the economy, he said. As it puts together a package, Bernanke added, Congress might want to consider a diversified mix of elements.
But he warned: I hope Congress can resist having a huge list of things that would lard up legislation and may not do much to help bolser the economy in the short run.
At the White House, spokesman Tony Fratto said, The president does believe that over the short term, that to deal with this softening in the economy, that some boost is necessary. That marked the first White House confirmation that Bush, confronting a deepening economic crises that has shaken much of the nation, supports government intervention. Until now, the White House said the president was just considering some type of short-term boost.
Fratto would not divulge the details or what the stimulus would look like, other than to say all options are being considered.
The shaping of a stimulus package was expected to accelerate Thursday during a conference call between Bush and congressional leaders. I would characterize it as a consultation, Fratto said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was expected to be on the conference call, said Thursday: We have to spend the money, invest the resources, give the tax relief in a way that again injects demand into the economy, puts it in the hands of those who need it most and into the middle class ... so that we can create jobs.
On Wednesday, Pelosi and Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio promised to craft legislation to energize the weakening economy.
The fragile state of the economy has gripped Wall Street and Main Street and is a rising concern among voters. The situation has galvanized politicians including those vying to be the next president and poses the biggest test to Bernanke, who took over the Fed nearly two years ago.
The White House spoke up after watching a number of indicators of a battered economy. Consumer confidence has plummeted, economic woes have become the top concern of the American public, and the 2008 presidential contenders have scrambled to get in front of the issue.
Fratto declined to say when the president could announce a package, or whether it would be before or after the State of the Union address later this month.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22705103/
This is what I've been saying all along. The middle class is being systematically destroyed by huge transfers of wealth from the working middle class to the robber baron multinationals and the uber wealthy. This has been going on since the Reagan administration and over time, working people have less and less money. (see the last two sentences above in the OP article) Workers' wages failed to keep up with the higher inflation. Average weekly earnings, after adjusting for inflation, dropped by 0.9 percent in 2007, the biggest setback since a 1.5 percent fall in 2005.That's not healthy for a consumer based economy. The remedy is to temporarily mitigate the trend and get some money back to the people who earned it in the first place.
I've been vindicated by Uncle Ben Bernanke.
Post by: Fly320s on January 17, 2008, 09:22:35 AM
Quote
Bernanke said such a plan should be aimed at quickly getting cash into the hands of people, especially those with low and moderate incomes.
How does the Fed Reserve do that? Is Bernanke going to stand on the corner passing out fifty-dollar bills?
Post by: Fly320s on January 17, 2008, 09:25:43 AM
Are you suggesting that people with low to moderate incomes spend more money, or spend money faster, than people with higher incomes? Are you suggesting anything at all, since you highlighted the portions about lower income people? Just curious why you highlighted that part of the story.
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 09:35:11 AM
Post by: Fly320s on January 17, 2008, 09:55:19 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2008, 09:40:24 AM
Quote
Land that was growing corn for food is now growing it for fuel, and land that was once growing other stuff has transitioned to growing corn for fuel. Generally all comes back to supply and demand.
Incorrect. Most of the land now being brought into production hasn't trasitioned from crowing other cash crops. It has been brought back into production after laying fallow under the Crop Reduction Program. As for the fuel-not-food part, the impact of ethanol demands for corn vs the acres currently in production is, at best, very small.
What's changed the prices isn't the actual demand, it's consumers' and the general public's perception of it. Also, that money doesn't disappear into Big Agriculture's pocket. Most of the midwest is ag-driven, meaning most of those low- and middle-income people who live there will directly benefit from higher commodity prices. The people they work for will need to grow their business which means more or higher-paid employees. Now we get back to trickle-down economics.
Brad
Post by: The Rabbi on January 17, 2008, 10:39:05 AM
Despite popular misconceptions, there are some very powerful disinflationary pressures at work worldwide. Combine those with the sudden bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting defensiveness of the lending industry, and there is serious risk of deflation. Bernanke is erring on the safe side, as he should.
Quote
Right now, it looks as though high oil and metals prices are all that's propping prices up. Yet those commodity prices have as much to do with speculation in the futures markets as they do any real increase in cost. I'm hearing more and more average people, people who don't really understand or follow the markets, talk about commodity futures as if they easy risk-free investments with guaranteed high returns. That sort of sentiment among the general population is one of the first indications that a bubble is forming. Given the highly leveraged nature of most of those investments, a panic sell situation is creepily plausible. That could severely exacerbate disinflationary problems.
Back in the late '80s Japan experienced the synergistic effects of cheap foreign goods, lower manufacturing wages, a real estate bust, and a lending industry that was scared to lend. (Sound familiar?) Deflation set in and wrecked their economy. Their central bank couldn't fix it, not even by cutting rates to 0%. Their economy still hasn't fully recovered.
Still think there's no reason to fear deflation?
Back in the late '80s Japan experienced the synergistic effects of cheap foreign goods, lower manufacturing wages, a real estate bust, and a lending industry that was scared to lend. (Sound familiar?) Deflation set in and wrecked their economy. Their central bank couldn't fix it, not even by cutting rates to 0%. Their economy still hasn't fully recovered.
Still think there's no reason to fear deflation?
If you wanna debate what I said in that other thread, why don't you do so in that other thread? I'd be happy to have a rational discussion on the matter, if that's what you want.
Quote from:
Inflation isn't the real concern. Deflation is.
Quote from:
Given the highly leveraged nature of most of those investments, a panic sell situation is creepily plausible. That could severely exacerbate disinflationary problems.
Quote from:
Inflation isn't ideal, but at least it's tolerable, at least it can be managed somewhat by the Fed. Deflation is disastrous. It wrecks an economy and can't easily be reversed. We're far better off taking the risk of inflation rising a point or two in the short term if it ensures we won't fall into a depression.
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 12:56:47 PM
Post by: charby on January 17, 2008, 01:01:09 PM
The market lost 300 points today. Betcha a nickel it closes below 12k tomorrow. Methinks we're right on the edge.............
It has been below 12 (or really close) in the last 12 months.Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2008, 01:07:49 PM
Brad
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 01:11:38 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2008, 01:12:55 PM
Unless, of course, the 'dip' is the beginning of a slide, in which case they bought too soon and paid too much. We'll see. If I'm wrong, Brad, I'll mail ya a nickel.
Probably COD, too.
Brad
Post by: thebaldguy on January 17, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Post by: Ben on January 17, 2008, 03:05:48 PM
Quote
Incorrect. Most of the land now being brought into production hasn't trasitioned from crowing other cash crops. It has been brought back into production after laying fallow under the Crop Reduction Program.
Truthfully I can only speak for the San Joaquin valley in CA, where I can tell you there is little fallow land. A couple of ethanol plants are being built, and I have firsthand seen a major transition to corn on land that was previously growing barley, wheat, alfalfa, etc. I'm talking like 70% change on farmland that wasn't already in something long term like trees.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 17, 2008, 06:57:12 PM
AHHHHH, it's all bushco's fault!
That'll be enough of THAT, mister!! As forum scapegoat, I don't take kindly to competition.
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 07:13:05 PM
Post by: seeker_two on January 18, 2008, 01:44:18 AM
We have a saying here in CA. "Don't make no difference how the donkey got in the ditch, get the SOB out"
I TRIED!!!.....but you guys out-voted me in '04......
Post by: Waitone on January 18, 2008, 02:23:27 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 18, 2008, 06:44:53 AM
Bush considering $800 tax rebate to boost US economy: report
Jan 18 05:42 AM US/Eastern
Possible Short Term Measure to Help Boost the Sagging US Economy
President George W. Bush's administration is considering an individual tax rebate of up to 800 dollars as a short term measure to help boost the sagging US economy, a media report said Friday.
The Republican leader was to unveil a fiscal stimulus plan later Friday, amid grim economic news that has united lawmakers and the Federal Reserve chief on the need to revive flagging US growth.
The White House has said Bush would propose policies, not dollar amounts, because details of the plan must be hammered out with the Democratic-controlled Congress.
"Privately, the White House has discussed its support for a tax rebate of as much as 800 dollars for individual taxpayers, more than double the 300 dollar rebate featured in a 2001 effort to spur economic growth," the Wall Street Journal said.
In a key concession to Democrats, the US administration appeared willing to accept stimulus legislation that does not include an extension of Bush's tax cuts, the Journal said.
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are suggesting they would be willing to suspend their own budget rules and accept a tax break without first figuring out how to pay for it, the Journal said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would have an economy-boosting package ready by January 28, when Bush delivers his annual agenda-shaping State of the Union speech.
The two sides have been jolted into a bipartisan mood by the latest round of weak economic news and a downward spiral on Wall Street that prompted Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and others to talk up the need for swift action.
Bush and US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson held a conference call Thursday with top lawmakers from both parties to discuss the issue, a spokesman said.
"Tomorrow, he'll call for effective, temporary, growth measures and will lay out his principles for what an effective approach should be," said spokesman Tony Fratto.
In remarks expected around noon (1700 GMT), the US president will "let the American people know that he does believe that short-term temporary measures are needed to help the economy through this period," said the spokesman.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080118104215.zxj8hvdk&show_article=1
heh. I won'd spend mine. I'll turn it into silver coins and hoard it.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 06:46:15 AM
When would this get into play? They think the IRS is going to get off its ass and process the mountains, binders, and bookshelves of paperwork to do this in just a couple months?
HA!
Post by: Paddy on January 18, 2008, 06:50:42 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 06:58:14 AM
Why fool with the IRS? Just send pallets of cash to every state in the country and have people walk around passing it out to the locals. That's what Bushco did in Iraq.
You're doing it again...
Post by: Paddy on January 18, 2008, 07:14:11 AM
Post by: K Frame on January 18, 2008, 08:01:07 AM
'Stimulus package' sounds like something you might order off the menu at one of those Nevada ranches. "I'll have the $99 stimulus package, please"
OK, that's some funny stuff right there...
Post by: Art Eatman on January 18, 2008, 04:02:02 PM
Looks to me we're entering into stagflation: A contraction of the economy, generally, coupled with prices rising faster than wages. Note that freight shipments are down some three percent, for ocean, rail and semi.
However, we may have a small respite from the decay of the dollar, since our contraction is hurting many other countries' economies. And Britain is, on a smaller scale, but a year or so behind us on housing-market woes. But, this stimulus package adds to the deficit. If the Fed does drop the rate by 0.5%, look for commodity-export countries' curriences to rise against the dollar.
Anybody catch the article about us losing our AAA bond rating within ten years? Because of the costs of Medicare and Social Insecurity? Guaranteed Health Plan, anybody? Duh? And 365 Baby Boomers per hour are hitting age 62--so in three years they'll get Medicare.
Ain't we got fun?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 18, 2008, 04:09:52 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011608dnmettransportationstudy.2502f256.html
Quote
From LINK ABOVE:
Study: Toll roads alone won't pay for U.S. highway needs
Bipartisan panel says Congress will need to increase gas tax
11:55 PM CST on Tuesday, January 15, 2008
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News
mlindenberger@dallasnews.com
A federal commission created by Congress called for big increases to the federal gas tax on Tuesday as part of a sweeping overhaul of how America builds and pays for its highways, bridges and transit systems.
The proposal for a 40-cent increase over five years touched off a stormy debate in Washington that is expected to last until at least 2009, when legislation governing scores of transportation programs expires and must be rewritten.
In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry condemned the proposals.
"Washington is still mired in old-school bureaucratic thinking," Mr. Perry said in response to Tuesday's long-awaited report by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. "Washington is clearly incapable of meeting today's transportation demands, so why should anyone believe they can handle tomorrow's?"
With Mr. Perry as governor, Texas has been among the nation's strongest advocates for giving states more authority to partner with private companies to build highways as toll roads. Dozens of new toll roads have been proposed in Texas, and his administration has routinely rejected calls for higher gas taxes.
Mr. Perry's strong reaction Tuesday reiterates his long-standing support for aggressive pursuit of private toll financing, and puts him in lock-step with the Bush administration. Though U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters led the panel, on Tuesday she rejected its call for higher gas taxes.
Ms. Peters signed the report but joined the two other administration appointees on the panel in issuing a dissenting statement opposing higher gas taxes. Like Mr. Perry, Ms. Peters believes the federal government should reduce the role it plays in building America's roads. Instead, both want to give states greater freedom to partner with private companies to meet those needs.
"Raising gas taxes won't improve traffic congestion, it will only perpetuate our ineffective reliance on fossil-based fuels to fund infrastructure and send more of Americans' hard-earned money to Washington to be squandered on earmarks and special-interest programs," Ms. Peters said.
But all nine of the members appointed by Congress in 2005, including five appointed by Republicans, say new taxes are critical.
"I am a die-hard conservative Republican," panel member Paul Weyrich, founding president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said at a news conference Tuesday. "And it has become an absolute orthodoxy within the conservative movement that you cannot raise any taxes. Well, in this particular instance, I don't see any alternative."
Reform in 2009
None of the report's recommendations are binding for Congress. But its release prompted comment from all sides of the national debate over taxes and tolls. It is widely expected to frame the discussion between now and 2009 over how to fix the nation's aging and inadequate network of roads, bridges and rail lines.
Legislation that governs federal transportation programs expires next year, and the new laws that will be needed will probably be among the most heavily debated in Congress. Committee hearings begin this month.
The panel wants Congress to raise the federal gas tax currently at 18.4 cents a gallon by 5 to 8 cents a year for five years, and then allow the rate to grow with inflation after that. By then, drivers would be paying $6 extra for every 15-gallon tank. The panel also wants state gas taxes increased.
That's too much, said Carrollton resident Jon Moore.
"We are taxed to death already. It costs more to eat, to drive, to live. Every year, the property taxes go up on our houses," said Mr. Moore, who is self-employed and commutes as little as possible. "It cost $75 just to register a car each year. Why is that? If we use too much water, they tack on a penalty. If we use too little water, they raise the rate. ... Everyone wants more no matter how many repossessions are taking place."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, also rejected the idea of raising the federal gas tax.
"With Americans paying more than $3 per gallon at the pump and the economy teetering on a recession, we should be providing tax relief, not imposing a tax that has the greatest impact on lower- and middle-class families," her spokesman Matt Mackowiak said.
Jack Schenendorf, the commission's vice chairman, acknowledged that voters and lawmakers are reluctant to pour money into a system he described as broken.
"We believe that it [the gas tax] can be raised, but only if you go to the people with a clear mission with what you are going to use it for," he said. "All of us believe that the federal program needs to be fundamentally changed."
Other major recommendations include a complete reorganization and streamlining of the federal transportation system.
The panel wants spending on U.S. transportation infrastructure to nearly triple to at least $225 billion a year for the next 50 years.
"This is going to take political leadership," Mr. Schenendorf said. "We have concluded that our surface transportation system in America is at a crossroads. We have a looming crisis coming. A failure to act would be catastrophic to this nation."
Government's role
Ms. Peters and Mr. Perry are not alone in arguing that the federal government wastes the money it now has and shouldn't be rewarded with large new taxes. Others who support the panel's call for a continued federal leadership role in transportation say higher taxes are the wrong approach.
U.S. Rep. John Mica, the ranking Republican on the House transportation committee, said big gas-tax increases are a bad idea.
"While I respect their hard work and efforts, the commission's recommendation of a dramatic increase in the gas tax does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress," said Mr. Mica, who has visited Dallas frequently in the past few years to discuss what he calls a looming crisis in transportation funding.
In an interview, he said Congress could support indexing the gas tax to inflation but suggested more emphasis be placed on leveraging what funds it gets by issuing bonds and partnering with the private sector to build toll roads.
So-called public-private partnerships have been a centerpiece of Mr. Perry's approach since he first took office. Since then, dozens of tolls roads have been proposed for Texas, and many of them will be eligible to be built by private companies. The Spanish firm Cintra is developing the first phase of the massive Trans-Texas Corridor, and private firms are expected to bid this year to build six new toll lanes on LBJ Freeway in Dallas.
Twenty-three states let private companies partner with governments to build toll roads or bridges, the report said. In all, 31 states have tolled structures of one type or another.
But the report also urges states to impose restrictions on contracts with private firms, something advocates of so-called public-private partnerships say the companies will find onerous.
Robert Black, spokesman for Mr. Perry, said restrictions on such deals should not be imposed from Washington.
"The governor sees this report as Washington, D.C., trying to implement a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach," he said. "Instead, it should free the states up to decide which restrictions it wants to impose. It ought to be the state's prerogative, not the federal government's."
One aspect of the report that would give states more authority to toll both new and existing interstates drew criticism from Ms. Hutchison.
"Taxpayers should never be asked to pay twice for a highway," said her spokesman, Mr. Mackowiak.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
"Raise federal gas taxes by up to 40 cents per gallon by 2014
"Raise overall transportation spending by all governments to at least $225 billion a year nearly triple the current level
"Allow states to toll new and existing interstates, particularly in major metro areas
"Encourage private toll roads, but with new limitations
"Save money by reducing the time it takes to build major projects
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU
If recommendations are passed into law:
"$6 in new federal taxes for every 15-gallon gas tank
"More lanes and better paving conditions
"Safer bridges
"New ticket tax for all transit rides
"Fewer tolls would be necessary than are currently planned in Texas
NEXT STEPS
"On Thursday, a House committee will hold the first hearing on the report.
"Later this month, the Senate will hold hearings.
"Next year, Congress will use the report in discussions of a bill re-authorizing and perhaps streamlining scores of federal transportation projects.
Study: Toll roads alone won't pay for U.S. highway needs
Bipartisan panel says Congress will need to increase gas tax
11:55 PM CST on Tuesday, January 15, 2008
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News
mlindenberger@dallasnews.com
A federal commission created by Congress called for big increases to the federal gas tax on Tuesday as part of a sweeping overhaul of how America builds and pays for its highways, bridges and transit systems.
The proposal for a 40-cent increase over five years touched off a stormy debate in Washington that is expected to last until at least 2009, when legislation governing scores of transportation programs expires and must be rewritten.
In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry condemned the proposals.
"Washington is still mired in old-school bureaucratic thinking," Mr. Perry said in response to Tuesday's long-awaited report by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. "Washington is clearly incapable of meeting today's transportation demands, so why should anyone believe they can handle tomorrow's?"
With Mr. Perry as governor, Texas has been among the nation's strongest advocates for giving states more authority to partner with private companies to build highways as toll roads. Dozens of new toll roads have been proposed in Texas, and his administration has routinely rejected calls for higher gas taxes.
Mr. Perry's strong reaction Tuesday reiterates his long-standing support for aggressive pursuit of private toll financing, and puts him in lock-step with the Bush administration. Though U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters led the panel, on Tuesday she rejected its call for higher gas taxes.
Ms. Peters signed the report but joined the two other administration appointees on the panel in issuing a dissenting statement opposing higher gas taxes. Like Mr. Perry, Ms. Peters believes the federal government should reduce the role it plays in building America's roads. Instead, both want to give states greater freedom to partner with private companies to meet those needs.
"Raising gas taxes won't improve traffic congestion, it will only perpetuate our ineffective reliance on fossil-based fuels to fund infrastructure and send more of Americans' hard-earned money to Washington to be squandered on earmarks and special-interest programs," Ms. Peters said.
But all nine of the members appointed by Congress in 2005, including five appointed by Republicans, say new taxes are critical.
"I am a die-hard conservative Republican," panel member Paul Weyrich, founding president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said at a news conference Tuesday. "And it has become an absolute orthodoxy within the conservative movement that you cannot raise any taxes. Well, in this particular instance, I don't see any alternative."
Reform in 2009
None of the report's recommendations are binding for Congress. But its release prompted comment from all sides of the national debate over taxes and tolls. It is widely expected to frame the discussion between now and 2009 over how to fix the nation's aging and inadequate network of roads, bridges and rail lines.
Legislation that governs federal transportation programs expires next year, and the new laws that will be needed will probably be among the most heavily debated in Congress. Committee hearings begin this month.
The panel wants Congress to raise the federal gas tax currently at 18.4 cents a gallon by 5 to 8 cents a year for five years, and then allow the rate to grow with inflation after that. By then, drivers would be paying $6 extra for every 15-gallon tank. The panel also wants state gas taxes increased.
That's too much, said Carrollton resident Jon Moore.
"We are taxed to death already. It costs more to eat, to drive, to live. Every year, the property taxes go up on our houses," said Mr. Moore, who is self-employed and commutes as little as possible. "It cost $75 just to register a car each year. Why is that? If we use too much water, they tack on a penalty. If we use too little water, they raise the rate. ... Everyone wants more no matter how many repossessions are taking place."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, also rejected the idea of raising the federal gas tax.
"With Americans paying more than $3 per gallon at the pump and the economy teetering on a recession, we should be providing tax relief, not imposing a tax that has the greatest impact on lower- and middle-class families," her spokesman Matt Mackowiak said.
Jack Schenendorf, the commission's vice chairman, acknowledged that voters and lawmakers are reluctant to pour money into a system he described as broken.
"We believe that it [the gas tax] can be raised, but only if you go to the people with a clear mission with what you are going to use it for," he said. "All of us believe that the federal program needs to be fundamentally changed."
Other major recommendations include a complete reorganization and streamlining of the federal transportation system.
The panel wants spending on U.S. transportation infrastructure to nearly triple to at least $225 billion a year for the next 50 years.
"This is going to take political leadership," Mr. Schenendorf said. "We have concluded that our surface transportation system in America is at a crossroads. We have a looming crisis coming. A failure to act would be catastrophic to this nation."
Government's role
Ms. Peters and Mr. Perry are not alone in arguing that the federal government wastes the money it now has and shouldn't be rewarded with large new taxes. Others who support the panel's call for a continued federal leadership role in transportation say higher taxes are the wrong approach.
U.S. Rep. John Mica, the ranking Republican on the House transportation committee, said big gas-tax increases are a bad idea.
"While I respect their hard work and efforts, the commission's recommendation of a dramatic increase in the gas tax does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress," said Mr. Mica, who has visited Dallas frequently in the past few years to discuss what he calls a looming crisis in transportation funding.
In an interview, he said Congress could support indexing the gas tax to inflation but suggested more emphasis be placed on leveraging what funds it gets by issuing bonds and partnering with the private sector to build toll roads.
So-called public-private partnerships have been a centerpiece of Mr. Perry's approach since he first took office. Since then, dozens of tolls roads have been proposed for Texas, and many of them will be eligible to be built by private companies. The Spanish firm Cintra is developing the first phase of the massive Trans-Texas Corridor, and private firms are expected to bid this year to build six new toll lanes on LBJ Freeway in Dallas.
Twenty-three states let private companies partner with governments to build toll roads or bridges, the report said. In all, 31 states have tolled structures of one type or another.
But the report also urges states to impose restrictions on contracts with private firms, something advocates of so-called public-private partnerships say the companies will find onerous.
Robert Black, spokesman for Mr. Perry, said restrictions on such deals should not be imposed from Washington.
"The governor sees this report as Washington, D.C., trying to implement a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach," he said. "Instead, it should free the states up to decide which restrictions it wants to impose. It ought to be the state's prerogative, not the federal government's."
One aspect of the report that would give states more authority to toll both new and existing interstates drew criticism from Ms. Hutchison.
"Taxpayers should never be asked to pay twice for a highway," said her spokesman, Mr. Mackowiak.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
"Raise federal gas taxes by up to 40 cents per gallon by 2014
"Raise overall transportation spending by all governments to at least $225 billion a year nearly triple the current level
"Allow states to toll new and existing interstates, particularly in major metro areas
"Encourage private toll roads, but with new limitations
"Save money by reducing the time it takes to build major projects
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU
If recommendations are passed into law:
"$6 in new federal taxes for every 15-gallon gas tank
"More lanes and better paving conditions
"Safer bridges
"New ticket tax for all transit rides
"Fewer tolls would be necessary than are currently planned in Texas
NEXT STEPS
"On Thursday, a House committee will hold the first hearing on the report.
"Later this month, the Senate will hold hearings.
"Next year, Congress will use the report in discussions of a bill re-authorizing and perhaps streamlining scores of federal transportation projects.
Post by: roo_ster on January 18, 2008, 07:46:04 PM
Quote
Incorrect. Most of the land now being brought into production hasn't trasitioned from crowing other cash crops. It has been brought back into production after laying fallow under the Crop Reduction Program.
Truthfully I can only speak for the San Joaquin valley in CA, where I can tell you there is little fallow land. A couple of ethanol plants are being built, and I have firsthand seen a major transition to corn on land that was previously growing barley, wheat, alfalfa, etc. I'm talking like 70% change on farmland that wasn't already in something long term like trees.
Quite a bit of cotton land has been planned for transition to corn, this coming season. Cotton prices are expected to rise. A good bit of the new lands for corn is irrigated from the Ogalalla formation, which is already over-used. In the Pacific Northwest (as in Germany), corn has been planted instead of hops. In Germany, the beer price is up around 15% and in the U.S. a fair number of micro-breweries have been forced out of business.
Looks to me we're entering into stagflation: A contraction of the economy, generally, coupled with prices rising faster than wages. Note that freight shipments are down some three percent, for ocean, rail and semi.
Looks to me we're entering into stagflation: A contraction of the economy, generally, coupled with prices rising faster than wages. Note that freight shipments are down some three percent, for ocean, rail and semi.
My observations match BenW's and Arts. I was struck, this year, by all the cotton fields eing replaced by corn this year...in SE Texas (not exactly prime corn-land).
Our politicians have helped beat us about the head with inflation. Ethanol mandates & subsidies, restrictions on energy extraction/exploration, increased CAFE mandates, etc. They have made a tough situation worse.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 18, 2008, 07:55:09 PM
Our politicians have helped beat us about the head with inflation. Ethanol mandates & subsidies, restrictions on energy extraction/exploration, increased CAFE mandates, etc. They have made a tough situation worse.
Hopefully the country will regain its senses before too long, otherwise things are only going to get worse.
Post by: grislyatoms on January 19, 2008, 05:47:57 AM
I keep a price book for groceries, so I can have something to bitch about when prices rise
. I'm also a consumate cheap-ass. Anyway, in the last couple of months:
The price of a can of tuna has doubled. $.50 - $1.00
The price of a dozen eggs has more than doubled. $.88 - $1.98
Milk has gone up $1.20 a gallon
10 lb. sack of potatoes has gone up $1.00
1 lb. of cheese has gone up $.54
Loaf of bread has gone up $.16
Interestingly, meat prices have remained stable. I am paying the same price for lean boneless pork, fresh salmon, and whole fryers that I have paid for the last two or three years, although a pound of shrimp has gone up $1 or so. I rarely eat beef, so I can't comment on those prices. Vegetable prices have remained fairly stable as well, including dry beans, rice, etc.
The only price I have seen drop, which really surprised me, is the price on bacon, of all things. It has gone down almost $.25 a pound. First time I have ever seen a price drop like that. Maybe there's a bacon glut in my market.
Post by: Tallpine on January 19, 2008, 07:19:31 AM
Quote
Outside of food and energy, inflation rose a more moderate 0.2 percent in December
See, if people would just give up luxuries like food, transportation, and heating their homes, they could just stay at home and be happy watching their big screen TVs.
When I graduated from HS in 1972, min wage was $1.60/hr (IIRC) and gas was 30 to 32 cents per gallon. Now gas is $3++ a gallon, so min wage should be $16/hr
(not that I believe in govt mandated min wage - just making a comparison)
Post by: Manedwolf on January 19, 2008, 07:32:09 AM
FWIW
I keep a price book for groceries, so I can have something to bitch about when prices rise. I'm also a consumate cheap-ass.
Anyway, in the last couple of months:
The price of a can of tuna has doubled. $.50 - $1.00
The price of a dozen eggs has more than doubled. $.88 - $1.98
Milk has gone up $1.20 a gallon
10 lb. sack of potatoes has gone up $1.00
1 lb. of cheese has gone up $.54
Loaf of bread has gone up $.16
Interestingly, meat prices have remained stable. I am paying the same price for lean boneless pork, fresh salmon, and whole fryers that I have paid for the last two or three years, although a pound of shrimp has gone up $1 or so. I rarely eat beef, so I can't comment on those prices. Vegetable prices have remained fairly stable as well, including dry beans, rice, etc.
The only price I have seen drop, which really surprised me, is the price on bacon, of all things. It has gone down almost $.25 a pound. First time I have ever seen a price drop like that. Maybe there's a bacon glut in my market.
I keep a price book for groceries, so I can have something to bitch about when prices rise
. I'm also a consumate cheap-ass. Anyway, in the last couple of months:
The price of a can of tuna has doubled. $.50 - $1.00
The price of a dozen eggs has more than doubled. $.88 - $1.98
Milk has gone up $1.20 a gallon
10 lb. sack of potatoes has gone up $1.00
1 lb. of cheese has gone up $.54
Loaf of bread has gone up $.16
Interestingly, meat prices have remained stable. I am paying the same price for lean boneless pork, fresh salmon, and whole fryers that I have paid for the last two or three years, although a pound of shrimp has gone up $1 or so. I rarely eat beef, so I can't comment on those prices. Vegetable prices have remained fairly stable as well, including dry beans, rice, etc.
The only price I have seen drop, which really surprised me, is the price on bacon, of all things. It has gone down almost $.25 a pound. First time I have ever seen a price drop like that. Maybe there's a bacon glut in my market.
The price of pork has gone down quite a bit. I don't mind that at all! Cheaper bacon, ham, roast pork and other things I like to eat and that are apparrently Kryptonite to some extremist people in the sandbox. I find it somehow amusing that I could offend someone with a sandwich.
Post by: Ben on January 19, 2008, 07:38:41 AM
Quote
Cheaper bacon, ham, roast pork
Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.
Post by: Art Eatman on January 20, 2008, 07:05:56 AM
TANSTAAFL
Post by: roo_ster on January 20, 2008, 01:36:50 PM
Re the gas tax proposal: I get fed up with our societal "free lunch" deal about the gas tax. The purpose is to pay for construction and maintenance of highways. It's way too low to do that. But if DOT says, "We don't have the money for that new highway unless it's a toll road," folks go all bonkers about the evils of toll roads.
TANSTAAFL
TANSTAAFL
Actually, if they spent the fuel taxes on roads instead of mass transit boondoggles and other damnfool enterprises, it would be sufficient. From what I have read, 40% of fuel taxes are sucked off for mass-transit and other wastes. Spend that 40% on 12-lane monster freeways and pave our way back to sane commute times.
Another data point I read last week was that the LA light rail system costs $234 million more per year to operate than it generates in revenue and serves less than 1/10% of the commuting folks in LA. That $234 million/year does not take into account the initial cost of building the abortion.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 20, 2008, 01:43:06 PM
FWIW
I keep a price book for groceries, so I can have something to bitch about when prices rise. I'm also a consumate cheap-ass.
Anyway, in the last couple of months:
The price of a can of tuna has doubled. $.50 - $1.00
The price of a dozen eggs has more than doubled. $.88 - $1.98
Milk has gone up $1.20 a gallon
10 lb. sack of potatoes has gone up $1.00
1 lb. of cheese has gone up $.54
Loaf of bread has gone up $.16
Interestingly, meat prices have remained stable. I am paying the same price for lean boneless pork, fresh salmon, and whole fryers that I have paid for the last two or three years, although a pound of shrimp has gone up $1 or so. I rarely eat beef, so I can't comment on those prices. Vegetable prices have remained fairly stable as well, including dry beans, rice, etc.
The only price I have seen drop, which really surprised me, is the price on bacon, of all things. It has gone down almost $.25 a pound. First time I have ever seen a price drop like that. Maybe there's a bacon glut in my market.
I keep a price book for groceries, so I can have something to bitch about when prices rise
. I'm also a consumate cheap-ass. Anyway, in the last couple of months:
The price of a can of tuna has doubled. $.50 - $1.00
The price of a dozen eggs has more than doubled. $.88 - $1.98
Milk has gone up $1.20 a gallon
10 lb. sack of potatoes has gone up $1.00
1 lb. of cheese has gone up $.54
Loaf of bread has gone up $.16
Interestingly, meat prices have remained stable. I am paying the same price for lean boneless pork, fresh salmon, and whole fryers that I have paid for the last two or three years, although a pound of shrimp has gone up $1 or so. I rarely eat beef, so I can't comment on those prices. Vegetable prices have remained fairly stable as well, including dry beans, rice, etc.
The only price I have seen drop, which really surprised me, is the price on bacon, of all things. It has gone down almost $.25 a pound. First time I have ever seen a price drop like that. Maybe there's a bacon glut in my market.
The price of pork has gone down quite a bit. I don't mind that at all! Cheaper bacon, ham, roast pork and other things I like to eat and that are apparrently Kryptonite to some extremist people in the sandbox. I find it somehow amusing that I could offend someone with a sandwich.
Yeah the Jewish religion is funny that way.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 20, 2008, 04:03:25 PM
Re the gas tax proposal: I get fed up with our societal "free lunch" deal about the gas tax. The purpose is to pay for construction and maintenance of highways. It's way too low to do that. But if DOT says, "We don't have the money for that new highway unless it's a toll road," folks go all bonkers about the evils of toll roads.
TANSTAAFL
TANSTAAFL
Actually, if they spent the fuel taxes on roads instead of mass transit boondoggles and other damnfool enterprises, it would be sufficient. From what I have read, 40% of fuel taxes are sucked off for mass-transit and other wastes. Spend that 40% on 12-lane monster freeways and pave our way back to sane commute times.
Another data point I read last week was that the LA light rail system costs $234 million more per year to operate than it generates in revenue and serves less than 1/10% of the commuting folks in LA. That $234 million/year does not take into account the initial cost of building the abortion.
A couple years ago the Chicago rail system was more than that, in the hole.
Nothing but Transportational Welfare.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 20, 2008, 05:11:45 PM
Quote
Outside of food and energy, inflation rose a more moderate 0.2 percent in December
See, if people would just give up luxuries like food, transportation, and heating their homes, they could just stay at home and be happy watching their big screen TVs.
When I graduated from HS in 1972, min wage was $1.60/hr (IIRC) and gas was 30 to 32 cents per gallon. Now gas is $3++ a gallon, so min wage should be $16/hr
(not that I believe in govt mandated min wage - just making a comparison)
We could solve the fuel problem pretty easily, but it appears that we don't want to.
Regardless, I think it goes to show that the current inflation isn't caused by systemic problems with the economy. It is the inevitable result of government (environmentalists within the government, specifically) meddling with the oil supply. I'm not saying inflation and limited oil supply aren't a problem, but I don't think it means that the economy is rotten all the way through.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on January 24, 2008, 05:21:41 AM
Yeah the Jewish religion is funny that way.
Please explain your comment to me.