PDA

View Full Version : Oerdin


TCO
03-03-2008, 03:56:32
Oerdin:

a. The underlying rate of inflation is not 2-3 times the CPI. If it were, the bond interest rates would reflect that.

b. McCain is not constitutionally qualified to be president.

KrazyHorse
03-03-2008, 05:16:10
a) Do you mean the "core" or some other rate? Also, bond rates would not necessarily represent it if the market thought that the spike in inflation was like to be short-lived.

b) Why? Because he was born outside the US? I don't see why. The requirement is "natural born citizen", not "born inside the US". McCain was born a citizen of the US, so he is qualified.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-03-2008, 08:53:16
a) right/wrong

b) huh?

MDA
03-03-2008, 12:10:23
More importantly, how many McCain's can you fit on a Routemaster?

Funko
03-03-2008, 12:15:34
It depends whether you want to exceed the safety limitations or not. Normally they'd have 69 to 72 seats, depending on the model, and you could have a few more people standing downstairs.

But I'm sure with some effort you could fit a lot more McCains in there than that.

Funko
03-03-2008, 12:15:58
Do we know the volume of McCain?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-03-2008, 12:21:00
About 0.4 MrGs

MDA
03-03-2008, 12:37:09
He's actually SMALLER than a MrG?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-03-2008, 12:37:44
most fries are

Funko
03-03-2008, 12:42:06
What about mitt mayo and ketchup?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-03-2008, 12:44:00
That would bring it to 0,47 MrGs, assuming the standard 17,5 % rate of mayo and ketchup extension on fries volume used under CAP.

Funko
03-03-2008, 12:47:47
Ok now we just need to know what the capacity of a Routemaster is in MrGs.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-03-2008, 12:48:31
About 350

Funko
03-03-2008, 12:51:38
So 350 * (1/0.47) = 744 McCains

:beer:

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-03-2008, 12:53:53
with mayo and ketchup

Funko
03-03-2008, 12:58:46
875 without.

mr_B
03-03-2008, 13:19:49
:lol:

Cruddy
03-03-2008, 14:35:20
Garlic mayo or plain?

Oerdin
03-03-2008, 20:30:59
Originally posted by TCO
Oerdin:

a. The underlying rate of inflation is not 2-3 times the CPI. If it were, the bond interest rates would reflect that.

b. McCain is not constitutionally qualified to be president.

Someone has been surfing poly.

mr_B
03-03-2008, 21:36:43
you?

Vincent
03-03-2008, 21:44:39
You

Theres a place where everyone can be happy.
Its the most beautiful place in the whole fucking world.
Its made of candy canes and planes and bright red choo-choo trains,
And the meanest little boys and the most innocent little girls,
And you know I wish that I could got there.
Its a road that I have not found.
And I wish you the best of luck, dear.
Drop a card or letter to my side of town.
Because theres no time for fussing and fighting my friend,
But baby Im amazed at the hate that you can send and
You... painted my entire world.
But i... dont have the turpentine to clean what you have soiled.
And I wont forget it.
Theres a place where everyone can be right,
Even though you remain determined to be opposed.
Admittance requires no qualifications:
Its where everyone has been and where everybody goes.
So please try not to be impatient,
For we all hate standing in line.
And when the farm is good and bought, youll be there without a thought,
And eternity, my friend, is a long fucking time.
Because theres no time for fussing and fighting my friend,
But baby Im amazed at the hate that you can send and
You... painted my entire world.
But i... dont have the turpentine to clean what you have soiled.
And I wont forget it.

mr_B
03-03-2008, 22:10:49
du?

Oerdin
03-03-2008, 22:55:29
Who?

Immortal Wombat
03-03-2008, 23:00:17
Bad Religion

MoSe
04-03-2008, 12:23:44
did she paint it black?

TCO
05-03-2008, 05:28:06
He's a citizen, but not nesesarily a natural born citizen. Also, the ability of the Congress to define birth in the Canal Zone as affecting the Constitution is questionable. Constituion > Congress.

Yes, agreed on the long term question. Of course that would be a very interesting result that the markets see an implicit reduction of "true" inflation to half of current. No, I don't mean "core" silliness. The whole leaving oil and food out.

Shining1
05-03-2008, 06:07:38
This thread seems to be lurching between the twin extremes of nerdiness and nerdiness. =/

KrazyHorse
05-03-2008, 06:10:21
Originally posted by TCO
He's a citizen, but not nesesarily a natural born citizen. Also, the ability of the Congress to define birth in the Canal Zone as affecting the Constitution is questionable. Constituion > Congress.

Being in the Canal Zone doesn't matter. Could have been UK or France. He was born to two US citizens.

By the way, you guys are nuts with even having that requirement. Why shouldn't the electorate decide if somebody is American enough to be President?

Also, the 2-term limit and the 35 year-old requirement are overly restrictive.

You guys are pretty good on free speech (one of best places on Earth; I hate "hate speech" laws that aren't simply reiterating incitement laws...the only thing you suck at on this is the goddamn FCC) but your electoral system is horrible...

Vincent
05-03-2008, 06:14:35
Originally posted by Shining1
This thread seems to be lurching between the twin extremes of nerdiness and nerdiness. =/
It stinks

KrazyHorse
05-03-2008, 06:20:11
Originally posted by TCO
Yes, agreed on the long term question. Of course that would be a very interesting result that the markets see an implicit reduction of "true" inflation to half of current. No, I don't mean "core" silliness. The whole leaving oil and food out.

Core is not necessarily silliness. Targeting headline number is stupid because it causes recessions when energy shocks hit.

Targeting unit labor costs (like knzn wants) or targeting a trend (instead of resetting every period) would probably be even better.

TCO
05-03-2008, 12:32:41
Citizenship in the US has traditionally been related to place of birth. So being born to two Frenchies in the US trumps being born to two USies (we're all "Americans") in France. This is also related to the different views of citizenship and nationality wrt Europe. Over there it is (implicitly or historically) related to race/language.

Targeting any basket of goods is an issue to the extent that that basket does not reflect reality. I think it is very useful to look at bond rates and term structures though. (Not perfect, mind you...but shows some metric of time value of money.)

Funko
05-03-2008, 12:39:27
How did the Republican party and the Democrats and all the media miss out on the fact he's not constitutionally allowed to run?

Or does the fact that he is running simply, effectively and comprehensively prove your wrongness on that issue?

CASE CLOSED

Dyl Ulenspiegel
05-03-2008, 12:44:04
"So being born to two Frenchies in the US trumps being born to two USies (we're all "Americans") in France."

Both would end up with double citizenship. Burger eating surrender monkeys, or something like that.

TCO
05-03-2008, 12:45:58
There's a good chance that he is constitutionally enabled. It comes down to some judgements, though and I don't think it has really been examined objectively enough. It's mostly nutter right wingers like me who say he's not qualified. But it's been in the news, some.

TCO
05-03-2008, 12:46:40
Divided loyalty. Pah. There can only be one...

Funko
05-03-2008, 12:47:27
Originally posted by TCO
I don't think it has really been examined objectively enough. It's mostly nutter right wingers like me who say he's not qualified.

So, it hasn't been examined objectively enough for the nutters? :lol:

Dyl Ulenspiegel
05-03-2008, 12:50:05
The price of nutters has fallen a lot, keeping the core CPI low.

Funko
05-03-2008, 12:51:48
Conspiracy Paranoia Index?

TCO
05-03-2008, 12:52:38
Funko: The nutterS don't really care. This nutter does. Just want it chewed over a bit.

TCO
05-03-2008, 12:55:36
Why does my name have a Mr_ in front of it?

TCO
05-03-2008, 12:56:47
Damn there are a lot of copycat Oerdin threads. It's like slingshotting tigers in here.

KrazyHorse
05-03-2008, 13:33:17
Originally posted by TCO
Targeting any basket of goods is an issue to the extent that that basket does not reflect reality.

Absorbing higher energy prices from shocks via deflation of all other sectors is dumb. It requires that workers accept nominal wage cuts, and we all know that doesn't happen without a recession

TCO
08-03-2008, 22:06:35
how so?

KrazyHorse
09-03-2008, 01:49:50
Wages are sticky. How often does a worker take a cut in his nominal pay?

It's very hard to get people to accept lower nominal wages. It's better to inflate away excessive wages. Less hurt feelings.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
09-03-2008, 12:45:22
"Absorbing higher energy prices from shocks via deflation of all other sectors is dumb."

Ok, I'll bite. How much deflation or, more precisely, disinflation would this cause in all other sectors?

TCO
09-03-2008, 15:21:30
So wouldn't the stickiness just be exhibited by workers earning a bit of rents in the small amount of time for the adjustment?

KrazyHorse
09-03-2008, 20:41:17
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"Absorbing higher energy prices from shocks via deflation of all other sectors is dumb."

Ok, I'll bite. How much deflation or, more precisely, disinflation would this cause in all other sectors?

I don't know the precise composition, but the most recent 3 months show annualized CPI of 6.8% and core CPI of 3.1%

Now, Ben & co have been cheating on the inflation side of things, so core is well above what it's supposed to be (implicit target of 1.5-2%). Now assuming we'd been targetting headline of 2.5%, core would have disinflated by annualized rate of 1% (ceteris parebus, which is exactly the point; there would have been a significant output gap caused by this).

KrazyHorse
09-03-2008, 20:49:52
Originally posted by TCO
So wouldn't the stickiness just be exhibited by workers earning a bit of rents in the small amount of time for the adjustment?

Not only that. It would have driven marginal firms out of business or into significant layoffs. And that's the hallmark of a recession.

It's not a one month spike. It's 2-3 years now that there's been a significant difference between energy inflation and ex-energy...

By the way, your question about workers getting some rents due to wage stickiness is a valid one. There's some serious thought going around that real wage stagnation over the last decade or more is partly due to "taking away the punch bowl before the workers get to drink". The thought is that real wage gains were often made immediately before a recession and then carried over. Since macro stability has increased, this effect was reduced. Of course, you can only drive the wage share so far down. At some point it will stabilise (even with continued macro stability).

KrazyHorse
09-03-2008, 20:56:42
Now, Ben may deliberately be cheating on core because he knows that even core includes energy as an input. He may have some numbers which tell him what the estimated elasticity of core is relative to energy, and might be right on the money for some index which renorms core to core - (elasticity*energy) If so, then good for him. Or he might simply be responding to political pressure to avoid a recession at all costs...

Dyl Ulenspiegel
09-03-2008, 21:03:44
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't know the precise composition, but the most recent 3 months show annualized CPI of 6.8% and core CPI of 3.1%

Now, Ben & co have been cheating on the inflation side of things, so core is well above what it's supposed to be (implicit target of 1.5-2%). Now assuming we'd been targetting headline of 2.5%, core would have disinflated by annualized rate of 1% (ceteris parebus, which is exactly the point; there would have been a significant output gap caused by this).

Well, you wouldn't get instant disinflation, this would balance out over time. So one quarter annualized inflation figures is a tad bit short.

We've had a runup in oil from 20 to 100 over, something like 5 years or so? How does the math look there?

KrazyHorse
09-03-2008, 21:08:01
I don't know. You look it up...

And the whole point IS that you wouldn't get enough disiflation fast enough. A lot of people have to lose their jobs before you get ANY disinflation in labour costs.

3-6 months can easily be enough to see that happen. In other words, a half year of a significant energy shock could trigger a recession.

KrazyHorse
09-03-2008, 21:08:57
By the way, this isn't simply my theory. It's the standard macro explanation of things...

Dyl Ulenspiegel
09-03-2008, 21:29:34
Hmm...

"Absorbing higher energy prices from shocks via deflation of all other sectors is dumb."

I suppose you have to qualify that statement with a timeframe and quantification of the price shock, then. As it stands, it doesn't make much sense.

Btw, the "standard macro explanation" was also "there is no housing bubble". As a science, macroeconomics is about where medicine has been 300 years ago.

KrazyHorse
10-03-2008, 03:32:34
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Hmm...

"Absorbing higher energy prices from shocks via deflation of all other sectors is dumb."

I suppose you have to qualify that statement with a timeframe and quantification of the price shock, then. As it stands, it doesn't make much sense.

Not really. I wouldn't call a week-long runup to 5% higher energy costs a "shock". 6 months to 50% higher is more like it.

Btw, the "standard macro explanation" was also "there is no housing bubble". As a science, macroeconomics is about where medicine has been 300 years ago.

I agree, but this is not very complicated. You need inflation because people don't take pay cuts. Energy prices are largely exogenous. Targeting a basket that includes energy prices means subjecting domestic costs to disinflation, which creates an unnecessary output gap.

KrazyHorse
10-03-2008, 03:33:40
On the other hand, countries which do more energy extraction/production might want to keep energy in...

TCO
10-03-2008, 04:16:50
Ben is a fucker. There is a whole neoliberal Goldman Sachs cabal. And they will party with Bush just like with Clinton. O'neal wouldn't play the game and got squeezed out.

TCO
10-03-2008, 04:22:23
It's not so clear to me that keeping inflation high while oil shocks come in prevents recessions. Or even that recessions always come from oil shocks (versus just the highness of the price).

KrazyHorse
10-03-2008, 07:46:53
Or even that recessions always come from oil shocks (versus just the highness of the price).

Look, the Fed has exactly one lever: the money supply. By extension, the overall level of prices.

Now, when an oil shock comes down you are going to reduce overall living standards. You need to send more goods&services (or build up more debt...i.e. future goods and services) out to the motherfuckers who are sitting on all that oil.

That's the BEST scenario. People keep working but can buy less shit with their money. The Fed simply decides whether it's nominal wages which contract or prices which go up. If people were rational then it doesn't make a difference. People aren't rational, so they fight tooth and nail against nominal wage drops. So wages stay constant. But if the money supply isn't expanded then prices can't go up as quickly as they should. Wages relative to domestic output go up. Firms on the margin go bankrupt. People want jobs, but firms won't hire them at prevailing wages. There's an unnecessary output gap.

Now, while a big enough energy shock can cause a recession anyway (as I just said, there's no way to avoid the fact that the welfare of an energy-importing country is diminished when energy prices go up) it can only be made worse when prevailing wages are set too high by a cognitive bias.

KrazyHorse
10-03-2008, 07:50:35
Oh, and this brings up another point: I can hardly fucking believe that as an energy-importing nation the US has virtually no taxes on energy.

I think some tax incidence education might change some minds. Especially if it could be explained that part of the gas taxes would get paid by Saudi Arabia...

ruGGed
10-03-2008, 08:29:27
STFU DORK

KrazyHorse
10-03-2008, 12:37:05
PLEASE LOVE ME! I THINK YOU'RE SUCH AN AWESOME GUY. YOU'RE SO TOUGH AND MACHO. THE THOUGHT OF YOU CALLING ME NAMES MAKES ME WANT TO CRY.

zmama
10-03-2008, 12:45:05
Don't cry! Sing instead! :D

MDA
10-03-2008, 13:55:19
Fossil fuels in the last century reached their extreme prices because of their inherent utility: they pack a great deal of potential energy into an extremely efficient package. If we can but sidestep the 100 million year production process, we can corner this market once again.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
10-03-2008, 15:13:50
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not really. I wouldn't call a week-long runup to 5% higher energy costs a "shock". 6 months to 50% higher is more like it.


Well, 6 months is about the minimum anyway due to the lagtime of monetary policy effects.

Let's take about 7 billion barrels for US oil consumption 70 $ exploding to 105 $ and sticking.

That's 245 billion $ or 2 % of GDP; monetary policy should straighten that out over say 2 years with 1 % annual disinflation.

The alternative is not a simple elevation of price levels by 2 %; you'll get second round effects and inflationary expectation, requiring hitting the brakes later and harder Volcker style.

mr_B
10-03-2008, 16:05:54
Originally posted by zmama
Don't cry! Sing instead! :D
get your polar bear pyjamas and dance while banging the bass drum

zmama
10-03-2008, 16:36:41
annnnd riding a Zamboni singing O Canada

Vincent
10-03-2008, 17:38:34
new all time low

Dyl Ulenspiegel
10-03-2008, 17:51:00
we rulz

Vincent
10-03-2008, 18:08:52
suxxor

TCO
12-03-2008, 04:00:31
So kitty, you know how to control the business cycle?

Funko
12-03-2008, 09:09:49
Business cycle, schmisness cycle. I can fly the Multinational Copter.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-03-2008, 10:30:36
BEN!

KrazyHorse
12-03-2008, 12:29:01
Originally posted by TCO
So kitty, you know how to control the business cycle?

No. I simply know how to avoid causing an ONE TYPE of bust.

And from their actions, most central bankers understand this too...

Funko
12-03-2008, 12:29:57
Can't have too much bust.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-03-2008, 13:03:00
The Fed is just busy nationalising the crappy mortgage paper. Very little about avoiding a bust, much more about shoveling the losses to the public.

BENCOPTER

Funko
12-03-2008, 13:07:37
Are they looking for a well supported bust maybe?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-03-2008, 13:09:05
Ben, the bust that feeds Wall street.

KrazyHorse
12-03-2008, 13:41:10
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
The Fed is just busy nationalising the crappy mortgage paper. Very little about avoiding a bust, much more about shoveling the losses to the public.

BENCOPTER

Yeah, I don't get the latest move to accept mortgage paper as security.

Funko
12-03-2008, 14:10:36
Paper can be very strong if you roll it into a cylinder.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-03-2008, 14:24:03
Krazy, to understand the Fed, look who owns the fed....

Funko
12-03-2008, 14:59:49
KFed?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-03-2008, 15:09:06
FRed?

Tizzy
12-03-2008, 15:13:04
RedFred?

MoSe
12-03-2008, 17:50:54
Originally posted by Funko
Paper can be very strong if you roll it into a cylinder.

It depends on how strong is the stuff you rolled in it, when you light it

Vincent
12-03-2008, 19:17:58
Only a fed knows how it feels to be a fed

TCO
13-03-2008, 00:57:01
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Oh, and this brings up another point: I can hardly fucking believe that as an energy-importing nation the US has virtually no taxes on energy.

I think some tax incidence education might change some minds. Especially if it could be explained that part of the gas taxes would get paid by Saudi Arabia...

Mercantilist.

TCO
13-03-2008, 00:58:02
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
The Fed is just busy nationalising the crappy mortgage paper. Very little about avoiding a bust, much more about shoveling the losses to the public.

BENCOPTER

yup...go Goldman.

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:12:49
Originally posted by TCO
Mercantilist.

How is it mercantilist?

TCO
13-03-2008, 02:15:08
keep the gold in the country. duh.

TCO
13-03-2008, 02:15:45
Are you going to tax every import?

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:16:55
There are all sorts of negative externalities to energy consumption.

1) Roads are overused because they are subsidised

2) There is too much pollution because polluters make others pay for pollution

3) The US spends inordinate amounts on ME affairs largely because they want to maintain stable, friendly oil producers

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:17:41
Originally posted by TCO
Are you going to tax every import?

I'm not talking about only taxing imported oil.

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:18:02
THAT would be mercantilist...

TCO
13-03-2008, 02:20:49
But it's still the net importing that makes you want to tax it preferentially versus other goods. It's a mercantilist attitude.

TCO
13-03-2008, 02:22:23
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There are all sorts of negative externalities to energy consumption.

1) Roads are overused because they are subsidised

2) There is too much pollution because polluters make others pay for pollution

3) The US spends inordinate amounts on ME affairs largely because they want to maintain stable, friendly oil producers

Perhaps. But my mercantilist comment was referring to the net importing comment.

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:33:00
Originally posted by TCO
But it's still the net importing that makes you want to tax it preferentially versus other goods. It's a mercantilist attitude.

No, it's the net importing which makes me think it should be an easy sell.

TCO
13-03-2008, 02:35:03
Let's drill in Anwar instead. Lot of land up there. Few oil wells won't hurt much.

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:36:46
I just explained why the price of oil should be higher and you're trying to explain to me how to make it (slightly) lower?

KrazyHorse
13-03-2008, 02:40:40
Also, you should note that taxing net exports also has the effect of transferring some of the tax burden to foreign consumers of your exports. Creating a tax wedge between producer and consumer always ends up costing both (with amount determined by relative elasticities of supply and demand).

Vincent
13-03-2008, 06:53:28
yeah, it's like being ugly AND stupid, alas!

Oerdin
13-03-2008, 08:40:42
Originally posted by TCO
Mercantilist.

I understand how someone could see it that way but really it's more of a case of national security. It's not really smart to have your national welfare dependent on other countries especially when a number of those foreign countries want to destroy your way of life and use the money you give them to fund terrorist organizations. I'm thinking of places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even Venezuela here (recently accused of funding Marxist rebels in Colombia).

TCO
14-03-2008, 00:23:00
sounds very mercantilist. protecting security with protectionism.

TCO
14-03-2008, 00:24:58
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I just explained why the price of oil should be higher and you're trying to explain to me how to make it (slightly) lower?

Yes. I think cheap oil would be great. Anything we can do to take things in the down direction is good.

I couldn't make heads nor tales of your tax comment.

KrazyHorse
14-03-2008, 12:40:07
Originally posted by TCO
Yes. I think cheap oil would be great. Anything we can do to take things in the down direction is good.

Look, I don't really have a problem with drilling in ANWR. But your comment comes out of left field.

And my tax comment can be demonstrated by this graph:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f1/320px-Tax_wedge.png

P* is the price to both consumers and producer with no tax. It's where supply and demand curves meet.
Pc is the price to consumers with tax
Ps is the price to suppliers with tax
Q* is the quantity supplied with no tax
Qt is the quantity supplied with tax

Ps < P* < Pc, Q* < Qt ( both assuming upward-sloping supply and downward-sloping demand)

My point is that taxing net imports is no different than taxing net exports. In both cases some of the tax is paid by foreigners.

TCO
15-03-2008, 13:53:36
but you are advocating taxing imports. That was a special feature of interest to you. If you're not a protectionist yourself, you are willing to whip it up by using that sentiment to achieve your aims.

ok...well your price diagrams are coming out of left field or addressing some concern of mine that you think I had.

TCO
15-03-2008, 13:54:04
Look at Oerdin, you've already got him riding your bus.

Oerdin
15-03-2008, 18:24:16
Originally posted by TCO
sounds very mercantilist. protecting security with protectionism.

I would say this is not mercantilist in two respects. The first I already posted about and the second has to do with the definition of mercantilism. Mercantilism is attempting to take a good or manufacture and attempting to promote the production of that good or manufacture domestically instead of importing it. Curtailing consumption of oil is not the same as trying to substitute domestic oil for foreign oil. It is simply attempting to use tax policy to reduce dependency.

Not exactly fitting the classic definition of mercantilism.

KrazyHorse
15-03-2008, 18:33:58
Originally posted by TCO
you're not a protectionist yourself, you are willing to whip it up by using that sentiment to achieve your aims.

This is true, because

a) I drive, and therefore wish that other people would drive less

b) I think that the environmental harm done by fossil fuel burning has a price which is greater than 0

Both argue for a tax on energy production.

TCO
15-03-2008, 19:45:03
Like I said. You're willing to inflame these nativist passions to meet your ends. Would you add in racism as well if it helped advance the cause?

KrazyHorse
15-03-2008, 20:49:55
Sure. Burn some sheikhs in effigy.

:beer: