Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It actually started with the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-74, and it isn't any more fair to dump that on Nixon and Ford that it is to dump the second oil embargo on Carter. It's certainly true that Nixon's wage/price controls and Ford's Whip Inflation Now buttons, didn't really do a whole lot to address the problem, but it wasn't necessarily their fault that they had the problem to begin with.
Ehhh, I think inflation actually began taking off under LBJ, both his social programs and war. It accelerated a bit under Nixon, who implemented his Wage and Price Controls to try and alter public expectations.
I think a lot of the credit for beating inflation goes to Volker and Jimmy Carter, who was willing to let interest rates spike to whatever level was necessary to make savings palatable.
Crude oil is getting near the hurt zone thanks to helicopter Ben.
Yes, I understand now that it was not North Korea at all, but actually the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that torpedoed the BP oil rig. This story just keeps getting better and better each time some right-winger tells it.
And if you don't expect pressure to develop under oil prices as the result of all this economic recovery that's been going on both here and around the world, you don't pay much attention to oil markets. These emerging threats to pump prices are of course all Obama's fault for all those efforts to head the world away from a global depression. What was he thinking...
I don't see how inflation gets above 3-5% for at least the next few years. I expect the slack in the economy and tighter credit rules to preclude inflation from being much of an issue.
That would be a nice comfort range. Something on the high side of 3% would be quite a relief. Too much more than that in the short run could become a problem, but the first step will be finding a way to actually get to that point at all. There isn't an obvious path (aside perhaps from patience) at the moment...
Ehhh, I think inflation actually began taking off under LBJ, both his social programs and war. It accelerated a bit under Nixon, who implemented his Wage and Price Controls to try and alter public expectations.
I would say you have to look at the low inflation rates of the early 1960's as an artifact of the economic doldrums of the 1950's. Somewhat parallel to today, there was a lot of room for cost-free economic expansion, and that's generally what we saw. Expenditures for the war and economic programs sort of exhausted that reserve over the late 1960's, but inflation had peaked in 1970 at a hardly terrifying 5.8% and was back down to 3.3% by 1972. That's when the Arabs got involved, and things got a lot stickier, with inflation hitting 9.2% by 1975.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
I think a lot of the credit for beating inflation goes to Volker and Jimmy Carter, who was willing to let interest rates spike to whatever level was necessary to make savings palatable.
Carter had more success with the unemployment side of stagflation. The inflation numbers proved harder to pull down, and then of course impossible once the second oil embargo came along. Volcker pretty much arrived intent on implementing the nuclear option against inflation, and that's what he did. It worked, but only at a huge cost in terms of unemployment. Economists differ on the matter (as on most others), but all else being equal, I would prefer the cost that everyone shares on roughly equal terms to the one that puts almost all of the burden on 10% of the people and almost none on any of the rest.
Carter had more success with the unemployment side of stagflation. The inflation numbers proved harder to pull down, and then of course impossible once the second oil embargo came along. Volcker pretty much arrived intent on implementing the nuclear option against inflation, and that's what he did. It worked, but only at a huge cost in terms of unemployment. Economists differ on the matter (as on most others), but all else being equal, I would prefer the cost that everyone shares on roughly equal terms to the one that puts almost all of the burden on 10% of the people and almost none on any of the rest.
We agree in that sentiment, hopefully solutions will attempt some shared sacrifices.
Yes, I understand now that it was not North Korea at all, but actually the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that torpedoed the BP oil rig. This story just keeps getting better and better each time some right-winger tells it.
And if you don't expect pressure to develop under oil prices as the result of all this economic recovery that's been going on both here and around the world, you don't pay much attention to oil markets. These emerging threats to pump prices are of course all Obama's fault for all those efforts to head the world away from a global depression. What was he thinking...
What a bunch of nonsense posted here by someone fully divided by the false left-right paradigm. The destruction of the middle class will continue especially since Bernanke was reappointed. You can pretend that democrats are the party for the little guy all you want and try to keep people divided and cover for your side who are currently trying to sweep all the fraud from the last several decades under the rug like nothing happend. Inflation or deflation dosen't matter, the same debt pushers control the quantity of money which ultimately leads to the events currently happening across the world and a much lower quality of life for all but the super rich. I see no solutions from Washington to this either. Both parties are the same. Anyone who uses terms like right winger or left winger should largely be ignored.
Last edited by 73-79 ford fan; 05-04-2010 at 12:02 AM..
I ALREADY KNOW how he tamed inflation - he did so by raising interest rates - that's my WHOLE POINT. Right now, interest rates are NEAR ZERO - giving the Fed LOTS of room to raise those rates without them getting particularly high. If interest rates were already at say, 5%, then raising rates would really cripple the economy again - but with rates near ZERO, there's plenty of leeway to raise rates and STILL HAVE THEM FAIRLY LOW.
Try to keep up.
Ken
What color is the sky where you live? You talk alot but don't have anything to back it up. Show me how "if the interest rates were 5 percent and then raised it would cripple the economy".
What's the premise here? Sooner or later the Fed will get lucky and things will work out? How about looking a bit deeper into things and ask at what cost?
What's the next piece of rubbish from you? "The Feds policies of artificial interest rates don't cause bubbles, people do."
Volcker's Fed did its best work betwen 1981 and 1983 and - yeah, who was President of the U.S. at that point? A REAL man's man.
Funny you bring that up
What is funny is your attempt to credit Reagan for something Volcker did. Do you even know what he did, and when he put the plan into motion? He came up with the plan to float the rates, and he started doing right after Carter nominated him.
"A REAL man's man".....how mature of you...sigh....
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 05-04-2010 at 07:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
