Today, the CEA published a blogpost on how the administration’s infrastructure and Build Back Better plans won’t be inflationary. I think it’s of interest to see how the market (which will undoubtedly turn out to be wrong) thinks inflation and output will evolve.
For medium term inflation expectations, I look to the five year inflation breakeven, and the expected inflation over the next five years as inferred using the breakeven and additional survey and market information.
Figure 1: Five year inflation breakeven calculated as five year Treasury yield minus five year TIPS yield (blue), five year breakeven adjusted by inflation risk premium and liquidity premium per DKW (red), all in %. NBER defined recession dates shaded gray (from beginning of peak month to end of trough month). Source: FRB via FRED, Treasury, KWW following D’amico, Kim and Wei (DKW) accessed 8/5, NBER and author’s calculations.
The implied inflation rate from the simple breakeven calculation is the same as it was around 6/9/2021, for the last two and a half months.
In part, the moderation in expected inflation over the past five months is due to an anticipated deceleration in growth, as implied by the term spread.
Figure 2: Ten year three month Treasury spread (blue), and ten year TIPS yield (red), both in %. NBER defined recession dates shaded gray. Source: Treasury, NBER, and author’s calculations.
Admittedly, the link between the term spread and growth (as well as recessions) is loose, but the implication of marked down anticipated growth is buttressed by the decline in the real rate as measured by the TIPS 10 year yield.
To me, this is suggestive of a continuing decline in inflation anxieties, and rising worries over the pace of recovery (see also this post).
“As spending from the American Rescue Plan and earlier relief packages ramp down relative to earlier levels—even including the new spending from the two plans now under Congressional consideration—fiscal impulse is about to go from strong positive to significant negative.”
So BBB is not fiscal stimulus as it is replacing the fiscal stance from the American Rescue Plan. Of course this all depends on whether BBB is merely what the Senate passed or includes the soft infrastructure plan. If it includes the latter, Biden will need to get tax increases on the ultrawealthy passed too. And of course we will hear all the whining all the ultrarich might have to go on vacation a bit less or not buy that fleet of yachts.
This CEA blog has quite a few posts on various policy topics. Highly recommended is the Feb. 26 post entitled:
A Return to Science: Evidence-Based Estimates of the Benefits of Reducing Climate Pollution
Evidence based estimates were the standard from the time of the Administration of George H.W. Bush through 2016. Of course Trump had to replace this practice with policy being made whatever he heard each morning on Fox and Friends. And we all know our Usual Suspects think evidence based climate policy is a Communist plot.
Former Trump minions are now claiming that had they been in charge of the Afghan evacation, it would be less chaotic. Well check out what a former aide of Pence had to say about the role plpay by racist Stephen Miller:
http://www.econotimes.com/Afghanistan-crisis-Stephen-Millers-racist-rhetoric-caused-Afghan-refugee-crisis-says-former-Mike-Pence-aide-1615687
Maybe it would be less chaotic if Miller and Tucker Carlson were running this operation as they would tell our Afghan allies that they were not welcome to get on the planes. After all – Miller and his ilk want the freedom to live in neighborhoods with no dark Muslims.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-24/Chinese-mainland-reports-35-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-12YPzM2XEfS/index.html
August 24, 2021
Chinese mainland reports 35 new COVID-19 cases
The Chinese mainland recorded 35 new confirmed COVID-19 cases on Monday – 1 local transmission and 34 from overseas, the latest data from the National Health Commission showed on Tuesday.
In addition, 9 new asymptomatic cases were recorded, while 491 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.
This brings the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases on the Chinese mainland to 94,687, with the death toll unchanged at 4,636.
Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-24/Chinese-mainland-reports-35-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-12YPzM2XEfS/img/84fb787a774f4e11bc777346a64cef1f/84fb787a774f4e11bc777346a64cef1f.jpeg
Chinese mainland new imported cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-24/Chinese-mainland-reports-35-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-12YPzM2XEfS/img/7c5107db54e34e1c8e463988eb2fc266/7c5107db54e34e1c8e463988eb2fc266.jpeg
Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-24/Chinese-mainland-reports-35-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-12YPzM2XEfS/img/3dff828b5f974459ae1aac71982e7c9c/3dff828b5f974459ae1aac71982e7c9c.jpeg
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-08/24/c_1310145602.htm
August 24, 2021
Over 1.96 bln doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in China
BEIJING — More than 1.96 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in China as of Monday, data from the National Health Commission showed Tuesday.
[ Chinese coronavirus vaccine yearly production capacity is more than 5 billion doses. Along with over 1.961 billion doses of Chinese vaccines administered domestically, another 800 million doses have been distributed internationally. A number of countries are now producing Chinese vaccines from delivered raw materials. ]
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
August 24, 2021
Coronavirus
United Kingdom
Cases ( 6,555,200)
Deaths ( 131,854)
Deaths per million ( 1,931)
China
Cases ( 94,687)
Deaths ( 4,636)
Deaths per million ( 3)
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-24/The-G20-s-COVID-agenda-12Z1XEDKRNe/index.html
August 24, 2021
The G20’s COVID agenda
By Jeffrey Frankel
Finance ministers, central bank governors, and political leaders are hard at work preparing for the 2021 G20 Heads of State and Government Summit in Rome on October 30-31. With the COVID-19 pandemic stretching well into its second year, the meeting will come at a time of heightened uncertainty about public health and the global economy. And though the mechanisms of international cooperation have been weakened by the pandemic and remain bruised by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s legacy, they are more important than ever.
“Cooperation” need not refer to international coordination of national monetary or fiscal policies. For the most part, countries on their own can move those levers in whatever direction is best for them. Instead, the G20 should focus on financial stability, trade, and vaccination. This is in addition to other important areas, especially the existential issue of global climate change, which should and will receive a lot of attention.
Over the course of 2020, most countries responded to the health crisis and economic recession with government spending. But emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs) cannot finance deficits as easily as can Europe and the United States (with its “exorbitant privilege” conferred by the dollar’s global dominance).
Fortunately, many of these countries managed to meet the acute need for increased spending without having to pay sky-high interest rates, owing to the aggressive monetary stimulus provided by the U.S. Federal Reserve and other major central banks. The initial declines in EMDE currencies, securities prices, and commodity prices in March 2020 were reversed after the Fed’s easing.
But now it is August 2021, and every country must contend with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio. At some point, the Fed will signal an end to monetary easing and a coming increase in interest rates. Whenever that happens, investors will pull out of risky assets and lose enthusiasm for EMDEs. Suddenly, EMDE debtors could face potential financial crises like those that struck in the 1980s and 1990s (or, on a lesser scale, like the 2013 “taper tantrum,” when the Fed triggered EMDE capital flight by suggesting that it would soon start to wind down its asset purchases).
Accepting that there may be a bubble component to today’s high prices for risky assets, the financial situation appears particularly fragile. Some say that soaring markets reflect economic fundamentals; for example, high price-to-earnings ratios in the U.S. stock market are said to be justified by the promise of digitalization and other productivity-enhancing technological innovations. But I would point to the surge in some financial innovations that do not enhance productivity….
The Guardian reported 2 hours ago:
‘Taliban tell Afghans to stop going to Kabul airport
During a press conference in the last hour the Taliban said Afghans should not go to the airport or try to leave the country. Its spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, has been widely quoted making the plea. He accused the US of taking “Afghan experts” such as engineers out of Afghanistan, according to AFP. “We ask them to stop this process,” Mujahid said at a press conference in Kabul.’
Gee – I guess these ‘experts’ are not fond of the idea of the Taliban killing them. After all – the Khmer Rogue killed a lot of talented Cambodians.
Got gasoline today at $2.45 per gallon. Probably the cheapest in my area, it’s not uncommon to see it at $2.71 to $2.73 a gallon around here, so I thought I did pretty well. Just gonna keep watching it. Delta variant hospitalizations still rising here, no matter what games our Republican governor and his state health dept flunkies are playing with numbers this week. The “leaders” in OSDH aren’t qualified to work for municipal sewage with the lies they tell. God knows I respect my garbage man more than them.
“You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.” Richard Nixon’s promise never to run for office on Nov. 7, 1962 after he lost to Pat Brown in the California governor race. We know that this very corrupt man broke that promise and won the 1968 Presidential election.
I thought about this after Kathy Hochul pushed out Andrew Cuomo as governor – which is seen by most New Yorkers as a very good thing. So why dwell on Nixon some 59 years ago? Well I was just told Cuomo has $18 million in money to run for another office. I’m starting a counter campaign to make sure neither he nor Trump ever get to be more than dog catcher. Disgraced politicians should retire to Maro Lago for the rest of their lives.
Not even dogcatcher. Both “men” are far more likely to hire someone to shoot all strays rather than expend any effort to catch them, and then bloviate about how “efficient” his office is.
Rank amateurs. This guy would have all the dogs with rabies running outside of their pens at the animal shelter, biting local children looking for a new poodle.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-is-the-only-state-where-more-people-are-dying-of-covid-now-than-ever-before-what-went-wrong-090001893.html
In all seriousness, DeSantis is now entering donald trump territory in utter disdain and contempt for his own constituency. Cheering and applauding while his own voters’ caskets get taken down to FEMA mortuary trailers.
Seriously….. as DeSantis’ unending and yet to peak dead body pile marches on, does anyone see any irony reminiscing on the Obama “death panels” fantasy??
Did the FDA rush the full approval of the Pfizer vaccine? Did they take too long? Yea – there are lots of opinions on both sides some of which are rather ill informed. For an informed discussion, try this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/fda-pfizer-vaccine-full-approval/619870/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/23/opinion/workers-wages-recovery.html
August 23, 2021
Workers Don’t Want Their Old Jobs on the Old Terms
By Paul Krugman
The pandemic disrupted many Americans’ work lives. Some of us — generally highly educated white-collar workers with relatively well-paying jobs — were able to shift to remote work. Millions of other workers, especially many poorly paid service workers, simply saw their jobs disappear when consumers stopped eating out and traveling.
Now the economy is recovering — a recovery that will probably continue despite the spread of the Delta variant of the coronavirus. But many Americans don’t want to go back to the way things were before. After a year and a half of working from home, many don’t want to return to the stress of commuting. And at least some of those who were forced into unemployment have come to realize how unhappy they were with low pay and poor working conditions, and are reluctant to go back to their previous jobs.
To be honest, when businesses first began complaining about labor shortages I was skeptical. These kinds of complaints always surface when the economy begins to recover from a slump and often mean only that job applicants have gotten a bit less desperate. Some of us also remember how, seven or eight years ago, Very Serious People insisted that we faced a major “skills gap” and would never be able to get unemployment down to the levels that prevailed before the financial crisis. (Spoiler: We did.)
At this point, however, it seems clear that something really is going on. You can see this from the data on vacancies: There are far more unfilled job openings than you would normally expect to see given the current level of unemployment, which is still fairly high.
You can also see it by looking at what’s happening in the sector hit hardest by the pandemic, leisure and hospitality (think restaurants and hotels). Employment in that sector is still well below its prepandemic level; but to bring workers back, the sector has had to offer big wage increases, significantly above the prepandemic trend.
In other words, some workers really don’t seem willing to go back to their old jobs unless offered substantially more money and/or better working conditions. But why is this happening? And is it a bad thing? …
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/opinion/jobs-unemployment-benefits.html
August 24, 2021
How not to create jobs
By Paul Krugman
Last Friday, as the clock ticked toward 10 a.m., many labor economists were poised at their keyboards like runners about to do a 100-yard sprint. You see, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was scheduled to release its latest monthly report on state employment and unemployment, and everyone wanted to crunch the numbers and learn what they showed.
Why was this report different from any other report? In June, roughly half the states did something remarkable: They cut off enhanced unemployment benefits, even though the federal government was paying for those enhancements. That is, they turned away free money from Washington — money that was helping many of their residents, and also flowing into their states’ economies.
The justification for this aid cutoff was the claim that generous unemployment benefits were deterring workers from searching for or accepting jobs, holding back economic recovery. So economists wanted to know whether states that slashed benefits would show faster job growth than states that didn’t. This B.L.S. report would give a first indication of whether that was actually happening.
It wasn’t; or to be more precise, if there was any effect, it wasn’t strong enough to cut through the statistical noise.
This was more or less what economists who have been studying the issue expected to see. There have been huge swings in the size of the unemployment supplement since the pandemic began, from nothing to $600 a week, then back to nothing, then back to $300 a week. Those swings didn’t seem to have much effect on employment. For example, a study by Peter Ganong and co-authors that used detailed individual data found some effect of unemployment benefits on the rate at which unemployed workers found jobs, but this effect was small.
Still, it was good to have confirmation from the B.L.S. data.
However, the absence of a large employment payoff to states that slashed benefits raises two questions. First, why didn’t unemployment benefits seem to have much effect on employment? Second, why did half of states rush to cut benefits despite the absence of evidence that this was a good idea? …
well, this puts to rest the arguments by our esteemed commenter econned that benefit cuts would get people back to work. i am sure he has some excuse for why he was not wrong. but looks like those benefits didn’t put people back to work, and cut back on spending in the states that implemented them.
“[E]steemed commenter” here…
my excuse for why *you* are wrong is because I never once argued “that benefit cuts would get people back to work”.
Yet further evidence that this econblog’s comment section is in need of better reading comprehension and more open minds. sigh
then please, revise and clarify why you argued that ending benefits was a good thing. sigh.
Onus is on you to provide what exactly you’re referencing. I’ll reply once that is clear… sigh
…esteemed commenter out.
Econned, i am surprised by your weak constitution. I really thought you would at least try to defend your position. To simply bail and pretend you did not oppose the unemployment benefits is a huge retreat. But you can go on and pretend you were not wrong, if that lets you sleep at night.
You suggest baffling needs to learn how to read. But you take zero responsibility for your total inability to write clearly. Come on troll – grow up.
baffling,
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/08/messages-from-the-bond-market#comment-258344
Maybe the IRS has figured out a way of paying for BBB – enforcing transfer pricing against those life science companies who make obscene profits and shift them offshore:
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/irs-wants-amgen-to-cough-up-3-6b-back-taxes-but-it-s-not-budging-yet
I was looking at various discussions of the transfer pricing dispute between Amgen and the IRS and Google reminded me that I actually wrote something on this 4 years ago:
https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/01/amgens-transfer-pricing-psst-dont-got.html
And Brad Setser took noticed and added one of his insightful comments. I think the IRS started its transfer pricing inquiry in 2017. Huh – maybe I should write a few more of these posts!
Why would I defend a position you erroneously attribute to me? For you to simply bail in my request that you provide what exactly you’re referencing is a huge retreat. But you can go on and pretend that you didn’t fabricate your assertion that I argued “benefit cuts would get people back to work” and that I “oppose the unemployment benefits”, if that lets you sleep at night.
Repeating yourself? Me thinks baffling has gotten you all worked up over nothing (which is what your usual comments come to).
Hi PaGLiacci,
Repeating? No, I simply replied to the wrong reply. I know it hurts you to acknowledge that I’m not perfect but I do appreciate your unwavering adoration despite my mistake. Now, when are you going to…
1) audit an elementary stats class so that you’re more familiar with basic graphs?
2) stop making falsehoods?
3) grow up and actually ask me out for a drink instead of stalking me and daydreaming about me?
LMK
As i recall, you like to post other peoples words on the subject, but insinuate they are your view. Then you can deny culpability making those statements when you are wrong. Kind of makes you a dishonest troll, econned. But you knew that already.
Your recall is poor and/or biased. I have indeed posted the views of others just as most commenters have done. But what then happens is, and often when it’s counter the views of econbrowser regulars, they attack for presenting anything in opposition. It makes many of the Econbrowser regulars a sad set of narrow-minded group thinkers who often gain pleasure in their attacks of the messenger(s) as opposed to critically assessing the message. This is a huge problem with online discourse. But you already knew that.
Ok, my recall is poor. Why dont you simply explain your position in your own words, rather than somebody elses words. I would be most grateful.
If I want to express my views I’ll do so clearly. Why is it an issue to present the commentary of an *eminent* economist, e.g. Jason Furman, in an attempt to provide some light outside of the Menzie Chinn echo chamber within this blog’s comment section? Why don’t you simply read what people actually write and not make unfounded and spurious assumptions? And also try considering opposing ideas. The world would be most grateful.
EConned: If it’s an echo chamber, then it’s a funny one since the likes of you, DickF, CoRev, Patrick Sullivan, Bruce Hall, have always been here (well, DickF dropped out, don’t know why).
Why do you feel the need to police prof chinn’s blog? You became upset when I disagreed with the furman paper. And since then, unemployment does not seem to support the work of that paper.
I would guess you are embarrassed to state your views, econned, because you know they simply dont agree with reality. But continue to be a back bencher, and shout out complaints every once in a while. Just like those tea baggers in congress, who complain constantly but never actually do anything constructive.
I feel no need to “police prof chinn’s blog” and your implication that my actions reflect such are hilarious.
I did not become upset when you disagreed with the Furman paper – I have no clue who you are and wouldn’t be upset if I did know who you are.
You would guess wrong assuming I am embarrassed to state my views irrespective if they simply dont agree with your worldview.
I couldn’t care less about those tea baggers in congress, who complain constantly but never actually do anything constructive and they have nothing to do with me posting views that don’t amplify the echo chamber of an econblog.
Econned, i would have more respect for you if you stood up for what you believed in, rather than cowardly hide behind the words of others so you dont have to take ownership of them. So continue to be a back bencher.
Baffling,
I haven’t hid behind the words of others at all as I have, when relevant, voiced my views on topics. At the same time, it’s only children and egomaniacs who constantly spew their personal opinion. As such, I would have more respect for you, and others, if you were grounded in understanding the lack of relevance that your beliefs contain while also understanding you can learn from others who you might not agree with. Not agree with. Agree with. With. A lot of reverb up in here.
econned, you don’t contribute to the conversation. what you do is troll.
baffling (the proverbial pot)…
I will present to you a fact. And this will be a fact irrespective of your blanket assertion that I “don’t contribute to the conversation” and what I “do is troll”. And here’s the fact… it is, without a shadow of a doubt to anyone objectively reading these comments, you who is the troll right this very instance. It is you who called me out within the comments of this blog post. You called me out in this post which I had not posted a single reply to. You called me out in this post over a totally separate and unrelated concern of yours. You replied to another commenter’s post (that wasn’t related to the topic of this blog post which is a violation of this blog’s stated policies but we know the author of this post isn’t really concerned with these policies) just because you missed interacting with a troll who never contributes to the conversation. So what exactly were you contributing in your initial comment calling me out? I’ll wait!
“just because you missed interacting with a troll who never contributes to the conversation.”
econned, i don’t miss interacting with you. in fact, it would be my pleasure if you never did respond. that said, i don’t think you are very constructive to the blog. and i make it a point to let others on the site know your contributions are slanted. you are welcome to stop trolling the site with drive-by comments. if you make fair and constructive comments, you probably will not hear from me at all. but that is not what you have done thus far on the site. so i will call you out, econned, just like a few others on this sight who try to spin misinformation. deal with it.
baffling,
You claim you “don’t miss interacting with you” yet you reference me in posts I haven’t commented in and that are unrelated to the imaginary issues you have with me.
you claim “in fact, it would be my pleasure if you never did respond” but you’re going out of your way to reference me. I understand your massive ego has other massive egos to contend with but it’s sensible to not reference others if you don’t want them to respond.
You claim you “don’t think” I am ” very constructive to the blog and i make it a point to let others on the site know your contributions are slanted.” But (to use your very own gripe) “Why do you feel the need to police prof chinn’s blog?” Additionally your not liking my comments isn’t the same as your policing constructiveness and is straight up laughable given the wide-ranging garbage-posting that you’re fond of. See, e.g. every comment of yours within this very post.
You suggest that I am “ welcome to stop trolling the site with drive-by comments.” But you are conveniently ignoring that this very conversation between the two of us is due directly to your drive-by trolling and there should be zero ambiguity to this.
You claim “if you make fair and constructive comments, you probably will not hear from me at all. but that is not what you have done thus far on the site.” What you really mean is “if you agree with everything I think and/or Menzie thinks, or if you post random links to unrelated topics, I’ll promise to be your friend.”
You assert “so i will call you out” and I implore, again using your own quote “ Why do you feel the need to police prof chinn’s blog?”
You suggest I “ try to spin misinformation” but have zero support. Yes, you can point to commentary that your little Menzie-loving heart disagrees with but that isn’t your claim here. And you can’t provide support. Deal with it.
Also, deal with any typos – it’s getting so easy to deal with your shenanigans that I couldn’t care less about typos from using a phone.
econned, if you had been a constructive commenter on this blog, you would never have heard from me. but that has not been the case, so now you deal with the consequences. as i said, deal with it.
baffling is tacitly acknowledging that it is actively engaging in three acts it demms worthy of “consequences” 1) trolling 2) policing prof chinn’s blog 3) not being a constructive commenter
(with the actual “consequence” being baffling having yet another hook stuck through its lip despite baffling being the one who thought they were out for a leisurely fishing expedition)
Regarding how likely infrastructure spending does not seem to be showing up as higher inflation expectations in the bond market, maybe the market is looking at what some Dems are pulling in Congress that may lead to no bill passing at all and no higher infrastructure spending either.
Barkley Rosser: Since the actual resistance is new “news”, and bond yields have remained pretty constant for the past month and half, I think that’s not it (and given how small the infrastructure bill is, and how spread out it is, I doubt it’s the waning/waxing probabilities for the infrastructure bill on its own). But who knows…if there was a betting market on passage, we could rule out one or the other hypotheses.
Loosely related:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7441?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=&utm_term=Signup&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Senate_Pass_Bill_Reconciliation_100121
I keep forgetting to visit this site, which is odd because I do find these betting sites fun.
If Biden leaves Afghanistan by the 31st it will be widely viewed as “weak”. I think even many on the left will view it this way (even those who refuse to verbalize their disapproval or “speak it out”.. I heard some guy with Brookings go after Biden. To me, that was pretty telling. And I know pgl loves to walk around with his blue donkey blinders on, but NYT is already reporting that Biden is already signaling to many USA allies he’s cutting ties on August 31—the SAME exact date Taliban is insisting on. This will drag out easily over the next 3 years with negative headline after negative headline after negative headline and people better get used to it. This could cost whoever the Democrat Presidential nominee is 3–5% of the vote, and possibly more. It’s embarrassing on multiple levels.
not sure what outcome people really expected out of afghanistan. we were there for 20 years because no president had the will to withdraw forces. this was the inevitable outcome. it was only a matter of when and under whose watch.
“It’s embarrassing on multiple levels.” It’s embarrassing only to the military & foreign policy establishments, “The Blob,” which have been lying to us almost since the beginning in Afghanistan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
The Blob has been undercutting Biden behind his back, and the generals thought they would roll yet another President ,& get him to stay for who knows how many more Friedman Units. I’ve seen from several outlets that schedulers for news shows have been refusing to book anyone who disagrees with The Blob. That’s why we don’t hear from others; many “big-time journalists” have been eagerly lapping up The Blob’s sputum, and they don’t want to admit that they’ve been gullible fools all these years.
The State Dept warned Americans in-country that they should leave on April 27. All nonmilitary people have no real excuse for still being there.
BTW, Brookings may be center-leftish on economic matters but it is definitely centerish-right in foreign policy, so their “experts” have been wrong for 20 years too. They have barely more credibility than the MAGAmorons on this. Only a fool takes seriously what they have to say on this.
BTW encore, the Taliban are “insisting” on complete withdrawal by August 31 because that is the date Biden renegotiated from Trump’s original date, May 31, in Trump’s surrender aagreement with them. The Taliban may be scum but it’s not unreasonable of them to “insist” that the U.S. uphold its end of the agreement when they already agreed to a three month extension. Complaining about that is like complaining that banks “insist” on loan payments being made on or before the due date
You gotta stop listening to The Blob. They didn’t suddenly go from wrong, and lying about it, to credible a week and a half ago. Talk about gullible.
Don’t hold your breath thinking drunk old Uncle Moses will grasp any of what you said. This troll takes my criticism of Pompeo’s BS as somehow saying Biden is great – which of course is beyond dishonest.
But what you expect from someone who thinks Trae Young is a terrible basketball player?
As I read the Doha Agreement, the date Trump and the Taliban agreed to for full withdrawal was 5/1/2021 not 5/31/2021 but your general point is well taken. It seems old uncle Moses has been too drunk to read this agreement so here is a link to it provided by Pompeo’s State Department:
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
Good point on Brookings being center right but how weak is this?
“I heard some guy with Brookings go after Biden. To me, that was pretty telling.”
Some guy? This guy does have a name. “Go after”? WTF did some guy say? Link or other reference to whatever this happened to be.
I guess old Uncle Moses did go out on that date with Econned as he is now taking Econned dishonest and lazy take on references.
@ pgl
I’ll let you hunt down TV interview links. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to chase my own tail around like you do pgl. I think leaving a few crumbs around to keep your small mind busy doing web searches might bump out some of your time making playground insults here.
But if that doesn’t fill in enough time to replace your making non-constructive comments here, why don’t you call up one of your gym buddies and ask him what percentage of 53,600 is 12,000 and get back to us.
“Moses Herzog
August 25, 2021 at 6:07 pm
@ pgl
I’ll let you hunt down TV interview links.”
Seriously? Econned II. He makes a claim but he cannot back it up. OK – old Uncle Moses has once again lied.
Gee – a day without some pointless lie from you is like a day without sunshine. I guess you think I kicked your dog today too.
I see PaGLiacci still can’t get me out of its mind. It’s cute, albeit worrisome, how infatuated some commenters become with others that they do not know. Given the continual attention paid to myself and others it seems PaGLiacci hasn’t enrolled in a basic stats class to learn the very elementary aspects of interpreting graphs.
HonkHonkHonkHonkHonkHonkHonkHonkHonkHonk
Oh, just to really set Moses off even further, I note that David Ignatius is now noting that it is quite likely that the US will supporting the Taliban in the near future. Why? Because there is a strong ISIS movement in Afghanistan that is more radical than the Taliban. Apparently the US and Taliban have already been cooperating against them.
Alas ISIS got the upper hand today.
Apparently Nancy Pelosi managed to get some sort of compromise through and the large infrastruture bill did pass the House with the nine “moderates” voting for it. Of course according to Moses she is unable to do anything beyond publicly snarfing down lots of fancy ice cream, thereby angering regular people all over the nation.
@ Barkley Junior
I’m well aware that you and pgl have a deep affection for members of Congress pretending to be Democrats while feeding pork to their wealthy friends or stalling until things never get done.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/24/the-emptiness-of-democrats-big-deal-506817
Shall we “fast-forward” to the near future, and a roughly late September Pelosi press conference (with other fake Dems at her shoulder to spread blame for Pelosi’s ineptitude to) “Oh gosh golly darn, tarnation jiminetty!!! By Saint Boogar of Harrisonburg Ice Cream!!!! We’ve (I’ve) lost ANOTHER (of endless) legislative battle. Oh no!!!! Barkley and pgl won’t have much material to lick my backside with now, will they???? Oh no!!! Well, back to my Saint Boogar of Harrisonburg Ice Cream. Sweet Saint Booger, we lost AGAIN!!!!! Who would believe it?!?!?!? Not Saint Boogar or even Junior of Toothless Whitetrash Virginia Mountains!!! Boohoo!!! boohoo!!!!!! Boohoohoohoo!!!”
Moses Herzog: I really don’t understand your skepticism about Pelosi. Seems like she managed this challenge pretty well, as she has so far other challenges during this administration.
@ Menzie
Can you tell me what about and how this delay (not the delay to take the articles of impeachment to the Senate, a different problem altogether) “helped” Democrats??
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/house-democratic-leaders-impeachment-vote-047136 <<—–Notice that's October 2019.
I'm trying to figure out how playing pussyfoot with a potential Hitler-like figure benefitted Democrats. Before you answer that question, I'd like you to ask yourself~~~if Republicans would have sat on that had it been Obama or Clinton, or Democrat Pres "X", and what God-forsaken reason you think that Republican leadership such as Kevin McCarthy would have given for such a supremely dumb^ss move.
Menzie,
I fear you are being kind with our poor Moses here. He seems to have really lost it and gone over the deep end with his weird fixation on various women. He is dissolving in a wave of feminine chirping apparently.
No, they did not pass the infrastructure bill. The only thing passed was the budget resolution which is just the first step in introducing a budget reconciliation bill.
There are a small handful of Blue Dog Democrats that are trying to hold up the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. They were insisting on passing the Senate’s $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill first, which would then allow them to vote against the bigger reconciliation bill.
Pelosi is refusing to buckle under to the Blue Dogs, insisting that if there is no reconciliation bill, then the Blue Dogs don’t get their smaller infrastructure bill either. They have to pass together or otherwise the Blue Dogs will vote for the first and not for the second.
Pelosi was successful today in getting to the first step of that process. There’s a reason she is Speaker. She has a history of getting things done that others thought impossible.
@ joseph
“She has a history of getting things done that others thought impossible.”
OMG. PUKE. Ohp!!! There went my dinner, PUKE AGAIN, remaining stomach bile. Are you so infatuated with the Democrat party your next comment will be that former Speaker Jim Wright is your personal exemplar of professional ethics and morality??? I’m tempted to ask what obscene carnal acts you would perform on me if I brought my Democrat party identification card on a date, Here, you can worship this in the meantime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wright#/media/File:SpeakerWright.jpg
Moses,
You are exhibiting the worst outburst of totally sick blathering I think I have seen out of you. Do you realize that you have become utterly disgusting here? Are you actually going fully psychotic? Just what did your mother do to you to bring on this full-blown insanity?
@ Barkley Junior Sure, I know projection and gaslighting is your favorite pastime Junior. Save it for whoever upsets you next time they’re unimpressed when you “namedrop”/”humblebrag” your ancestors’ confederate army rank.
Copmala Harris: “We’ve been to the border”
https://twitter.com/CalebHowe/status/1402257141570867217
I don’t like liars, which is one of the reasons I don’t like Barkley Junior. I’ve busted Junior in multiple lies on this blog. A man in Economics for how many decades, tells us he doesn’t know SAAR is part of headline GDP, after he screws up his math for May 2020’s consumer expenditures effect on Quarterly GDP. I hate liars, I don’t care the gender. And I hated Neera Tanden before she dropped out of the OMB job. But I guess I can go back, and look up all of the women Barkley has put down in his time on this blog, all he has to do is ask, and I’ll be happy to run down that list. We can start off with a female candidate for the “powerful” job of FOMC board member and move on down the laundry list from there. I don’t think Junior wants to go down that road, but I’m happy to oblige. This also includes the time he said I made him “sick” and or “barf” “gag” when I told him I was the first person to suggest on this blog that Esther Duflo would be a great Nobel Prize candidate, and I can hunt down that comment too. (These words “gag”, “barf” may sound gross but they are magically hygienized when Junior uses them). I can also waste my time because some little cry baby up in Virginia cries out sexism when the target is someone I have called him out as being wrong on multiple times:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2019/07/of-sugar-highs-uncertainty-and-recession#comment-227560
Discussing Copmala Harris, Barkley Junior said “Last poll in Iowa has her second to Warren, with Biden in third place and Bernie in fourth. Warren and Bernie clearly have an edge in NH, but Harris is likely to do well in next-up SC. You really do not know the order of the races do you, Mose? SC will be the serious Harris-Biden showdown.”
For the record, Copmala Harris dropped out of the presidential race LONG before the South Carolina primary. The reason?? A preponderance of Black voters favored other candidates over Harris, as did Harris’s “home state” of California. Californians and Blacks must have all been “resentful towards powerful women” or had whatever Rosser’s same problem with his overbearing mother was.
First I should apologize to readers in general here, not to Moses, for mentioning his mother, which is clearly a sore point, thus setting him off in an even more deranged way here. Maybe his mother stuck his head into a vat of homemade ice cream when he was a naughty boy, and he has not gotten over it. As for my mother, I had excellent relations with that highly accomplished woman, who, just to really drop a name, played string quartets with Albert Einstein. So I have never had any problems with highly intelligent and accomplished women.
For starters Moses seems not to understand the difference between lying and making a mistake. I have made mistakes here, a couple of which he cited, and have also made some inaccurate forecasts, some of which he also cites. But when I have made mistakes and they are pointed out, I always accept them and agree. He likes to keep bringing these up over and over, but I have already acknowledged those numerous times so will not bother yet again.
OTOH, he also brings up matters where he is or has been dead wrong and has not admitted it some cases. Amazing. He claims that there is some long list of women I have gone after, presumably in the way he has gone after Pelosi and Harris and Warren and Clinton and some others. He mentions Esther Duflo, but I do not think I ever criticized her or her receipt of a Nobel, although I think you suggested she deserved it before I did, with him as usual making some comment about her appearance as well. I have no problem with Esther Duflo at all. He mentions some unnamed “powerful” candidate for the FOMC. I guess that means Judy Shelton, who has been criticized by pretty much everybody here, including I think even Moses himself. The joke here is that I have actually pointed out some positive things she did, such as her forecast of the fall of the USSR back in the 80s when she was at Hoover. Sorry, Moses, but I do not think you are going to impress anybody with what a meanie I am to women by citing my comments about Shelton.
Then we have him bringing up my commenting here on that poll about how the now vice president and Sen. Warren were ahead of Joe Biden in Iowa right after the first debate. I did indeed make an inaccurate forecast then, which I withdrew soon after her polls collapsed after the second debate and have on several occasions since agreed was an incorrect forecast. What Moses fails to mention here, given that he is making false accusations of me being a “liar,” is how he went on and on at the time I reported that poll denouncing my post and claiming it did not exist and demanding that I provide a link. It took me awhile to get one that worked, which led to more insane denunciations by him over and over and over. But then I did finally provide one that worked, showing that this long stream of deununciations was just a giant pile of lies.
Really, Moses, do you not get now sick you look dragging up an episode in which you were caught flagrantly and repeatedly lying in a post on how supposedly I am this big liar? Sorry, buster, but you have not listed one actual lie by me, while you have them all over you, along with your record of going after powerful women in a way that has absolutely nobody here supporting you or agreeing with you and, very openly wondering what is it with you that you keep going on these completely indefensible rampages against these women, with this outburst here and now against Pelosi yet again a screaming example, and your repeated name-calling attacks on the vice president not that much better.
In any case, good luck getting your head unstuck from that vat of your mother’s ice cream.
“I don’t like liars”.
That explains a lot – old uncle Moses hates himself!
@ pgl
I’m not the one trying to convince people Atlanta is not located in Georgia, and living in denial Atlanta was one of the most segregated cities in the nation, most likely at a time YOU lived there. I’m not the one saying that anyone who discusses 12,000 nursing home deaths intentionally hidden in the state of New York by a Democrat Governor is a “trump-lover”. What would you label denying and intentionally hiding that 12,000 nursing home patients died in New York?? Is that you and Andrew Cuomo’s version of “spreading love”?? Or possibly Barkley’s version of a “skewed distribution” or SAAR numbers, since he only learned about SAAR method about 2 days ago when you hear Barkley tell it. Because when I pointed out Andrew Cuomo was intentionally concealing senior care deaths you called me a trump fan. Shall I go get the permalinks?? And I’m not the one whose life is so empty they have to misstate others words on the the blog to win an argument. Do I take my sword out on this blog?? Certainly, but no one, and I mean no one on this blog feels the need to make personal insults towards 7/8ths of the other commenters on the blog. Often childish ones that sound like you never passed playground maturity level, but still personal-natured comments. I suggest you spend more time at the gym exercising your demons, certainly the typical gym going knucklehead will enjoy your 3rd grade barbs more than people here do.
My God – you are one very disturbed little man. Please seek professional help.
“Because when I pointed out Andrew Cuomo was intentionally concealing senior care deaths you called me a trump fan.”
That is another one of your lies. I did note Trumpians were going after Cuomo for the same issues they were plagued with. And BTW – I never cited the figures put by any governor when I was hammering Bruce Hall for his dismissing COVID deaths. Maybe you remember that I consistently cited CDC figures. But of course given how much you lie for no reason, I am not holding my breath for you to stop lying 24/7.
Lying about what others have said is all you got. And since you hate liars – do seek that professional help you need.
@ pgl
This is only one, of many of your comments, where you defended Andrew Cuomo’s intentional hiding of 12,000 nursing home elderly patients’ deaths by saying I was a donald trump fan. Would you like me to pull up others to show YOU ARE THE LIAR and the A$$ you are. Because I put a premium on the day’s time, but your permalinks, on record, are the treasure trove:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2020/07/an-employment-w-what-would-it-take#comment-238141
pgl stated: “Now Moses – are you also trying to absolve Trump by spreading hit jobs on governors who took the responsibility that the White House did not.”
So, the NYT was doing a “hit job” on Andrew Cuomo by telling the public Andrew Cuomo was hiding 12,000 deaths. pgl, YOU are a liar and an A$$
“living in denial Atlanta was one of the most segregated cities in the nation”
Seriously? You live in Oklahoma (which of course is the most progressive state ever) so you have to know about Dallas, Texas. Yes Dallas has its own little plan for racial harmony as long as each race stayed in its own little neighborhoods. I never said Atlanta was perfect but it sure beats a lot of other places – including some of the racist garbage that goes on in the Northeast.
But stay hunkered down in your basement drinking expensive wines. You know nothing about other places which is cool as you would not be welcomed in NYC anyway.
Politically. we’re not so very different, and it actually kills me, you’re such a difficult person. And it kills me, in a different way then it kills me when I disagree with Professor Chinn. When I disagree with Profossor Chinn, I “check myself”, I think “what did I do wrong here??”. With you I just feel some kind of anger about why human beings always feel in some cult. Those are different things pgl. I try to be fair with you, the same as I try to be fair with everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1TAOIZipc