Sorry, I wasn't aware that you're not able understand an example.... let me explain it better. I'm showing how ridiculous it sounds to relate a person of powers face being on money compared to them running an economy... she doesn't run them, but she's on the money due to respect.

Exactly the same reasons as our Presidents are on our money... respect, and not because they run/manage or help or do anything with the economy or anything ever related to it.

Okay? "We ie America" isn't funding it now then or ever, the U.N. was and Congress pre-approved 'action' with the U.N. long ago... so he doesn't need more approval, which is actually for, if WE as in "America" went to war. Which is not what is happening.


They approved the Presidents to take action with the U.N. involved already... so they / Obama isn't breaking the or overstepping the constitution... and yes, congress DID approve it.

Is this you staying on topic?

Oh, my bad.... should you stay on topic or me, I'm kinda confused here, my ADD got me.

I'm sure he has business knowledge, he is a lawyer, they do take business classes. However, no, I don't think they need it to qualify to be President.

Opinion? It's not an opinion, plenty of Presidents haven't been business men, not all took business in school, and they've done fine.

It's funny to watch you think our Country runs like a business though....

Coming from a guy named Jesus J Christ, I couldn't agree more....

United Nations Participation Act, Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations defines the legal use for the U.N. and related. U.N. Charter Article 41-43. Which allows for Article 42 forces to NOT REQUIRE Congressional approval.

Exactly what Libya falls under...

Did you know... wait, of course you didn't.... anyway, 25 Presidents have been Lawyers, including Obama - even though not all finished law school. 1 was a Doctor. And 9 Presidents never went to college. The rest range from spoonfed rich to dirt poor, some worked for other people and others ran a business, and some only did social work.

Thinking you must have a business background to be the leader of this country is completely foolish and ignores our own history that proves your mind set is flawed.

GFY + Politics = RULE

The ignorant and plumb dumb never cease to amaze or amuse me and GFY must be the largest gathering in the world of the ignorant and dumb.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=v17lMr0j2D8

So according to you the president should know nothing about business, that's why you back Obama?

Thanx for clearing that up!!

normally i would agree. But US business leaders are parasites, wrecking the middle class with declining wages while they pick up lotto winnings for salaries. Odds are, a president with business credentials will make matters worse.

Actually Obama DOES know a bit about business, more than 99.9% of the people on this forum, and more than many other Presidents we've had,

Support? Naaa, I voted for Ron Paul. My mission here is to show you people, how out of whack you guys are with just about everything you write related to Obama. Which we can clearly see in this thread....

So you're voting for Ron Paul? Because he's the ONLY person pushing for that.

Greece wouldn't be the first.

And you don't see the difference in your cherry picking of a few commodities with the claim of hyper-inflation? :helpme

You are using a definition of hyper-inflation that is not in use in mainstream economics.


.

I'm talking about money, what does mainstream say?

Look around whatever space you are in. How much do you see that is not made from plastic? Then look for all the other raw materiels,carbon steel,non-ferrous and manufactured wood products. A 20% increase in the base prices of raw materiel in 180 days is hyper-inflation.

I think... if that raw material costs everyone more, then it's just inflation, something we can define as a direct cause, like the cost of gas going up. Hyper inflation is like our bread costing us $2-$5 and growing, when it sells for $.50 in other places around the world, and holds for the most part.

Have you bought a loaf of bread lately?
From my vantage point,these historic increases in materiel costs is a short term setback. We are forced to raise our prices. In 45-60 days our receivables will begin to turn those price increases. However, the longer view for the consumer isn't as easy to solve.

Just a few days ago our purchasing manager handed me a memo he received from a supplier in Ningbo,China and they are announcing a 30% price hike in the items we purchase. We have been importing items from China for nearly a decade. This is the first time there has been a double-digit increase on a 6 month blanket order.

Last I heard those drones (or most of them anyway) were targeted on al qaeda figures.

I don't have a problem with that, do you?

The war I had/have a problem with is the pointless one in Iraq and even FOX hasn't blamed that one on the guy from Kenya.

That's right... it is directly related to a particular currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation pretty much details it and gives examples from history.

In the US, the civil war confederate dollar would be the last example. More recognized examples are Argentina1970's +, Zimbabwe 2008, Germany 1923.


.

Of course, but we also make our own bread... so I know what the raw materials cost.

How much have your raw material costs gone up over the last decade? Outside this year...

We don't have a decade of stats, excluding this year our raw costs have gone up about 25%, with this year it's a pretty big ass jump.

I see what China is doing, while it may cost us both more today, it should in the long term create a longer stable price, allowing us to forecast our future costs with much better accuracy. Something China has been bitching about with the various markets for awhile now, and kinda a smart business move if it ends up happening.

Go in with a couple other companies next time and buy in even larger bulk... the price will go down. That's what they want, less small orders, more larger orders, and we distro here ourselves, lowering the projected costs for them.

No it's not because:

1) it is only taking into account specific items while ignoring others.

2) hyperinflation is currency dependent. That means that base prices are accelerating out of control for the currency in question. If the base prices you're citing are also going up in other currencies, you are simply observing higher prices.

You are also using a definition of hyperinflation that is not used in mainstream economics.

It's fine if you guys want to make up your own definitions, but recognize that for what it is.


.

Does that mean the inflation rate, itself, would be like 26%? Then for it to be hyper inflation that compounds for 3 years?

I guess I'm glad Americans still produce wealth, goods, etc. and looking at it, we would need to damn near stop producing anything to reach the numbers of true hyper inflation.

This may be true, but if he knew a bit more he would have never appointed two Wall Street stooges like Geithner and Summers to manage the economy.

And had he not done that, he just might have had the balls to pursue criminal investigations of Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, the entire Financial Products Division of AIG and the rest of the shysters who deep sixed the economy.


Still in all, aside from (possibly) Ron Paul, Obama's far better than anything the Republicans have to offer.

My degree is in mechanical engineering. Even though I haven't done much engineering work in the last 10 years my daily tasks are solidly in the business and management side of manufacturing. I will concede the word hyper.

That being said,since 1999 when we added the plastics division the last 6 months have been the largest cost increases we have seen. In 1999 a pound of raw poly cost 54 cents.
Though the 2000's it rose annually at a bit over COLA.

We purchase now in the largest bracket. We order train cars(180,000 lbs) every three weeks. Rubbermaid pays the same price as we do.

Damn, train cars, that's kinda cool. They make them in China and send them to the States? That's nuts...

Or worse... But you have to look at inflation in totality. Try http://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables.htm

Simply selecting areas of prices that are higher and then citing hyperinflation is an abuse of the term, which is what Minte was doing.

We had high inflation in the 1970's (upwards of 13%), but it was not considered hyperinflation. Compare that to 2008 +3.8%, 2009 -0.4%, 2010 +1.6%.

Then compare those to These Hyperinflations where prices were doubling from every 15 hours to every 6 days.

If you witness people scrambling to get their hands on their money as fast as they can so that they can immediately spend it because it will be worth much less the following day, that's hyperinflation.


.

He knows shit about business and it shows, remember the stimulus package, he thought that would be shovel ready,

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the...ke-joke039s-us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

too bad we keep killing civilians, we should be better than that

What you describe above is more a result of supply and demand.

It is simply a brute fact that with the rise of emerging markets, there are more dollars, euros, pounds, yen, yuan/renmimbi, rupees, etc. chasing the same resources.

WTS, There is no doubt that weakening / strengthening currencies play a role.

But until you see the US Dollar Index and US bond market collapsing, the world doesn't have even accelerating inflation considered as a significant risk at this point.

It could happen, so I'm not saying it's impossible. It just looks to me as the US is struggling to maintain inflation and prevent a slip back into the deflation we saw in 2009.


.

I think Herman Cain would be good for us all. Very pro libertarian and business.

I gotcha... well clearly we're a hell of a long ways from that, even if you doubled the numbers.


Any idea how more can they force inflation before deflation kicks in, while hyper inflation would suck, I don't see it around the corner.. I do see hyper deflation, if that's even a phrase, just around the corner.

I haven't followed the cast of the new sitcom, "who wants to be the GOP dominee?"

I'll wait a bit, then look at what's offered.

Still pissed at the lack of back bone the GOP has had of late

First, anything from fox and damn sure rush, is complete and total shit, spin, bullshit.

The stimulus worked in many various ways, that's been proven many times over. Was it perfect? Of course not... nothing at that scale is, but without question, 100% for sure, it worked in many many many ways, proven ways.

Yeah, we killed civilians... it started with the American Revolution and has happened in every war afterward. Is that Obama's fault? Is the next President going to totally make that stop? Of course not.... stop picking out stupid shit for stupid reasons.

You're quick to dismiss anything that fox says because cnn doesn't? I guess Fox doctored the video clip right? LMAO

And I love how fast you make excuses for bad leadership of killing civilians, have you seen how many? Have you looked at how many drone attacks there has been versus militants we killed?

Fox get's dismissed because it's not real news... let's just look at the simple fact that 800 billion hasn't been spent, they can't even get the starting facts straight.

Reagan was a bad leader then? He killed civilians as well in his conflicts. Should our Presidents review every attack before it happens to ensure our Military doesn't kill civilians?

Again, look at the video and tell it's wrong.

So according to you 10 civilians for every militant killed is acceptable? Reagan or any other president never had that bad of numbers.

BTW, keep on subject, we were talking about the idiot in office we have now, just because another president did something, doesn't make it right. Comparing Obama to Reagan is like comparing Pelosi to Einstein. Obama is no where near the league Reagan was in, Reagan didn't take shit from other countries, Obama bows to them.
First thing Reagan did when he was in office was to stop the shit Carter got us in with Iran.

Ven, I just went and looked at the stats.

Looks like our civilian killings under Obama is down from a peak in 08. Just think of the 800,000+ civilians that died in the war of lies, Iraq. And it appears in 2011, 75% of civilian deaths have been caused by Taliban forces, and not ours.



Looks like Obama has improved things... are you going to give him credit or dismiss it because fox news told you otherwise?

By continuing to inject liquidity in the system or in the case of a serious rebound in the economy failing to mop up the liquidity.

I agree with you that deflation is much more of a risk than hyperinflation. I think hyperinflation has more potential after a deflationary collapse if that were to happen.

I've never heard the term hyper-deflation. I think by the very mechanics of deflation they are "hyper" if they cannot be stopped.

Take Minte as a businessman for example. Imagine what he would do if he saw collapsing prices for the commodities or other resources he manages as part of his business. I imagine he would be hard pressed to buy the commodities he needs, invest in infrastructure, labor, etc. if, tomorrow or next week or whatever his horizon was, he expected the cost of all these things to be cheaper.

Add to that the fear that by the time he produced the items he sells they would be down in price and he would be trying to sell to others who also may be anticipating still lower prices so they too refrain from making purchases.

Once people understand how deflation would play out in today's world, they would understand why it is the worse possible outcome.



.

I don't see a video?

I assume it's pointing out what Obama said... he's said many things about it, good and bad. Would you rather he lie or slightly twist the facts like fox does?


Looks like you need to research the numbers again. Our military killing civilians is down.... if you remember correctly, that is one of Obama's ideas for the military, kill as few civilians as possible.

Reagan's policies, created the mess we're in today... his theories failed, trickle down failed, tax cut failed, he spent more money than Obama by far.

We don't need a President to be a jack ass, we need one that respects others.... one thing I actually like about Obama is that he does show other leaders respect, respect they deserve to have.

oh yeah, totally agree... they're walking a very fine line right now, at least I think so. They should just let it deflate, them forcing inflation higher and higher is just going to make the drop that much worse. Then again, maybe they can find the balance... they have for a 100 years now.

How do you twist video, that shit head laughed about the stimulus money he spent

And your numbers are where?

We need a president at works for peace, not some asshole that escalates it, when Obama took office, we had 2 countries we were killing people in, how many are we killing people in now?

When Reagan took office, we had the cold war, he worked to end that by bankrupting the USSR.

Funy how you want to change the subject towards other things that you don't even lay out

If the US deflates, the whole civilized world is going to enter a depression that would be of a larger degree than the Great Depression.

As much as I have distaste for many things that are happening and have happened leading up to the current crisis and until today, I think the consequences of letting it deflate (collapse) are so catastrophic any attempt to "find the balance" is the only reasonable thing to do.


.

Classy.

Maybe he meant that "money put into a "shovel ready project" will have a more immediate impact on the economy than money spent on a project on which a great deal of time must elapse for architecture, zoning, legal considerations or other such factors before labor can be deployed on it" and that either 1) it was not as immediate (shovel ready) as expected 2) More stimulus was required.

I mean, I realize how his statement is being used politically, but is that the only explanation??




.

I never saw the video... and why not laugh?



Not coming from fox news... where are yours?


You point out the most pointless shit. We're in two wars, and like 50 countries, and killing in like 20 at once, all the fucking time. Peace? Fuck peace, he did what Bush should have done, went and got the damn bad guy, not giving a shit where he was! That's being a leader!

Statistically speaking, and proven, the cold war would have ended for the same reason, either way, with or without Reagan. Shit the Pope had WAY more to do with it ending than Reagan ever did. If you want to give out real credit where credit is actually due, thank the Pope.

What did I change? I simply responded to your misunderstandings, that's not me changing anything.

So you admit you feel that the way the stimulus was used was stupid?

I gave links, use your power of hooked on phonics

Ohhh, that's your research? No wonder you have no idea what's going on...

You gave a link to fox news transcript from a fox talk show (not news) and a wiki link on drone killings in Pakistan. You might want to try Google, and not just read one thing, and totally avoid anything ever produced by Fox... then you'll start to see the facts, maybe... if not keep reading.

This is a great example of what I'm talking about above.... being that you don't understand how the stimulus was used, your quote really makes you sound completely uneducated on the subject.

Let me help... Every State had to use the money in the percentages laid out by the Administration. One State would use the money correctly, and it worked/helped and things are good today. Another State, let's say like Texas, took the stimulus money, spent it how it should have been - which did work - however THEY spent the 'actual state school budget' on something else & did not use it with the Stimulus as it should have been, so when the stimulus funds dried up - they were fucked, and blamed Obama.

If it was used stupid, it's not Obama that did it... it's the States. Point your hate the right direction and you might not be so blinded by it.

How do you get that out of what I said? :disgust


.