(08-21-2024, 04:56 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2024, 10:07 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’m beginning to believe the MSM is realizing they can’t manufacture and maintain an image of intelligence with cardboard cutout Kamala. She’s an empty vessel who was ushered into this position because of her skin color and vagina. She’s never had to present and defend her proposed policies and the MSM is beginning to draw heat for not doing their due diligence on their candidate.
The wheels are starting to wobble.
Believe or hope?
Do you really think the MSM is concerned? They'll only get concerned if Harris delivers a Biden-esque debate performance. Until then, it's a love-fest.
I’m seeing more stories from the MSM being uncharacteristically critical of Harris. They’re doing so because they are concerned. They are the gatekeepers of Democrat politics. They create and sustain the image of electability and accomplishment. The MSM doesn’t think they can keep Harris propped up for 4 years. Naturally they’re doing their typical biased reporting now, but it isn’t with the same verve and lack of transparency they exercise with a true chosen candidate.
(08-22-2024, 05:18 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2024, 04:56 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]Believe or hope?
Do you really think the MSM is concerned? They'll only get concerned if Harris delivers a Biden-esque debate performance. Until then, it's a love-fest.
I’m seeing more stories from the MSM being uncharacteristically critical of Harris. They’re doing so because they are concerned. They are the gatekeepers of Democrat politics. They create and sustain the image of electability and accomplishment. The MSM doesn’t think they can keep Harris propped up for 4 years. Naturally they’re doing their typical biased reporting now, but it isn’t with the same verve and lack of transparency they exercise with a true chosen candidate.
You assign an ulterior motive to the MSM, even when, in your opinion, they are telling the truth. To you, it's not possible that they are simply being honest, even when they are telling the truth. That's what I get from that post. Am I reading it correctly?
(08-22-2024, 08:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 05:18 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’m seeing more stories from the MSM being uncharacteristically critical of Harris. They’re doing so because they are concerned. They are the gatekeepers of Democrat politics. They create and sustain the image of electability and accomplishment. The MSM doesn’t think they can keep Harris propped up for 4 years. Naturally they’re doing their typical biased reporting now, but it isn’t with the same verve and lack of transparency they exercise with a true chosen candidate.
You assign an ulterior motive to the MSM, even when, in your opinion, they are telling the truth. To you, it's not possible that they are simply being honest, even when they are telling the truth. That's what I get from that post. Am I reading it correctly?
They’re honest and forthcoming when it suits their agenda.
Come on, Marty. Are you really trying to tell us the media doesn’t manipulate the facts to suit their narrative and candidates? If so, you really need to take off the TDS goggles.
Not all things in life are simple. This recent inflation rise however may be one that is. Maybe you can tell me what I am missing. One political candidate is blaming corporate greed for inflation. Very educated people seem to just want to show off they are smart and muddy the issue. Whenever people go out of their way to tell me anything is hard, complex and takes great skill to understand it normally is not. They are either wanting a more money or are hiding something. I see a simple correlation between the inflation we recently experienced and the cost of diesel fuel. It appears in the current economy you can pick your level of inflation by the cost of fuel. If you graph the cost of diesel to the rate of inflation, if you want 2% inflation or less just keep the cost of diesel in the $3.00 to $2.75 range. When the current administration attacked the fossil fuel industry without providing an alternative it drove inflation higher.
As the price of diesel rose inflation rose with it. The priced of diesel peaked June of 22 at 5.75 per gallon the same time inflation peaked at 9.06%. It began declining as the administration began to ease the attack. Environmental groups became irritated and had meetings with the administration during the time of easing. The price of diesel slowly fell and is now $3.44 according to EIA.gov and inflation has followed. To keep inflation between 1 and 2% like it was running the last 10 years diesel need to be between $2.50 - $3.00. It is not rocket science, it is numbers. Do not believe anything else.
Our transportation system runs on fossil fuels. Food is planted and harvested using diesel fuel. The consumers power bills and manufacturing run off fossil fuels. There is a lag in these effects, initially the corporations experienced higher costs. They then raised prices to offset these costs. The prices will come down as the energy costs decline. This is a free market result. This higher energy cost crushed all the mid to lower earning Americans. I understand there may be a need to move away from fossil fuels. That is not the issue. What is the issue is the execution of that move. The first step is providing an alternative or transitioning only as fast as that alternative can handle. Unless you have no heart and care less about the working people. What was done was highly irresponsible and heartless.
I have the graph but cannot figure out how to post it. If you want it send me a message and I can email it with the data.
Not sure if it has already been posted (I cant view the instagram or click on any x links atm) but JD Vance did an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper and I couldn't believe how smooth it went. Jake never tried to interrupt JD and let him get out what he wanted. It does seem the media is switching stances over the last few days.
(08-21-2024, 04:56 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.instagram.com/p/C-8OaQ3PdVX/...gyZmRteHZm
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
[BLEEP]
, [BLEEP] zombie apocalypse. Rule number 2 Double Tap.
#2:
Double Tap - In those moments when you're not sure the undead are really dead dead, don't get all stingy with your bullets.
(08-22-2024, 09:09 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Not all things in life are simple. This recent inflation rise however may be one that is. Maybe you can tell me what I am missing. One political candidate is blaming corporate greed for inflation. Very educated people seem to just want to show off they are smart and muddy the issue. Whenever people go out of their way to tell me anything is hard, complex and takes great skill to understand it normally is not. They are either wanting a more money or are hiding something. I see a simple correlation between the inflation we recently experienced and the cost of diesel fuel. It appears in the current economy you can pick your level of inflation by the cost of fuel. If you graph the cost of diesel to the rate of inflation, if you want 2% inflation or less just keep the cost of diesel in the $3.00 to $2.75 range. When the current administration attacked the fossil fuel industry without providing an alternative it drove inflation higher.
As the price of diesel rose inflation rose with it. The priced of diesel peaked June of 22 at 5.75 per gallon the same time inflation peaked at 9.06%. It began declining as the administration began to ease the attack. Environmental groups became irritated and had meetings with the administration during the time of easing. The price of diesel slowly fell and is now $3.44 according to EIA.gov and inflation has followed. To keep inflation between 1 and 2% like it was running the last 10 years diesel need to be between $2.50 - $3.00. It is not rocket science, it is numbers. Do not believe anything else.
Our transportation system runs on fossil fuels. Food is planted and harvested using diesel fuel. The consumers power bills and manufacturing run off fossil fuels. There is a lag in these effects, initially the corporations experienced higher costs. They then raised prices to offset these costs. The prices will come down as the energy costs decline. This is a free market result. This higher energy cost crushed all the mid to lower earning Americans. I understand there may be a need to move away from fossil fuels. That is not the issue. What is the issue is the execution of that move. The first step is providing an alternative or transitioning only as fast as that alternative can handle. Unless you have no heart and care less about the working people. What was done was highly irresponsible and heartless.
I have the graph but cannot figure out how to post it. If you want it send me a message and I can email it with the data.
Diesel prices went up and food prices went up. Diesel prices went down and food prices did not go down.
Obviously you're on to something, but you don't have the full picture.
The people who say it's very complicated are right.
(08-22-2024, 08:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 05:18 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’m seeing more stories from the MSM being uncharacteristically critical of Harris. They’re doing so because they are concerned. They are the gatekeepers of Democrat politics. They create and sustain the image of electability and accomplishment. The MSM doesn’t think they can keep Harris propped up for 4 years. Naturally they’re doing their typical biased reporting now, but it isn’t with the same verve and lack of transparency they exercise with a true chosen candidate.
You assign an ulterior motive to the MSM, even when, in your opinion, they are telling the truth. To you, it's not possible that they are simply being honest, even when they are telling the truth. That's what I get from that post. Am I reading it correctly?
You're reading it in a vacuum without a lifetime of experience guiding you, for whatever reason. Perhaps intentionally to continue firmly and virtuously straddling the fence?
(08-22-2024, 10:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 09:09 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Not all things in life are simple. This recent inflation rise however may be one that is. Maybe you can tell me what I am missing. One political candidate is blaming corporate greed for inflation. Very educated people seem to just want to show off they are smart and muddy the issue. Whenever people go out of their way to tell me anything is hard, complex and takes great skill to understand it normally is not. They are either wanting a more money or are hiding something. I see a simple correlation between the inflation we recently experienced and the cost of diesel fuel. It appears in the current economy you can pick your level of inflation by the cost of fuel. If you graph the cost of diesel to the rate of inflation, if you want 2% inflation or less just keep the cost of diesel in the $3.00 to $2.75 range. When the current administration attacked the fossil fuel industry without providing an alternative it drove inflation higher.
As the price of diesel rose inflation rose with it. The priced of diesel peaked June of 22 at 5.75 per gallon the same time inflation peaked at 9.06%. It began declining as the administration began to ease the attack. Environmental groups became irritated and had meetings with the administration during the time of easing. The price of diesel slowly fell and is now $3.44 according to EIA.gov and inflation has followed. To keep inflation between 1 and 2% like it was running the last 10 years diesel need to be between $2.50 - $3.00. It is not rocket science, it is numbers. Do not believe anything else.
Our transportation system runs on fossil fuels. Food is planted and harvested using diesel fuel. The consumers power bills and manufacturing run off fossil fuels. There is a lag in these effects, initially the corporations experienced higher costs. They then raised prices to offset these costs. The prices will come down as the energy costs decline. This is a free market result. This higher energy cost crushed all the mid to lower earning Americans. I understand there may be a need to move away from fossil fuels. That is not the issue. What is the issue is the execution of that move. The first step is providing an alternative or transitioning only as fast as that alternative can handle. Unless you have no heart and care less about the working people. What was done was highly irresponsible and heartless.
I have the graph but cannot figure out how to post it. If you want it send me a message and I can email it with the data.
Diesel prices went up and food prices went up. Diesel prices went down and food prices did not go down.
Obviously you're on to something, but you don't have the full picture.
The people who say it's very complicated are right.
My food prices are slowly reducing. There is a lag due to large companies purchasing energy for the future as a hedge. There is a graph out there of grocery store gross margins. They are now at the same level as they were in 2019. Overall there is NOT anything you can show that companies are gouging people, I have been looking pretty hard too. . They are responding to their input costs. If the tax rate on them is raised expect prices to rise by that %.
Got some additional data for you.
P&G the largest consumer company in the world. - you will notice from 2020 to date their finances are pretty flat.
https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/C...fitability
There are some exceptions but they are now having to reduce prices or lose market share.
The claim of gouging is nothing burger hyperbole you expect of a candidate for High school president. A distraction from the truth. A free market will control this issue by the consumer voting with their wallets and businesses failing that don't pay attention.
(08-22-2024, 11:59 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 10:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Diesel prices went up and food prices went up. Diesel prices went down and food prices did not go down.
Obviously you're on to something, but you don't have the full picture.
The people who say it's very complicated are right.
My food prices are slowly reducing. There is a lag due to large companies purchasing energy for the future as a hedge. There is a graph out there of grocery store gross margins. They are now at the same level as they were in 2019. Overall there is NOT anything you can show that companies are gouging people, I have been looking pretty hard too. . They are responding to their input costs. If the tax rate on them is raised expect prices to rise by that %.
There is a strong correlation between oil prices and US inflation. A lot of that is because other countries buy and sell oil in dollars. So it's kind of a cycle, the two things cause each other.
There are ways we can try to de-couple food prices from oil prices. While lithium batteries don't make much sense for passenger air travel or for long haul trucking, they would make a lot of sense for farm and construction equipment, especially if they were packaged as swappable crates. Caterpillar and John Deere should be working on it.
(08-22-2024, 12:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 11:59 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]My food prices are slowly reducing. There is a lag due to large companies purchasing energy for the future as a hedge. There is a graph out there of grocery store gross margins. They are now at the same level as they were in 2019. Overall there is NOT anything you can show that companies are gouging people, I have been looking pretty hard too. . They are responding to their input costs. If the tax rate on them is raised expect prices to rise by that %.
There is a strong correlation between oil prices and US inflation. A lot of that is because other countries buy and sell oil in dollars. So it's kind of a cycle, the two things cause each other.
There are ways we can try to de-couple food prices from oil prices. While lithium batteries don't make much sense for passenger air travel or for long haul trucking, they would make a lot of sense for farm and construction equipment, especially if they were packaged as swappable crates. Caterpillar and John Deere should be working on it.
I agree we can, but the alternative has to be in place or you crush the lower half of workers. Doing otherwise is just plain mean. No heart at all. Actually, the hydrogen engine is a better alternative for trucking and tractors. (Look at what Norway is doing) Exhaust from a hydrogen engine is H2O ..lol If you add in the transmission and distribution loss to charge batteries the electric engine is not as effective or even with a gasoline engine. They are about twice as heavy so roads will need more maintenance, which they currently don't pay a dime for most places. Then there is the environmental impact of the batteries both to make and dispose of.
(08-22-2024, 12:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 11:59 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]My food prices are slowly reducing. There is a lag due to large companies purchasing energy for the future as a hedge. There is a graph out there of grocery store gross margins. They are now at the same level as they were in 2019. Overall there is NOT anything you can show that companies are gouging people, I have been looking pretty hard too. . They are responding to their input costs. If the tax rate on them is raised expect prices to rise by that %.
There is a strong correlation between oil prices and US inflation. A lot of that is because other countries buy and sell oil in dollars. So it's kind of a cycle, the two things cause each other.
There are ways we can try to de-couple food prices from oil prices. While lithium batteries don't make much sense for passenger air travel or for long haul trucking, they would make a lot of sense for farm and construction equipment, especially if they were packaged as swappable crates. Caterpillar and John Deere should be working on it.
Lithium batteries are not the answer it is hydrogen. It is coming and the free market will determine that. This governmental push for electricity is criminal. It alone has caused the current inflation crisis.
(08-22-2024, 12:55 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 12:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There is a strong correlation between oil prices and US inflation. A lot of that is because other countries buy and sell oil in dollars. So it's kind of a cycle, the two things cause each other.
There are ways we can try to de-couple food prices from oil prices. While lithium batteries don't make much sense for passenger air travel or for long haul trucking, they would make a lot of sense for farm and construction equipment, especially if they were packaged as swappable crates. Caterpillar and John Deere should be working on it.
I agree we can, but the alternative has to be in place or you crush the lower half of workers. Doing otherwise is just plain mean. No heart at all. Actually, the hydrogen engine is a better alternative for trucking and tractors. (Look at what Norway is doing) Exhaust from a hydrogen engine is H2O ..lol If you add in the transmission and distribution loss to charge batteries the electric engine is not as effective or even with a gasoline engine. They are about twice as heavy so roads will need more maintenance, which they currently don't pay a dime for most places. Then there is the environmental impact of the batteries both to make and dispose of.
Beat me to it.
(08-22-2024, 12:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 11:59 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]My food prices are slowly reducing. There is a lag due to large companies purchasing energy for the future as a hedge. There is a graph out there of grocery store gross margins. They are now at the same level as they were in 2019. Overall there is NOT anything you can show that companies are gouging people, I have been looking pretty hard too. . They are responding to their input costs. If the tax rate on them is raised expect prices to rise by that %.
There is a strong correlation between oil prices and US inflation. A lot of that is because other countries buy and sell oil in dollars. So it's kind of a cycle, the two things cause each other.
There are ways we can try to de-couple food prices from oil prices. While lithium batteries don't make much sense for passenger air travel or for long haul trucking, they would make a lot of sense for farm and construction equipment, especially if they were packaged as swappable crates. Caterpillar and John Deere should be working on it.
I happen to know a lot of people in the farming and heavy equipment industries that would very much disagree with you (myself included).
(08-22-2024, 01:51 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2024, 12:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There is a strong correlation between oil prices and US inflation. A lot of that is because other countries buy and sell oil in dollars. So it's kind of a cycle, the two things cause each other.
There are ways we can try to de-couple food prices from oil prices. While lithium batteries don't make much sense for passenger air travel or for long haul trucking, they would make a lot of sense for farm and construction equipment, especially if they were packaged as swappable crates. Caterpillar and John Deere should be working on it.
I happen to know a lot of people in the farming and heavy equipment industries that would very much disagree with you (myself included).
The landscaping and light construction industries are relying more on rechargeable, swappable batteries every year. No reason farms and heavy construction can't be next. The level of torque you can get out of a well designed DC motor beats a four stroke diesel pound for pound every day and twice on Sunday.
It's just a matter of packaging the batteries and converting the skeptics.
The batteries, compared to a diesel fuel tank, are more cost and more dead weight. That's a major disadvantage for heavy trucks, but for applications where vehicle weight is less of a limitation like tractors, cranes, etc, it would not matter much.
.gif "Laughing")