Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Umm… Biden. He's spiking the football a bit, is he not?

https://time.com/6204141/biden-jobs-report-july-economy/

---

Politically, he has every right to "spike" the football.
Trump would have done the exact same thing, especially with mid-terms coming up.

As far as a Recession is concerned, that's still up to the FED in my book.
And as I have posted in the past, the last two quarters of GDP were highly impacted by the surge in inventories from Q4 of last year.

---

That's my point. And that is why I limited my take to those in government and the press. It is too early to spike the football since I have been hearing from industry leaders that they are planning as if recession is a certainty and pricing power to pass on cost is going away. As such, they will have to reduce costs to protect some of the margin, which has a chain reaction. Not sure if the government leaders are ignoring all that or they would rather mislead the public for political win.

And Trump should not be the bar or the role model. The fact that I voted for Biden and Clinton over him despite my conservative leanings should tell you what I think of Trump.

---

I think that there is a difference between a Corporate Earnings Recession which is what you have described (which will eventually lead to some kind of decrease in capital investment and potential layoffs) as opposed to an economic contraction that sends the unemployment rate back up in dramatic fashion.

Thus far, the capital spending has not gone away.
In fact, it's done the opposite.

In fact, it has remained strong and such expenditures are growing faster than stock repurchases for the first time since Q1 of 2021. If CEO's were truly battening down the hatches, they would not be spending like this.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-from-google-to-pepsi-are-boosting-capital-spending-11659584015?st=ldi57bgfidcna23&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

---

I only know what I am hearing from CFOs and also during networking during directors' college events at some of the top universities. CFOs are already cutting back on capital
expenditures, protecting free cash flow (especially with both public and syndicated debt markets in a flux), and already doing discrete restructuring and cutting work force. Yes, companies were purchasing stock since they believed that their stock was undervalued and stock repurchase was the best way to return capital under those circumstances. That does not mean they are not preparing for decrease in expenditures. Were there no stock repurchase during 2008? Of course there were a lot. Most data is lagging and you only can see around the corner by hearing what concerns about the future key decision makers have. If you are hearing something different from CFOs l, I will stand corrected.

---

Interesting that you mention CFO's cutting back future capex given the article Wags shared.

In my community of earlier stage VC backed companies, we are certainly seeing more disciplined spending across the board. People are ratcheting down burn which will have an impact on growth.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

Also, and I mean this with all due respect. But you mentioned that you had directors college events. What were those like? What were the demographics and where were they located? I'm in a few startup peer networks and they are "diverse" but feature very few under represented minorities. Curious to see if your business circles are more reflective of our society than mine.

---

I went to Stanford Director College this summer but have attended NACD, Northwestern and Harvard in the past. I suspect the same circle as yours at Stanford. With the drive toward diversity on the board,, whether through private ordering or regulation, the public boards are becoming very diverse which is only helping to bring the necessary diverse perspective and, quite frankly, greatly elevating the level of oversight and insight.

---

Ah those events. I imagine they look more diverse every year.

---

They do. If your question was on whether there is more diversity in wealth, there is a lag. I think the private ordering push for diversity (both gender and ethnicity) not only on the boards but also senior leadership will have long term impact but that will take time. I am hearing that CHROs, CEOs and Boards are very conscious of making sure that the candidate pool include diverse candidates and CEO succession planning reflects diversity. That is a great step to eventually bridging the gap in wealth.

---

No, it wasn't about diversity in wealth - I think that is pretty well understood. More wondering how impactful the focus on board-level diversity has been. One of the historical issues was that companies want people with pre-existing experience and for hundreds of years that has been predominantly white dudes. It's obviously led to a lot of gnashing of teeth from white dudes who feel like their entitlement is being taken away for less qualified people but there is no other way to do it.

We are seeing more diversity in VC funds which will have an impact on tech company board diversity but was curious to see what it's like in the less tech-focused world.

---

The discussions I had with boards starting in 2015 when Blackrock, State Street, T Rowe were ordering diversity on the board, starting with gender and then with ethnicity was that they need to look outside their network and need to stop thinking diverse candidates must have prior public board experience. The few ones with board experience back then would be in so much demand that overboarding would become an issue. Now, with Nasdaq and even proxy advisory firms insisting on this, it is rare not to see board diversity. It is almost table stakes at this point, and now moving to expertise in climate-risk and cyber as well as diversity in the c-suite.

---

You were prescient there. Diversity is way up (but has a lot further to climb) and overboarding is still a concern.

---

Very interesting discussion. I recall my brother in law who spent his work life with AT&T in the seventies finding it difficult to hire to diversity mandates. I suspect in the short term quality suffered, but has become more level with time. Would you say the same of overbearing? Time has increased diversity in education along with hiring in the workplace so much I have a hard time imagining overboarding being but a temporary phenomena, but then I am not, nor have I been corporate.

---

There are a number of problems with overboarding but the one I'm probably most concerned with is how it limits opportunities.

Here is a link to some relatively recent data on S&P500 director seats. About 1/5 director seats are held by minorities and 30% are held by women. For seats appointed in 2021, the numbers are much more diverse: 47% are minorities and 43% are women. But 2/3 of those new seats are held by people who are already S&P500 directors. And 94% of directors are over 50. More than 1/5 are active or retired CEOs.

I can't find data on this, but from what I've seen, women and minority directors with experience are in extreme demand so they are more likely to end up serving on multiple boards. While it's great for providing companies with experienced diverse directors, it doesn't help increase the total pool of diverse directors. I think the gains have been great the last few years, but it's still an uphill battle to increase diversity in the seats of power in our country.

We are seeing something similar in my company's attempt to hire senior engineers. You can't hire a senior engineer who doesn't have commensurate experience. The ones who do are in high demand and don't want to come work for my crappy startup. So we need the industry to diversify from the bottom and eventually there will be a more diverse set of senior leaders. We're just not there yet.

---

Certainly hope so. Long overdue as diversity in the education and corporate work world have been there for such a long time. I also have a vested interest in having 3 granddaughters 21 to 25---one in wealth management, one is ESG food production, and one intending on law school. The track on the first two has been speedy up but that is work force, not corp boards. There is not reason quality cannot be found with the brilliant CEOs that we now how both of color and gender.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Umm… Biden. He's spiking the football a bit, is he not?

https://time.com/6204141/biden-jobs-report-july-economy/

---

Politically, he has every right to "spike" the football.
Trump would have done the exact same thing, especially with mid-terms coming up.

As far as a Recession is concerned, that's still up to the FED in my book.
And as I have posted in the past, the last two quarters of GDP were highly impacted by the surge in inventories from Q4 of last year.

---

That's my point. And that is why I limited my take to those in government and the press. It is too early to spike the football since I have been hearing from industry leaders that they are planning as if recession is a certainty and pricing power to pass on cost is going away. As such, they will have to reduce costs to protect some of the margin, which has a chain reaction. Not sure if the government leaders are ignoring all that or they would rather mislead the public for political win.

And Trump should not be the bar or the role model. The fact that I voted for Biden and Clinton over him despite my conservative leanings should tell you what I think of Trump.

---

I think that there is a difference between a Corporate Earnings Recession which is what you have described (which will eventually lead to some kind of decrease in capital investment and potential layoffs) as opposed to an economic contraction that sends the unemployment rate back up in dramatic fashion.

Thus far, the capital spending has not gone away.
In fact, it's done the opposite.

In fact, it has remained strong and such expenditures are growing faster than stock repurchases for the first time since Q1 of 2021. If CEO's were truly battening down the hatches, they would not be spending like this.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-from-google-to-pepsi-are-boosting-capital-spending-11659584015?st=ldi57bgfidcna23&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

---

I only know what I am hearing from CFOs and also during networking during directors' college events at some of the top universities. CFOs are already cutting back on capital
expenditures, protecting free cash flow (especially with both public and syndicated debt markets in a flux), and already doing discrete restructuring and cutting work force. Yes, companies were purchasing stock since they believed that their stock was undervalued and stock repurchase was the best way to return capital under those circumstances. That does not mean they are not preparing for decrease in expenditures. Were there no stock repurchase during 2008? Of course there were a lot. Most data is lagging and you only can see around the corner by hearing what concerns about the future key decision makers have. If you are hearing something different from CFOs l, I will stand corrected.

---

Interesting that you mention CFO's cutting back future capex given the article Wags shared.

In my community of earlier stage VC backed companies, we are certainly seeing more disciplined spending across the board. People are ratcheting down burn which will have an impact on growth.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

Also, and I mean this with all due respect. But you mentioned that you had directors college events. What were those like? What were the demographics and where were they located? I'm in a few startup peer networks and they are "diverse" but feature very few under represented minorities. Curious to see if your business circles are more reflective of our society than mine.

---

I went to Stanford Director College this summer but have attended NACD, Northwestern and Harvard in the past. I suspect the same circle as yours at Stanford. With the drive toward diversity on the board,, whether through private ordering or regulation, the public boards are becoming very diverse which is only helping to bring the necessary diverse perspective and, quite frankly, greatly elevating the level of oversight and insight.

---

Ah those events. I imagine they look more diverse every year.

---

They do. If your question was on whether there is more diversity in wealth, there is a lag. I think the private ordering push for diversity (both gender and ethnicity) not only on the boards but also senior leadership will have long term impact but that will take time. I am hearing that CHROs, CEOs and Boards are very conscious of making sure that the candidate pool include diverse candidates and CEO succession planning reflects diversity. That is a great step to eventually bridging the gap in wealth.

---

No, it wasn't about diversity in wealth - I think that is pretty well understood. More wondering how impactful the focus on board-level diversity has been. One of the historical issues was that companies want people with pre-existing experience and for hundreds of years that has been predominantly white dudes. It's obviously led to a lot of gnashing of teeth from white dudes who feel like their entitlement is being taken away for less qualified people but there is no other way to do it.

We are seeing more diversity in VC funds which will have an impact on tech company board diversity but was curious to see what it's like in the less tech-focused world.

---

The discussions I had with boards starting in 2015 when Blackrock, State Street, T Rowe were ordering diversity on the board, starting with gender and then with ethnicity was that they need to look outside their network and need to stop thinking diverse candidates must have prior public board experience. The few ones with board experience back then would be in so much demand that overboarding would become an issue. Now, with Nasdaq and even proxy advisory firms insisting on this, it is rare not to see board diversity. It is almost table stakes at this point, and now moving to expertise in climate-risk and cyber as well as diversity in the c-suite.

---

You were prescient there. Diversity is way up (but has a lot further to climb) and overboarding is still a concern.

---

Very interesting discussion. I recall my brother in law who spent his work life with AT&T in the seventies finding it difficult to hire to diversity mandates. I suspect in the short term quality suffered, but has become more level with time. Would you say the same of overbearing? Time has increased diversity in education along with hiring in the workplace so much I have a hard time imagining overboarding being but a temporary phenomena, but then I am not, nor have I been corporate.

---

There are a number of problems with overboarding but the one I'm probably most concerned with is how it limits opportunities.

Here is a link to some relatively recent data on S&P500 director seats. About 1/5 director seats are held by minorities and 30% are held by women. For seats appointed in 2021, the numbers are much more diverse: 47% are minorities and 43% are women. But 2/3 of those new seats are held by people who are already S&P500 directors. And 94% of directors are over 50. More than 1/5 are active or retired CEOs.

I can't find data on this, but from what I've seen, women and minority directors with experience are in extreme demand so they are more likely to end up serving on multiple boards. While it's great for providing companies with experienced diverse directors, it doesn't help increase the total pool of diverse directors. I think the gains have been great the last few years, but it's still an uphill battle to increase diversity in the seats of power in our country.

We are seeing something similar in my company's attempt to hire senior engineers. You can't hire a senior engineer who doesn't have commensurate experience. The ones who do are in high demand and don't want to come work for my crappy startup. So we need the industry to diversify from the bottom and eventually there will be a more diverse set of senior leaders. We're just not there yet.

---

Certainly hope so. Long overdue as diversity in the education and corporate work world have been there for such a long time. I also have a vested interest in having 3 granddaughters 21 to 25---one in wealth management, one is ESG food production, and one intending on law school. The track on the first two has been speedy up but that is work force, not corp boards. There is not reason quality cannot be found with the brilliant CEOs that we now how both of color and gender.

---

One of the trends is to source directors from other roles, not just CEO seats because the pool of CEOs is smaller and still predominantly white men.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Umm… Biden. He's spiking the football a bit, is he not?

https://time.com/6204141/biden-jobs-report-july-economy/

---

Politically, he has every right to "spike" the football.
Trump would have done the exact same thing, especially with mid-terms coming up.

As far as a Recession is concerned, that's still up to the FED in my book.
And as I have posted in the past, the last two quarters of GDP were highly impacted by the surge in inventories from Q4 of last year.

---

That's my point. And that is why I limited my take to those in government and the press. It is too early to spike the football since I have been hearing from industry leaders that they are planning as if recession is a certainty and pricing power to pass on cost is going away. As such, they will have to reduce costs to protect some of the margin, which has a chain reaction. Not sure if the government leaders are ignoring all that or they would rather mislead the public for political win.

And Trump should not be the bar or the role model. The fact that I voted for Biden and Clinton over him despite my conservative leanings should tell you what I think of Trump.

---

I think that there is a difference between a Corporate Earnings Recession which is what you have described (which will eventually lead to some kind of decrease in capital investment and potential layoffs) as opposed to an economic contraction that sends the unemployment rate back up in dramatic fashion.

Thus far, the capital spending has not gone away.
In fact, it's done the opposite.

In fact, it has remained strong and such expenditures are growing faster than stock repurchases for the first time since Q1 of 2021. If CEO's were truly battening down the hatches, they would not be spending like this.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-from-google-to-pepsi-are-boosting-capital-spending-11659584015?st=ldi57bgfidcna23&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

---

I only know what I am hearing from CFOs and also during networking during directors' college events at some of the top universities. CFOs are already cutting back on capital
expenditures, protecting free cash flow (especially with both public and syndicated debt markets in a flux), and already doing discrete restructuring and cutting work force. Yes, companies were purchasing stock since they believed that their stock was undervalued and stock repurchase was the best way to return capital under those circumstances. That does not mean they are not preparing for decrease in expenditures. Were there no stock repurchase during 2008? Of course there were a lot. Most data is lagging and you only can see around the corner by hearing what concerns about the future key decision makers have. If you are hearing something different from CFOs l, I will stand corrected.

---

Interesting that you mention CFO's cutting back future capex given the article Wags shared.

In my community of earlier stage VC backed companies, we are certainly seeing more disciplined spending across the board. People are ratcheting down burn which will have an impact on growth.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

Also, and I mean this with all due respect. But you mentioned that you had directors college events. What were those like? What were the demographics and where were they located? I'm in a few startup peer networks and they are "diverse" but feature very few under represented minorities. Curious to see if your business circles are more reflective of our society than mine.

---

I went to Stanford Director College this summer but have attended NACD, Northwestern and Harvard in the past. I suspect the same circle as yours at Stanford. With the drive toward diversity on the board,, whether through private ordering or regulation, the public boards are becoming very diverse which is only helping to bring the necessary diverse perspective and, quite frankly, greatly elevating the level of oversight and insight.

---

Ah those events. I imagine they look more diverse every year.

---

They do. If your question was on whether there is more diversity in wealth, there is a lag. I think the private ordering push for diversity (both gender and ethnicity) not only on the boards but also senior leadership will have long term impact but that will take time. I am hearing that CHROs, CEOs and Boards are very conscious of making sure that the candidate pool include diverse candidates and CEO succession planning reflects diversity. That is a great step to eventually bridging the gap in wealth.

---

No, it wasn't about diversity in wealth - I think that is pretty well understood. More wondering how impactful the focus on board-level diversity has been. One of the historical issues was that companies want people with pre-existing experience and for hundreds of years that has been predominantly white dudes. It's obviously led to a lot of gnashing of teeth from white dudes who feel like their entitlement is being taken away for less qualified people but there is no other way to do it.

We are seeing more diversity in VC funds which will have an impact on tech company board diversity but was curious to see what it's like in the less tech-focused world.

---

The discussions I had with boards starting in 2015 when Blackrock, State Street, T Rowe were ordering diversity on the board, starting with gender and then with ethnicity was that they need to look outside their network and need to stop thinking diverse candidates must have prior public board experience. The few ones with board experience back then would be in so much demand that overboarding would become an issue. Now, with Nasdaq and even proxy advisory firms insisting on this, it is rare not to see board diversity. It is almost table stakes at this point, and now moving to expertise in climate-risk and cyber as well as diversity in the c-suite.

---

You were prescient there. Diversity is way up (but has a lot further to climb) and overboarding is still a concern.

---

It was an easy discussion, especially with the nominating committee, after telling them the top shareholders will vote against their election unless they have diversity. It started with at least one, then at least two women directors to now about 30 percent gender diversity. And with shareholders reducing overboarding standard to 4 from 5, they had no choice but to look for someone without prior board experience. Now, it is a lot easier finding diverse candidates with prior board experience or senior executive leadership experience.

An encouraging inflation report as July inflation came in lower than June at 8.5% (June was 9.1%). Core inflation (without food and gas which surged after Putin began his war in Ukraine) came in at 5.9%. The core CPI peak in this cycle so far was in March at 6.5% - while the Fed was still accommodative.

A big sticking point for inflation will be shelter costs which is seriously lagged and makes up 1/3 of CPI. Shelter costs came in at 5.7% and this is going to continue as landlords catch up to the spot rate. If you signed a new lease recently it likely came at a huge increase already but most renters are already on leases which increase more gradually. This lag will keep shelter costs climbing for a long time regardless of other inflation factors. In the future, the Fed should not overcompensate on interest rates due to lagged shelter costs.

Gas prices have now come down a full dollar from the June peak. That's a 20% decrease.

Core goods inflation (excluding food and energy) is coming down but core services inflation which affects 57% of consumer budgets, has yet to subside, rising 0.4% on the month and 5.5% from a year ago. The annual increase matched June's 30-year high.

The equity market is setting itself up for one hell of a short.

.@VP Kamala Harris: “Today, we learned that last month our economy had zero percent inflation. In July, we saw a drop in gas prices and a range of other goods, like clothing and airfares and household appliances.” pic.twitter.com/LU4BN0WTIA

— The Hill (@thehill) August 10, 2022

We just received news that our economy had 0% inflation in July. While the price of some things went up, the price of others, like gas, clothing, and more, dropped.

— Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) August 10, 2022

0% wow!

BearForce2 said:

---

.@VP Kamala Harris: “Today, we learned that last month our economy had zero percent inflation. In July, we saw a drop in gas prices and a range of other goods, like clothing and airfares and household appliances.” pic.twitter.com/LU4BN0WTIA

— The Hill (@thehill) August 10, 2022

We just received news that our economy had 0% inflation in July. While the price of some things went up, the price of others, like gas, clothing, and more, dropped.

— Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) August 10, 2022

0% wow!

---

Yes inflation in the month of July was 0% compared to June. What they said is correct even if above your level of comprehension.

dajo9 said:

---

Yes inflation in the month of July was 0% compared to June. What they said is correct even if above your level of comprehension.

---

BearForce2 said:

---

0% inflation back in April too!

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

---

It's an unwritten rule that they shouldn't be consistently misleading. It's as if they all planned to say the same thing.

0% is less freaky than 8.5% no doubt.

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

---

It's an unwritten rule that they shouldn't be consistently misleading. It's as if they all planned to say the same thing.

0% is less freaky than 8.5% no doubt.

---

Biden said "we had zero percent inflation in the month of July"

Quit being a snowflake.

Snowflakes gonna snowflake.

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

---

It's an unwritten rule that they shouldn't be consistently misleading. It's as if they all planned to say the same thing.

0% is less freaky than 8.5% no doubt.

---

Biden said "we had zero percent inflation in the month of July"

Quit being a snowflake.

---

True, true. Same as June. Well, at least no worse.
But not exactly sniffing 2% yet. Haha

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

---

It's an unwritten rule that they shouldn't be consistently misleading. It's as if they all planned to say the same thing.

0% is less freaky than 8.5% no doubt.

---

Biden said "we had zero percent inflation in the month of July"

Quit being a snowflake.

---

Biden's claim of 0% inflation has just moved up to be the frontrunner for LIE OF THE YEAR.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3601540-biden-frontrunner-for-lie-of-the-year-award-as-many-in-media-look-the-other-way/

Let's say Team X is beating Team Y 42-0 in the third quarter of a game. But in the fourth quarter, neither team scores, and the game ends 42-0.

Team Y's coach runs to the podium of a post-game press conference and declares his losing team tied Team X 0-0.

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

---

It's an unwritten rule that they shouldn't be consistently misleading. It's as if they all planned to say the same thing.

0% is less freaky than 8.5% no doubt.

---

Biden said "we had zero percent inflation in the month of July"

Quit being a snowflake.

---

Biden's claim of 0% inflation has just moved up to be the frontrunner for LIE OF THE YEAR.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3601540-biden-frontrunner-for-lie-of-the-year-award-as-many-in-media-look-the-other-way/

Let's say Team X is beating Team Y 42-0 in the third quarter of a game. But in the fourth quarter, neither team scores, and the game ends 42-0.

Team Y's coach runs to the podium of a post-game press conference and declares his losing team tied Team X 0-0.

---

All this is silly.

I am interested in sequential as well as YoY results. While YoY will not be impacted by seasonal changes, I think sequential shows the rate of acceleration.

Do you not care whether you are paying more this month than last and only care whether you are paying more than what you paid last year? Last year was a tough comparison since people still had not fully felt comfortable traveling, buying big ticket items, etc. And we did not have food supply disruption from the war in Ukraine. 0% sequential inflation shows me that the acceleration is over or slowing down.

If you cannot tell the difference between sequential vs YoY, and you rely solely on the white house to inform you on inflation, you have no business talking about it anyway.

I am completely in the camp of hating this spin game from the WH, but 0% sequential is meaningful. If you don't think so, what the hell are you doing talking about inflation anyway.

This is the first paragraph of the BLS July CPI report:

Quote:

---

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in July on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 8.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

---

There is no spin

dajo9 said:

---

This is the first paragraph of the BLS July CPI report:

Quote:

---

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in July on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 8.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

---

There is no spin

---

Who accused the BLS of spin?

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is the first paragraph of the BLS July CPI report:

Quote:

---

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in July on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 8.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

---

There is no spin

---

Who accused the BLS of spin?

---

Calbear93 accused the White House of spin

BF2 accused the White House of either lying or being wrong.

But these are simple factual statements supported by the first sentence of the BLS report.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is the first paragraph of the BLS July CPI report:

Quote:

---

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in July on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 8.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

---

There is no spin

---

Who accused the BLS of spin?

---

Calbear93 accused the White House of spin

BF2 accused the White House of either lying or being wrong.

But these are simple factual statements supported by the first sentence of the BLS report.

---

The average American doesn't read the BLS report, which clarifies the spin.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is the first paragraph of the BLS July CPI report:

Quote:

---

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in July on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 8.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

---

There is no spin

---

Who accused the BLS of spin?

---

Calbear93 accused the White House of spin

BF2 accused the White House of either lying or being wrong.

But these are simple factual statements supported by the first sentence of the BLS report.

---

The average American doesn't read the BLS report, which clarifies the spin.

---

Sounds like you just accused the BLS of spin

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is the first paragraph of the BLS July CPI report:

Quote:

---

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in July on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 8.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

---

There is no spin

---

Who accused the BLS of spin?

---

Calbear93 accused the White House of spin

BF2 accused the White House of either lying or being wrong.

But these are simple factual statements supported by the first sentence of the BLS report.

---

The average American doesn't read the BLS report, which clarifies the spin.

---

Sounds like you just accused the BLS of spin

---

Man, you are playing 4 dimensional chess. I can't hang with this. Kudos, sir.

calbear93 said:

---

If you cannot tell the difference between sequential vs YoY, and you rely solely on the white house to inform you on inflation, you have no business talking about it anyway.

I am completely in the camp of hating this spin game from the WH, but 0% sequential is meaningful. If you don't think so, what the hell are you doing talking about inflation anyway.

---

Like I've said before, there are people on this site that are financially and economically illiterate.
They prove it every day here with their ignorant posts.
I wouldnt trust BF to mow my lawn.

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You posted year-over-year inflation. The change you see in July is entirely due to the change from June 2021 to July 2021 because the change from June 2022 to July 2022 was zero.

I know you don't understand what I said which made typing it more fun.

---

You're right, the graph is year over year which shows 8.5% for July. But neither Biden, Kamala, or Karine qualified their statements to indicate that they're referring to month to month changes.

---

There's no rule that people you don't like have to give certain qualifiers to their statements. They said something true. You freaked out.

EDIT - I just read Bidens statement and he did specify the timeframe. BF2 still freaked out.

---

It's an unwritten rule that they shouldn't be consistently misleading. It's as if they all planned to say the same thing.

0% is less freaky than 8.5% no doubt.

---

Biden said "we had zero percent inflation in the month of July"

Quit being a snowflake.

---

Biden's claim of 0% inflation has just moved up to be the frontrunner for LIE OF THE YEAR.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3601540-biden-frontrunner-for-lie-of-the-year-award-as-many-in-media-look-the-other-way/

Let's say Team X is beating Team Y 42-0 in the third quarter of a game. But in the fourth quarter, neither team scores, and the game ends 42-0.

Team Y's coach runs to the podium of a post-game press conference and declares his losing team tied Team X 0-0.

---

You forgot to add "...IN THE 4th QUARTER."

Are you suggesting that no one can comment on the progress of our current anti-inflation policies until next year?

cbbass1 said:

---

You forgot to add "...IN THE 4th QUARTER."

Are you suggesting that no one can comment on the progress of our current anti-inflation policies until next year?

---

Quote:

---

"I was real proud of our kids in the second half," Cal head coach Jeff Tedford said after his record against USC fell to 1-8. "We came back and won the second half."

---

Thanks for the memories cbb.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

You forgot to add "...IN THE 4th QUARTER."

Are you suggesting that no one can comment on the progress of our current anti-inflation policies until next year?

---

Quote:

---

"I was real proud of our kids in the second half," Cal head coach Jeff Tedford said after his record against USC fell to 1-8. "We came back and won the second half."

---

Thanks for the memories cbb.

---

See? ;-)

Inflationary pressures are BROADENING.

The August PCE unexpectedlu accelerated.
Data released this past Friday.

Core inflation rose 4.9% from a year ago in August and 0.6% on a monthly basis, according to a measure the Federal Reserve watches closely.

Personal income rose 0.3%, the same as July and in line with the estimate. Spending rose 0.4% after declining 0.2% the month before.

Headline inflation, including food and energy, also accelerated, despite a sharp drop in gasoline prices.

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Where I think this goes is that Biden will reduce his ask on BBB spending, figure out away to increase tax revenue (reduce deficit spending), release more oil from US supplies to drive down gas prices longer term, suck up high interest rates, and figure out a way to get wage growth without increasing inflation. A lot of this is counter to the policies Biden ran on to become President (like reducing gas prices which increases fossil fuel use). FWIW, Clinton found himself in a similar situation and was able to ride an austerity budget and FED anti-inflation policy into lowering expectations of inflation and economic growth. I appreciate this is an oversimplification; for example, Clinton benefited from an explosion in the tech economy.

---

Unfortunately, the latest budget proposal by Biden is a joke.
There is no mission statement. No interest in taking back the debt that was increased during the pandemic.
It's essentially a place-holder for BBB and it's basically gonna be dead in the water, because Manchin will never vote for a wealth tax.

Clinton was a master at running to the center whenever he was doing poor in the polls.
Biden doesnt seem to have any knack or talent at doing so.

---

Biden knows where his $$$ comes from. Capital. So does Manchin. He & Biden are on the same page.

BBB and the "Biden Agenda" were a show for Democratic Voters, who overwhelmingly prefer Progressive policies like raising the minimum wage, Voting Rights, infrastructure investment, Medicare for All, Paid Family Leave, and a Woman's Right to Choose. Manchin & Sinema destroyed the "Biden Agenda", but they still have the full support of the Democratic Party establishment; they have suffered no harm nor consequence for destroying their own President's Agenda.

Manchin & Sinema provided cover for Biden & the Dems, so they didn't have to bite the hand that feeds them. If Manchin & Sinema didn't block BBB, there would be plenty of other corporate Dems to do it -- Tester, Coons, Hickenlooper,.... The Dems could have 58 in the Senate -- they're still not going to pass any Progressive legislation.

All the Dems need to do to restore small-d democracy, seize political power in DC, and vastly improve the lives of millions of Americans is to kill the filibuster, and pass legislation to do all the things listed above. But they won't, because they have no intention of taking power, or staying in power, or improving the lives of Americans, like FDR did.

Clinton knew where his $$$ came from, too. Capital.

"running to the center" = caving to Republicans

SF Fed President Mary Daly said today that too high inflation is depressing the real wages of U.S. workers, especially the less advantages who are bearing "a higher tax" from rising prices.

Inflation is a "corrosive disease, it is a toxin that erodes the real purchasing power of people," Daly said Tuesday during a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "An inclusive economy goes both ways: It doesn't mean just jobs, it means jobs and price stability."

Notice that the Progressives and people like Robert Reich didnt give a damn about inflation over the last year.
They could not have cared any less.

Inflation a 'corrosive disease' and a 'toxin' according to San Frandisco's Fed president | Fortune

Fed's Daly says 'churn' in labor market might be settling | Morningstar

September core CPI comes in hotter than expected at 6.6%
Was 6.3% in August.

Fed Funds Futures for March '23 are trading at 95.20

Dow opens 600 points lower.
Not +830

No real mystery here- (1) shut down the economy unnecessarily for COVID; (2) pay people not to work; (3) spend over $2 Trillion we don't have thereby artificially over heating the economy; and (4) suffer the ripple effects of extreme deficit spending.