boognish_bear said:

---

NYT...so who knows

BREAKING:

NYT claims Putin told Trump that peace could come quickly if Ukraine hands over the entire Donetsk region, including the heavily fortified parts of the region still held by Ukraine

Trump allegedly told Europe’s leaders that he supports the plan pic.twitter.com/6834V395xw

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 16, 2025

---

This is what Vivek proposed 2 years ago..

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

NYT...so who knows

BREAKING:

NYT claims Putin told Trump that peace could come quickly if Ukraine hands over the entire Donetsk region, including the heavily fortified parts of the region still held by Ukraine

Trump allegedly told Europe’s leaders that he supports the plan pic.twitter.com/6834V395xw

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 16, 2025

---

This is what Vivek proposed 2 years ago..

---

Smart guy

JUST IN - Macron says he had a meeting this morning with Trump, Zelensky, and European partners, warns that "It will also be crucial to draw all the lessons from the past 30 years, particularly Russia’s well-established tendency to fail to honor its own commitments."

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 16, 2025

Instead of accepting refugees from Gaza, the United States should quit giving munitions to Israel to create refugees.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) August 15, 2025

BREAKING - Tatiana Martinez, an illegal residing in LA who built a career on social media by doxxing ICE agents and directing her followers to harass them and disrupt their arrests, has now been arrested herself. pic.twitter.com/1o9Paq6A1H

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) August 16, 2025

Their statement is very pro Ukraine…Putin will not be a fan

BREAKING:

Macron, Starmer, Merz, Meloni, Tusk and Stubb release a joint statement after the Trump-Putin meeting

“We welcome President Trump’s efforts to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine, end Russia’s war of aggression, and achieve a just and lasting peace.

As President Trump… pic.twitter.com/5E2CmVwkPK

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 16, 2025

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

‘IT’S LIKE CHESS’: @realDonaldTrump reveals his game plan for the high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska, outlining how his negotiations with the Russian leader will differ from those of past presidents — including Bush, Obama, and Biden. pic.twitter.com/czJ5AXwWig

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 14, 2025

---

With all the public yapping , Trump is setting himself up for failure.

Putin, a former KGB operative , is going to play Trump like a fiddle.

Little chance any peace deal is reached.

---

I saw an interview where Trump said he wants to see what Vlad wants. I think he is hoping to come away with a ceasefire in this meeting. If it is over quick, its a bad sign for peace. If they are in the room for hours, progress is happening.

---

Trump desires a peace deal, far more than Putin does.

As the Russians are slowly bleeding the Ukrainian military to death.

---

Putin will soon run roughshod all across europe

---

Doubt it

The Poles want to fight.

---

We need to avoid conflict at all costs. Sending young white men to die off in pointless brother wars, it's horrible…

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

Is it? Obviously all war is bad, wasn't my point though. Why do I care about white men in particular? Caucasians made up roughly 20-30% of the world population 100 years ago, today it's 7-9%. Combine that with extremely low birth rates and it's not looking good, my father's side is Polish as well.

God forbid I have an interest in preserving my people's culture

---

Save your culture by having non whites do the fighting and dying? Is that the idea?

---

No? When did I say I want non-whites to fight our wars?

boognish_bear said:

---

Their statement is very pro Ukraine…Putin will not be a fan

BREAKING:

Macron, Starmer, Merz, Meloni, Tusk and Stubb release a joint statement after the Trump-Putin meeting

“We welcome President Trump’s efforts to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine, end Russia’s war of aggression, and achieve a just and lasting peace.

As President Trump… pic.twitter.com/5E2CmVwkPK

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 16, 2025

---

Means nothing. If they had really wanted to do something about it, the EU should have got more involved. These are 2nd world countries pretending to be 1st world countries, and they are headed more toward third world (in terms of value of course)

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Liberals negotiating a peace deal:

> six months of planning
> big summit in Prague, Geneva, or Doha
> 32 court eunuchs sit around a table
> nothing significant said or accomplished

Trump negotiating a peace deal:

> one week of planning
> basically YOLO the entire thing
> meet… pic.twitter.com/RYkD9veadI

— Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) August 15, 2025

---

Hasn't Yrump been trying for peace since before he was in office? Isn't it August? Where the heck do they get 1 week?

---

We had a long and substantive conversation with @POTUS. We started with one-on-one talks before inviting European leaders to join us. This call lasted for more than an hour and a half, including about an hour of our bilateral conversation with President Trump.

Ukraine reaffirms… pic.twitter.com/64IPVhtFaB

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 16, 2025

This is too good 😂😭
pic.twitter.com/JaLVJB0CjF

— Politi_Rican 🇵🇷 𝕏 🇺🇸 (@TheRicanMemes) August 15, 2025

Assassin said:

---

This is too good 😂😭
pic.twitter.com/JaLVJB0CjF

— Politi_Rican 🇵🇷 𝕏 🇺🇸 (@TheRicanMemes) August 15, 2025

---

That's funny.

Here ya go. Republican gal for Congress focused on the massive human trafficking that is going on in New Mexico, while the Democrats support it and free the illegal aliens that are part of it

Human trafficking and smuggling are very serious problems, and it's happening in Albuquerque, particularly in New Mexico's First Congressional District. Despite claims from Melanie Stansbury and Mayor Tim Keller that these problems don’t exist, the evidence suggests otherwise.… pic.twitter.com/iq2jtJkwA6

— Didi Okpareke (@DidiForCongress) August 16, 2025

Obama did not broker any peace deals. His weakness and incompetence did, however, encourage Putin to take over the Crimea. Before that, he engineered a coup to replace Ukraine's elected leader friendly to Russia with someone histology to Russia. It's fair to say that Obama deserves much blame for the war and all the chaos there now.

But you knew that.

Obama is one of the better examples of why we need to elect competent leaders with records of accomplishments. He might get well be the ultimate DEI hire and as with all such people, he was a disaster.

NM

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
President
@realDonaldTrump

sounding very optimistic about a deal to end the war, and clearly putting huge effort into it. Bizarre to see so many people seemingly willing him to fail. The world should be supporting his determination to forge peace, not mocking it.

---

He is doing nothing other than talking. Ending wars is not normally done verbally. If he gets it done that will be great, but nobody thinks he will since it's 7 months since he thought he could do it in 24 hours.

---

So you have Obama who brokered nothing other than race wars, you have Biden who slept for 4 years, As President, Trump has brokered peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo, and with the Abraham Accords.

He's also made the largest trade deals in USA history with everyone from Japan to the EU.

Trump wasnt around when this war started. Biden incompetence cost the world hundreds of thousands of lives. Not sure why you keep harping on this. It's a lose-lose proposition for you.

---

What? Im just stating facts. Trump could have supplied more weapons to Ukraine, or sanctioned the heck out of Russia, but he's done little other than talk with Putin and Zelensky. Is that inaccurate?

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING - Tatiana Martinez, an illegal residing in LA who built a career on social media by doxxing ICE agents and directing her followers to harass them and disrupt their arrests, has now been arrested herself. pic.twitter.com/1o9Paq6A1H

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) August 16, 2025

---

It's a little disturbing that people are mentally masturbating over all these videos.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

‘IT’S LIKE CHESS’: @realDonaldTrump reveals his game plan for the high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska, outlining how his negotiations with the Russian leader will differ from those of past presidents — including Bush, Obama, and Biden. pic.twitter.com/czJ5AXwWig

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 14, 2025

---

With all the public yapping , Trump is setting himself up for failure.

Putin, a former KGB operative , is going to play Trump like a fiddle.

Little chance any peace deal is reached.

---

I saw an interview where Trump said he wants to see what Vlad wants. I think he is hoping to come away with a ceasefire in this meeting. If it is over quick, its a bad sign for peace. If they are in the room for hours, progress is happening.

---

Trump desires a peace deal, far more than Putin does.

As the Russians are slowly bleeding the Ukrainian military to death.

---

Putin will soon run roughshod all across europe

---

Doubt it

The Poles want to fight.

---

We need to avoid conflict at all costs. Sending young white men to die off in pointless brother wars, it's horrible…

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

Is it? Obviously all war is bad, wasn't my point though. Why do I care about white men in particular? Caucasians made up roughly 20-30% of the world population 100 years ago, today it's 7-9%. Combine that with extremely low birth rates and it's not looking good, my father's side is Polish as well.

God forbid I have an interest in preserving my people's culture

---

Save your culture by having non whites do the fighting and dying? Is that the idea?

---

No? When did I say I want non-whites to fight our wars?

---

You said you didn't want whites to fight pointless wars. Are you now saying you're a pacifist?

NEW: White House dismisses NPR report saying staff left scheduling information about President Trump and Russian President Putin's Alaska summit on a hotel printer.https://t.co/PqahmlCT1w

— ABC News (@ABC) August 16, 2025

🚨 NEW: Ed Martin, the special prosecutor investigating Letitia James for mortgage fraud, has been SPOTTED outside her home in NYC

The walls are closing in on Big Tish 🤣

I can’t WAIT to see this mugshot. Ed Martin won’t stop until she’s behind bars.

h/t @mirandadevine pic.twitter.com/wa3widyV7h

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 16, 2025

His stamina at his age is impressive

Trump got back to DC at 5 AM this morning after a 22 hour day in pursuit of peace in Alaska — and he was out on the course by noon.

I have no idea how he does it. The man is a machine. pic.twitter.com/1kzlUWkRjy

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 16, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

His stamina at his age is impressive

Trump got back to DC at 5 AM this morning after a 22 hour day in pursuit of peace in Alaska — and he was out on the course by noon.

I have no idea how he does it. The man is a machine. pic.twitter.com/1kzlUWkRjy

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 16, 2025

---

Love him or hate him……..no president since Theodore Roosevelt has ever even approached Trumps energy level or ability to multi task.

Incredible to watch.

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

His stamina at his age is impressive

Trump got back to DC at 5 AM this morning after a 22 hour day in pursuit of peace in Alaska — and he was out on the course by noon.

I have no idea how he does it. The man is a machine. pic.twitter.com/1kzlUWkRjy

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 16, 2025

---

Love him or hate him……..no president since Theodore Roosevelt has ever even approached Trumps energy level or ability to multi task.

Incredible to watch.

---

Makes me realize I might have another decade!

WOW: Bill Maher just gave Trump some MASSIVE concessions on what he’s doing right.

This wasn’t the usual snark from Maher.

He admitted Trump wasn’t wrong on tariffs, or on forcing NATO to pay their fair share of defense budgets.

Then Maher pivoted to something much deeper:… pic.twitter.com/Yqqr02Q11J

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) August 16, 2025

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

‘IT’S LIKE CHESS’: @realDonaldTrump reveals his game plan for the high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska, outlining how his negotiations with the Russian leader will differ from those of past presidents — including Bush, Obama, and Biden. pic.twitter.com/czJ5AXwWig

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 14, 2025

---

With all the public yapping , Trump is setting himself up for failure.

Putin, a former KGB operative , is going to play Trump like a fiddle.

Little chance any peace deal is reached.

---

I saw an interview where Trump said he wants to see what Vlad wants. I think he is hoping to come away with a ceasefire in this meeting. If it is over quick, its a bad sign for peace. If they are in the room for hours, progress is happening.

---

Trump desires a peace deal, far more than Putin does.

As the Russians are slowly bleeding the Ukrainian military to death.

---

Putin will soon run roughshod all across europe

---

Doubt it

The Poles want to fight.

---

We need to avoid conflict at all costs. Sending young white men to die off in pointless brother wars, it's horrible…

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

Is it? Obviously all war is bad, wasn't my point though. Why do I care about white men in particular? Caucasians made up roughly 20-30% of the world population 100 years ago, today it's 7-9%. Combine that with extremely low birth rates and it's not looking good, my father's side is Polish as well.

God forbid I have an interest in preserving my people's culture

---

Save your culture by having non whites do the fighting and dying? Is that the idea?

---

No? When did I say I want non-whites to fight our wars?

---

You said you didn't want whites to fight pointless wars. Are you now saying you're a pacifist?

---

I made my position clear, stop trying to switch my words

Said it before. Maher is a classic liberal. He used to be considered solidly left then the party went on a race to find the edge of universe. I still disagree with him on loads of issues but he will, mostly, admit when he was wrong and at least give a real listen to most discussion.

I think he represents most democrats and most republicans pretty well. Varying stances on issues but not really bat **** crazy.

nein51 said:

---

Said it before. Maher is a classic liberal. He used to be considered solidly left then the party went on a race to find the edge of universe. I still disagree with him on loads of issues but he will, mostly, admit when he was wrong and at least give a real listen to most discussion.

I think he represents most democrats and most republicans pretty well. Varying stances on issues but not really bat **** crazy.

---

Maher only looks 'reasonable' compared to the lunatics / racists of the Dem far left.

He would not vote Republican even if Trump found a cure for cancer.

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Said it before. Maher is a classic liberal. He used to be considered solidly left then the party went on a race to find the edge of universe. I still disagree with him on loads of issues but he will, mostly, admit when he was wrong and at least give a real listen to most discussion.

I think he represents most democrats and most republicans pretty well. Varying stances on issues but not really bat **** crazy.

---

Maher only looks 'reasonable' compared to the lunatics / racists of the Dem far left.

He would not vote Republican even if Trump found a cure for cancer.

---

Who said he would vote Republican? Who said republicans are "reasonable". There are plenty of views on this board from republicans that are not reasonable.

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Said it before. Maher is a classic liberal. He used to be considered solidly left then the party went on a race to find the edge of universe. I still disagree with him on loads of issues but he will, mostly, admit when he was wrong and at least give a real listen to most discussion.

I think he represents most democrats and most republicans pretty well. Varying stances on issues but not really bat **** crazy.

---

Maher only looks 'reasonable' compared to the lunatics / racists of the Dem far left.

He would not vote Republican even if Trump found a cure for cancer.

---

Who said he would vote Republican? Who said republicans are "reasonable". There are plenty of views on this board from republicans that are not reasonable.

---

Such as ?

What possibly compares to open borders, men showering in girls lockerrooms, widespread fentanyl, anti Christian legislation, anti white bigotry , and job killing globalization ?

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

What the hell is Trump thinking? He has no freaking business telling the Intel CEO to resign, Telling Coke what type of sweetener to use. Now this gem! Telling the Goldman Sach CEO (who is worldly expected) to fire their chief economist because Trumps did not like his assertion that Trumps tariffs would impact the consumer. ***? Mr. Soloman should tell Trumps to go eff himself. When does this authority insanity stop. This is no free market capitalism. Trump is just horrible.

Now he is calling for the CEO of Goldman to resign. What a loon. I'd say 90% Goldman Bankers, PE and traders are way smarter than fat boy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/trump-solomon-goldman-sachs-economist-tariffs.html

---

LOL here's the part you missed - any economist who tells you tariffs cause inflation is not worth keeping on the payroll. Inflation is caused when the supply of money exceeds the supply of goods. Please explain how tariffs create an increase in the supply of money

Price increases caused by supply/demand forces are NOT inflation.

Geez.....

---

you are incorrect. You are obviously not a business person.(I don't mean cube jockey) Yeah, you got a better handle on it than Goldman Sachs. You are a fool and over your head on the subject matter.

---

Dude. Words mean things. Inflation has a definition in Econ 101 textbooks. Increases in prices according the supply/demand curve are NOT inflation. Inflation is when the growth of money exceeds the growth of production. And those guys at Goldman know it.

Were you an English Lit major or something?

---

You were a B.S. major obviously.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-101

https://sunrisebanks.com/stories/econ-101-what-is-inflation/

https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/discover/inflation/

https://www.nu.edu/podcast/business-and-marketing/understanding-inflation-a-view-of-the-economic-landscape/

https://www.academia.edu/34518580/Inflation

---

I can teach it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. I will try one more time:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/theories-of-inflation/inflation-definition-and-measurement/0D8864A09F06FA3B44B3AF1126C1E3FF
Key concept at that link - "...it is not a one-time or short-run increase in the general price level. Similarly, one cannot label as inflation price increases during the recovery phase of the business cycle that are rescinded through price reductions during the recession. Only when price increases are irreversible can one speak of inflation without qualification."
In other words, rising prices alone do not equal inflation, because prices ALSO fluctuate in response to supply/demand pressures.


https://www.britannica.com/money/inflation-economic
The key phrase at that link - "...too much money, chasing too few goods..."
If you bother to attend Econ101 class, that is what the professors will say, what the textbooks will say = too much money chasing too few goods." I have run the textbook example here before - in an economy with a money supply of 100 and a widget supply of 10, the cost of widgets is 10 each. But if government doubles the money supply to 200 but the widget supply remains unchanged at 10, the cost of widgets is 20 each. Inflation
It's so simple. Even a college freshman can understand it. What it is NOT is a situation where a shortage of raw materials causes a price increase. That is supply/demand pressure. Over time, competition and innovation work to reduce demand. And in the interval, people who have to pay more for, say, steel will cut back on spending elsewhere. But while one sector may see price increases, others don't = markets doing what markets do. Fluctuating. What interrupts the fluctuation and causes large, sustained upward price pressure is......too much money chasing too few goods.

Yes, there is upward pressure on prices when an economy expands (demand tends to exceed supply) but there is also downward pressure on prices when an economy contracts (supply exceeds demand). That is, over the long term market FLUCTUATION. And the Fed uses monetary policy to attenuate it, limit the delta, to prevent big swings. Long-term structural increase in the money supply is caused by the financing of government deficit spending = printing money to pay bills. When government does that....it infuses cash into the economy. It is economically stimulative. (think Keynesian theory, which purposely advocates fiscal poslicy to do such). The GDP equation is instructive: GDP = C + I + G + T. The private sector (C & I) shrinks by a small amount, then govt can offset by ramping up G drastically (short-term), thereby offsetting the decline in C & I. Problem is, govt has to scale back the deficit spending when the economy recovers. All too often, that doesn't happen. So you have chronic federal deficits. If those deficits are below the rate of economic growth and/or inflation, then the financial ratios do not deteriorate (can actually improve). But if they exceed growth/inflation, the financial ratios deteriorate. That is where we are now.

Do you see the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy?

Do you want to understand market cause/effect relationships, or just complain in ignorance?

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

What the hell is Trump thinking? He has no freaking business telling the Intel CEO to resign, Telling Coke what type of sweetener to use. Now this gem! Telling the Goldman Sach CEO (who is worldly expected) to fire their chief economist because Trumps did not like his assertion that Trumps tariffs would impact the consumer. ***? Mr. Soloman should tell Trumps to go eff himself. When does this authority insanity stop. This is no free market capitalism. Trump is just horrible.

Now he is calling for the CEO of Goldman to resign. What a loon. I'd say 90% Goldman Bankers, PE and traders are way smarter than fat boy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/trump-solomon-goldman-sachs-economist-tariffs.html

---

LOL here's the part you missed - any economist who tells you tariffs cause inflation is not worth keeping on the payroll. Inflation is caused when the supply of money exceeds the supply of goods. Please explain how tariffs create an increase in the supply of money

Price increases caused by supply/demand forces are NOT inflation.

Geez.....

---

you are incorrect. You are obviously not a business person.(I don't mean cube jockey) Yeah, you got a better handle on it than Goldman Sachs. You are a fool and over your head on the subject matter.

---

Dude. Words mean things. Inflation has a definition in Econ 101 textbooks. Increases in prices according the supply/demand curve are NOT inflation. Inflation is when the growth of money exceeds the growth of production. And those guys at Goldman know it.

Were you an English Lit major or something?

---

You were a B.S. major obviously.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-101

https://sunrisebanks.com/stories/econ-101-what-is-inflation/

https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/discover/inflation/

https://www.nu.edu/podcast/business-and-marketing/understanding-inflation-a-view-of-the-economic-landscape/

https://www.academia.edu/34518580/Inflation

---

I can teach it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. I will try one more time:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/theories-of-inflation/inflation-definition-and-measurement/0D8864A09F06FA3B44B3AF1126C1E3FF
Key concept at that link - "...it is not a one-time or short-run increase in the general price level. Similarly, one cannot label as inflation price increases during the recovery phase of the business cycle that are rescinded through price reductions during the recession. Only when price increases are irreversible can one speak of inflation without qualification."
In other words, rising prices alone do not equal inflation, because prices ALSO fluctuate in response to supply/demand pressures.


https://www.britannica.com/money/inflation-economic
The key phrase at that link - "...too much money, chasing too few goods..."
If you bother to attend Econ101 class, that is what the professors will say, what the textbooks will say = too much money chasing too few goods." I have run the textbook example here before - in an economy with a money supply of 100 and a widget supply of 10, the cost of widgets is 10 each. But if government doubles the money supply to 200 but the widget supply remains unchanged at 10, the cost of widgets is 20 each. Inflation
It's so simple. Even a college freshman can understand it. What it is NOT is a situation where a shortage of raw materials causes a price increase. That is supply/demand pressure. Over time, competition and innovation work to reduce demand. And in the interval, people who have to pay more for, say, steel will cut back on spending elsewhere. But while one sector may see price increases, others don't = markets doing what markets do. Fluctuating. What interrupts the fluctuation and causes large, sustained upward price pressure is......too much money chasing too few goods.

Yes, there is upward pressure on prices when an economy expands (demand tends to exceed supply) but there is also downward pressure on prices when an economy contracts (supply exceeds demand). That is, over the long term market FLUCTUATION. And the Fed uses monetary policy to attenuate it, limit the delta, to prevent big swings. Long-term structural increase in the money supply is caused by the financing of government deficit spending = printing money to pay bills. When government does that....it infuses cash into the economy. It is economically stimulative. (think Keynesian theory, which purposely advocates fiscal poslicy to do such). The GDP equation is instructive: GDP = C + I + G + T. The private sector (C & I) shrinks by a small amount, then govt can offset by ramping up G drastically (short-term), thereby offsetting the decline in C & I. Problem is, govt has to scale back the deficit spending when the economy recovers. All too often, that doesn't happen. So you have chronic federal deficits. If those deficits are below the rate of economic growth and/or inflation, then the financial ratios do not deteriorate (can actually improve). But if they exceed growth/inflation, the financial ratios deteriorate. That is where we are now.

Do you see the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy?

Do you want to understand market cause/effect relationships, or just complain in ignorance?

---

Too much text, too little understanding. Ill respond only to the definitions.

Are you claiming tariffs are a 1 time price increase? And the qualification is the term inflationary. Which is different from inflation. Do I need to define that term or can you Google it?

Too much money chasing too many goods is not a definition, it is a description of how inflation plays out sometimes.

Whether the supply of money increases or the price of daily items increases, if all other factors remain stable, the result is largely the same for the consumer: inflation. The cost to live goes up, life gets harder. "Inflationary" is used by most to describe tariffs for one reason: it's the best way to describe the result.

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

What the hell is Trump thinking? He has no freaking business telling the Intel CEO to resign, Telling Coke what type of sweetener to use. Now this gem! Telling the Goldman Sach CEO (who is worldly expected) to fire their chief economist because Trumps did not like his assertion that Trumps tariffs would impact the consumer. ***? Mr. Soloman should tell Trumps to go eff himself. When does this authority insanity stop. This is no free market capitalism. Trump is just horrible.

Now he is calling for the CEO of Goldman to resign. What a loon. I'd say 90% Goldman Bankers, PE and traders are way smarter than fat boy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/trump-solomon-goldman-sachs-economist-tariffs.html

---

LOL here's the part you missed - any economist who tells you tariffs cause inflation is not worth keeping on the payroll. Inflation is caused when the supply of money exceeds the supply of goods. Please explain how tariffs create an increase in the supply of money

Price increases caused by supply/demand forces are NOT inflation.

Geez.....

---

you are incorrect. You are obviously not a business person.(I don't mean cube jockey) Yeah, you got a better handle on it than Goldman Sachs. You are a fool and over your head on the subject matter.

---

Dude. Words mean things. Inflation has a definition in Econ 101 textbooks. Increases in prices according the supply/demand curve are NOT inflation. Inflation is when the growth of money exceeds the growth of production. And those guys at Goldman know it.

Were you an English Lit major or something?

---

You were a B.S. major obviously.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-101

https://sunrisebanks.com/stories/econ-101-what-is-inflation/

https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/discover/inflation/

https://www.nu.edu/podcast/business-and-marketing/understanding-inflation-a-view-of-the-economic-landscape/

https://www.academia.edu/34518580/Inflation

---

I can teach it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. I will try one more time:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/theories-of-inflation/inflation-definition-and-measurement/0D8864A09F06FA3B44B3AF1126C1E3FF
Key concept at that link - "...it is not a one-time or short-run increase in the general price level. Similarly, one cannot label as inflation price increases during the recovery phase of the business cycle that are rescinded through price reductions during the recession. Only when price increases are irreversible can one speak of inflation without qualification."
In other words, rising prices alone do not equal inflation, because prices ALSO fluctuate in response to supply/demand pressures.


https://www.britannica.com/money/inflation-economic
The key phrase at that link - "...too much money, chasing too few goods..."
If you bother to attend Econ101 class, that is what the professors will say, what the textbooks will say = too much money chasing too few goods." I have run the textbook example here before - in an economy with a money supply of 100 and a widget supply of 10, the cost of widgets is 10 each. But if government doubles the money supply to 200 but the widget supply remains unchanged at 10, the cost of widgets is 20 each. Inflation
It's so simple. Even a college freshman can understand it. What it is NOT is a situation where a shortage of raw materials causes a price increase. That is supply/demand pressure. Over time, competition and innovation work to reduce demand. And in the interval, people who have to pay more for, say, steel will cut back on spending elsewhere. But while one sector may see price increases, others don't = markets doing what markets do. Fluctuating. What interrupts the fluctuation and causes large, sustained upward price pressure is......too much money chasing too few goods.

Yes, there is upward pressure on prices when an economy expands (demand tends to exceed supply) but there is also downward pressure on prices when an economy contracts (supply exceeds demand). That is, over the long term market FLUCTUATION. And the Fed uses monetary policy to attenuate it, limit the delta, to prevent big swings. Long-term structural increase in the money supply is caused by the financing of government deficit spending = printing money to pay bills. When government does that....it infuses cash into the economy. It is economically stimulative. (think Keynesian theory, which purposely advocates fiscal poslicy to do such). The GDP equation is instructive: GDP = C + I + G + T. The private sector (C & I) shrinks by a small amount, then govt can offset by ramping up G drastically (short-term), thereby offsetting the decline in C & I. Problem is, govt has to scale back the deficit spending when the economy recovers. All too often, that doesn't happen. So you have chronic federal deficits. If those deficits are below the rate of economic growth and/or inflation, then the financial ratios do not deteriorate (can actually improve). But if they exceed growth/inflation, the financial ratios deteriorate. That is where we are now.

Do you see the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy?

Do you want to understand market cause/effect relationships, or just complain in ignorance?

---

Too much text, too little understanding. Ill respond only to the definitions.

Are you claiming tariffs are a 1 time price increase? And the qualification is the term inflationary. Which is different from inflation. Do I need to define that term or can you Google it?

Too much money chasing too many goods is not a definition, it is a description of how inflation plays out sometimes.

Whether the supply of money increases or the price of daily items increases, if all other factors remain stable, the result is largely the same for the consumer: inflation. The cost to live goes up, life gets harder. "Inflationary" is used by most to describe tariffs for one reason: it's the best way to describe the result.

---

keyed to your paragraphs:

1) That's not very much text, but you did not understand it anyway.

2) Tariffs are manifestly a 1-time force. But they do not increase the money supply.

3) "Too much money chasing too few goods" is exactly the definition of inflation in textbooks you've never read used in classes you've never taken. The example I gave of dollars/widgets was the exact allegory taught to me at BU. Just because the public discourse uses the words inflation/inflationary indiscriminately does not change the definition. Using deficit spending to increase the money supply for the purpose of stimulating economic activity is called "fiscal policy." Keynesian economics (another bottomless hole of debate) is built upon harnessing that dynamic for public good. It is highly disfavored today but was quite the rage for decades back when.

4) It does matter whether a price of something increases due to market forces or to actions by sovereign powers, as the latter is a policy choice which can easily be avoided or changed.

A 15% tariff (close enough to average of Trump tariffs) = a one-time price increase of slightly under 1%. I've explained that equation before and in the interest of brevity will only address it if you quibble. 1% increase in consumer prices is a pin*****....exactly half of the Fed target of 2%. But our $1.8T deficit in 2024 was 6% of our $27T GDP. Compound that out with the other three years of deficits under Biden and....VOILA.....you end up with a number that roughly matches the publicly discussed cumulative INFLATION under BIden.

Funny how that works out. It's easy to see. If you try. But you'd rather complain about Trump.
So here we are >>> discussing subject material your worldview will not allow you to understand.

Like Reagan, Trump is working the supply side of the inflation problem, only in a different way - with tariffs. Trump is using tariffs to line up over $20T of new investment in production inside the USA to increase the supply of goods. Why is he doing that instead of trying to balance the budget in 2026? Because it is mathematically not possible to balance the federal budget, today, without slashing entitlements. Which is political suicide. So we have to grow our way out of the problem. Good news is, his policy to do that is sound, well rooted in non-contentious economics.....whether you bother to understand it or not.

Oh. By the way. that net increase in prices of 1% caused by tariffs will cost the average household in America about $1300? It was more than offset by the $2300 increase in the standard deduction contained in the BBB. And that was a stated part of the plan all along - to offset any potential increases in consumer prices with tax cuts. And the horizon of other changes in the BBB designed to lower the cost of goods is quite broad. The EPA mandates on diesel fuels are gone. Poof. Cost of transportation will decline. And on and on....

Remember that time when the press attacked Reagan's tax cuts as inflationary and Reagan responded " Why is it inflationary if the people keep their own money and spend it the way they want to and it's not inflationary if the government takes it and spends it the way it wants to?" Meaning....deficit spending is inflationary, not spending itself.

Macroeconomics is really pretty easy to understand.
If you try.

"Trump deported a 4-year old with cancer" is the new "very fine people" lie again.

NEW: No, ICE didn’t deport a 4-year-old with cancer, as Rep. Pramila Jayapal claimed https://t.co/eyzEZZnuUa

— Jason Rantz on Seattle Red (@jasonrantz) August 17, 2025