Joanie is not happy with Mr. G:
Take this all in: The US is at war which is costing us huge. Our deficits are black holes and getting blacker. We have suffered two major natural disasters within the space of a month. Federal spending for same has disgracefully run amok.
The timing of the storms has added the second whammy to the energy problem, shifting the focus from demand-driven screaming prices to the dire side of that equation, supply disruption.
Is it necessary to point out here that a demand-driven scenario does respond to a path of higher rates? No, it’s not necessary? Great. Then I guess it’s also not necessary to point out that higher rates mean jack as far as fixing a disrupted-supply situation.
As a matter of fact, given that we’re still not even close to 100% reconnaissance as to how damaged we are in the Gulf — and that word “damaged” is not reserved for the oil industry; the loss of the largest port in the United States has far more reaching ramifications than that (as we are quickly finding out) — raising rates against this blindfolded background falls into the category of depraved indifference to economic growth.
Maybe she’ll like his successor better . . .
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.