Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 09, 2010, 06:29:49 AM
-
Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?
by Sarah Palin on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 7:58pm
________________________ ________________________ _____________
Ever since 2008, people seem inordinately interested in my reading habits. Among various newspapers, magazines, and local Alaskan papers, I read the Wall Street Journal.
So, imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”
Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”
The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”
Now I realize I’m just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I’m surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t.
- Sarah Palin
________________________ ________________
Ha ha ha ha - another idiot bites the dust.
-
Palin's Dollar, Zoellick's Gold
An unlikely pair elevate the monetary policy debate.
www.wsj.com
________________________ ______________
It would be hard to find two more unlikely intellectual comrades than Robert Zoellick, the World Bank technocrat, and Sarah Palin, the populist conservative politician. But in separate interventions yesterday, the pair roiled the global monetary debate in complementary and timely fashion.
The former Alaskan Governor showed sound political and economic instincts by inveighing forcefully against the Federal Reserve's latest round of quantitative easing. According to the prepared text of remarks that she released to National Review online, Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan.
Stressing the risks of Fed "pump priming," Mrs. Palin zeroed in on the connection between a "weak dollar—a direct result of the Fed's decision to dump more dollars onto the market"—and rising oil and food prices. She also noted the rising world alarm about the Fed's actions, which by now includes blunt comments by Germany, Brazil, China and most of Asia, among many others.
"We don't want temporary, artificial economic growth brought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings," the former GOP Vice Presidential nominee said. "We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It's the only way we can get our economy back on the right track."
Mrs. Palin's remarks may have the beneficial effect of bringing the dollar back to the center of the American political debate, not to mention of the GOP economic platform. Republican economic reformers of the 1970s and 1980s—especially Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp—understood the importance of stable money to U.S. prosperity.
On the other hand, the Bush Administration was clueless. Its succession of Treasury Secretaries promoted dollar devaluation little different from that of the current Administration, while the White House ignored or applauded an over-easy Fed policy that created the credit boom and housing bubble that led to financial panic.
Misguided monetary policy can ruin an Administration as thoroughly as higher taxes and destructive regulation, and the new GOP majority in the House and especially the next GOP President need to be alert to the dangers. Mrs. Palin is way ahead of her potential Presidential competitors on this policy point, and she shows a talent for putting a technical subject in language that average Americans can understand.
Which brings us to Mr. Zoellick, who exceeded even Mrs. Palin's daring yesterday by mentioning the word "gold" in the orthodox Keynesian company of the Financial Times. This is like mentioning the name "Palin" in the Princeton faculty lounge.
Mr. Zoellick, who worked at the Treasury under James Baker in the 1980s, laid out an agenda for a new global monetary regime to reduce currency turmoil and spur growth: "This new system is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound and a renminbi that moves toward internalization and then an open capital account," he wrote, in an echo of what we've been saying for some time.
And here's Mr. Zoellick's sound-money kicker: "The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values. Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today." Mr. Zoellick's last observation will not be news to investors, who have traded gold up to $1,400 an ounce, its highest level in real terms since the 1970s, as a hedge against the risk of future inflation.
However, his point will shock many of the world's financial policy makers, who still think of gold as a barbarous relic rather than as an important price signal. Lest they faint in the halls of the International Monetary Fund, we don't think Mr. Zoellick is calling for a return to a full-fledged gold standard. His nonetheless useful point is that a system of global monetary cooperation needs a North Star to judge when it is running off course. The Bretton Woods accord used gold as such a reference until the U.S. failed to heed its discipline in the late 1960s and in 1971 revoked the pledge to sell other central banks gold at $35 an ounce.
One big problem in the world economy today is the frequent and sharp movement in exchange rates, especially between the euro and dollar. This distorts trade and investment flows and leads to a misallocation of capital and trade tensions. A second and related problem is the desire of the Obama Administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to devalue the dollar to boost exports as a way to compensate for the failed spending stimulus.
As recently as this week in India, Mr. Obama said that "We can't continue situations where some countries maintain massive [trade] surpluses, other countries have massive deficits and never is there an adjustment with respect to currency that would lead to a more balanced growth pattern."
If this isn't a plea for a weaker dollar in the name of balancing trade flows, what is it? The world knows the Fed can always win such a currency race to the bottom in the short run because it can print an unlimited supply of dollars. But the risks of currency war and economic instability are enormous.
***
In their different ways, Mrs. Palin and Mr. Zoellick are offering a better policy path: More careful monetary policy in the U.S., and more U.S. leadership abroad with a goal of greater monetary cooperation and less volatile exchange rates. If Mr. Obama is looking for advice on this beyond Mr. Zoellick, he might consult Paul Volcker or Nobel laureate Robert Mundell. A chance for monetary reform is a terrible thing to waste.
-
she owns it...just dosent read it
-
she owns it...just dosent read it
Apparently fed policy and monetary issues anit your strong suit bro.
-
Apparently fed policy and monetary issues anit your strong suit bro.
right..because you said so...
apparently telling the truth aint your strong suit
Boom
-
and for the record...i didnt even read your cut and paste work....so all your "this aint your strong suit.." save it
i just thought it was ironic. The title that is, Palin owns WSJ..."...lol...i thought she only read Green Eggs and ham. As she looked at Russia from her front porch right after she got off the phone with French President while reading notes off her hand.
-
and for the record...i didnt even read your cut and paste work....so all your "this aint your strong suit.." save it
i just thought it was ironic. The title that is, Palin owns WSJ..."...lol...i thought she only read Green Eggs and ham. As she looked at Russia from her front porch right after she got off the phone with French President while reading notes off her hand.
Apparently you did not read the story - thats cool.
BTW - do you agree with all the money printing schemes Obama/Timmy/Big Ben are orchestrating?
-
Apparently you did not read the story - thats cool.
BTW - do you agree with all the money printing schemes Obama/Timmy/Big Ben are orchestrating?
Uh OHHH...Schemes...
Bro the republicans just had a tsunami earthquake tidal wave election..so they should whip this ship into shape in no time
-
Uh OHHH...Schemes...
Bro the republicans just had a tsunami earthquake tidal wave election..so they should whip this ship into shape in no time
::) ::)
the house of Reps alone cant stop the Fed Reserve. Have you ever taken civics?
-
::) ::)
the house of Reps alone cant stop the Fed Reserve. Have you ever taken civics?
bro..but the Mega ultra flam bamaroo election happened. As you said..."theres a new sherriff in town" shits about to get real...
-
bro..but the Mega ultra flam bamaroo election happened. As you said..."theres a new sherriff in town" shits about to get real...
I don't even know why I bother with you.
lets start here - do you even know what the Federal Reserve is?
-
I don't even know why I bother with you.
lets start here - do you even know what the Federal Reserve is?
Yes...obama fucked that up to. But its cool because the Supreme Hostile MEga Epic Ultra Take over...the House of Reps coup d'état of gargantuan magnitude will fix it all
-
Yes...obama fucked that up to. But its cool because the Supreme Hostile MEga Epic Ultra Take over...the House of Reps coup d'état of gargantuan magnitude will fix it all
I'll take that as a no.
As for Obama - yes - he has instructed the Fed to print monopoly money to fund the govt because he wont cut spending and China and other nations refuse to buy our bonds because they have lost all confidence in our fiscal policies.
-
I'll take that as a no.
As for Obama - yes - he has instructed the Fed to print monopoly money to fund the govt because he wont cut spending and China and other nations refuse to buy our bonds because they have lost all confidence in our fiscal policies.
Hey fuckface the feds officials are appointed President, but the oversight has and always will be Congress...dickhead.. ::) ::)
the house of Reps alone cant stop the Fed Reserve. Have you ever taken civics?
dont be an idiot your whole life...and dont ever play me like im not versed in our political system.. mr obama called swat....
-
Hey fuckface the feds officials are appointed President, but the oversight has and always will be Congress...dickhead..
dont be an idiot your whole life...and dont ever play me like im not versed in our political system.. mr obama called swat....
And the GOP still does not sit in control of anything until January 21, 2010.
-
And the GOP still does not sit in control of anything until January 21, 2010.
::) ::)
the house of Reps alone cant stop the Fed Reserve. Have you ever taken civics?
Dont back track now...The House Alone can stop the Fed reserve because its set up for moves to be confirmed by them...god damn.. do you just type to type
-
im guessin you go with the buckshot approach...just shoot a lot of shit out there and when one hole gets plugged you just move to the next one.. but if it dosent get plugged you just run with it.
-
im guessin you go with the buckshot approach...just shoot a lot of shit out there and when one hole gets plugged you just move to the next one.. but if it dosent get plugged you just run with it.
::) ::)
The damage is already being done as we speak. Once the genie is out of the bottle, its too late.
-
333386 gettttttttting ownnnnnned :D :D :D :D :D you should just stay off the computer for a few days ;D
-
Lord have mercy.
Obama still has veto power and the Dems still have the Senate. Barely, but they still have the majority there.
What the Republicans can do is not approve any funding for legislations that will harm the economy. But, when they put forth legislation to get rid of Obama's crappy health care reform, prevent cap and tax, and extend the Bush tax cuts, Obama will be there with his stupid grin vetoing everything on site. Nothing will get done. But, that's ok. Because if Obama vetos anything sensible from the Republicans, anything that can help the situation, Obama and the Dems will get wiped out in 2012. The Republicans don't have a veto overriding majority. So any legislation they present to the President that ends up being vetoed, has no other way of being put into law and Reps can use that to keep putting nails in Obama's coffin.
-
333386 gettttttttting ownnnnnned :D :D :D :D :D you should just stay off the computer for a few days ;D
The Congress does not make Federal Reserve policy. It gets reports and asks questions. Why do you think Ron Paul was trying so hard to have an audit of the Fed itself?
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/structure.html
-
Hey fuckface the feds officials are appointed President, but the oversight has and always will be Congress...dickhead..
dont be an idiot your whole life...and dont ever play me like im not versed in our political system.. mr obama called swat....
actually congress has very very little control over the FED they mainly recommend
the FED's execs if you will are mostly appointments and are appointed if im not mistaken for certain term and after appointment I dont think they can be removed...
-
The Congress does not make Federal Reserve policy. It gets reports and asks questions. Why do you think Ron Paul was trying so hard to have an audit of the Fed itself?
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/structure.html
you fuckin shittin me right..CONGRESS HAS THE FUCKIN AUTHORITY re: the federal reserve. Fuck.
To think that The president can appoint his guys to the feds, and then they make a decision and thats it.. Fucking no, it still has to be approved by congress..its not a debate
-
actually congress has very very little control over the FED they mainly recommend
the FED's execs if you will are mostly appointments and are appointed if im not mistaken for certain term and after appointment I dont think they can be removed...
dude if congress has very little to do with the fed then why get its permission for tarp and shit.
-
dude if congress has very little to do with the fed then why get its permission for tarp and shit.
They threatened Martial Law remember? Pelosi/Geithner/Paulson/Bernake etc? I guess you don't remember that?
-
They threatened Martial Law remember? Pelosi/Geithner/Paulson/Bernake etc? I guess you don't remember that?
-
They threatened Martial Law remember? Pelosi/Geithner/Paulson/Bernake etc? I guess you don't remember that?
BUT THEY WOULDNT HAVE TO FREAKIN DO IT IF THEY COULD JUST MAKE THE DECISION TO BAIL OUT AND GO WITH IT...FUCK...
What the fuck are you talking about. Congress still has stopping power on the fed..What the fuck.. i thought you knew that... now someone else get on here and tell me how Congress has no say on what happens in the fed...
-
BUT THEY WOULDNT HAVE TO FREAKIN DO IT IF THEY COULD JUST MAKE THE DECISION TO BAIL OUT AND GO WITH IT...FUCK...
What the fuck are you talking about. Congress still has stopping power on the fed..What the fuck.. i thought you knew that... now someone else get on here and tell me how Congress has no say on what happens in the fed...
Mal - you are embarassing yourself horribly. The congress has little or no say in Fed Policy.
-
Mal - time to wake up and get a clue:
-
dude if congress has very little to do with the fed then why get its permission for tarp and shit.
I didnt say they didnt have much to do with the FED only that they have very little control over it...
if they did wouldnt you think they would be able to see the FED's books like theyve been asking to for a decade now?
-
Mal - you are embarassing yourself horribly. The congress has little or no say in Fed Policy.
this was my point mal I think congress helps appoint the FOMC board members or they have to approve them iono I cant remember.
but congress really doesnt have any say in the monetary policy of the FED
Its like saying that an average citizen has say in the legislation that is passed b/c we voted for the representatives...but we really dont have a say in the legislation only who votes on the legislation.
-
Mal - take it from the former Fed chairman himself. But i guess even he is wrong too right?
-
-
Mal - you are embarassing yourself horribly. The congress has little or no say in Fed Policy.
Im embarassing myself because you said.. shut the fuck up...'
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
So to say congress has no power over the fed is retarded.. If they didnt, and i was part of the fed...when congress came callin for a testemony i would tell them "go fuck yourself, you have no power over me"...Get it?
-
Im embarassing myself because you said.. shut the fuck up...'
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
So to say congress has no power over the fed is retarded.. If they didnt, and i was part of the fed...when congress came callin for a testemony i would tell them "go fuck yourself, you have no power over me"...Get it?
from your link mal...
"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government.""[/i]
again congress has very little control over the FED's policy...
-
Im embarassing myself because you said.. shut the fuck up...'
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
So to say congress has no power over the fed is retarded.. If they didnt, and i was part of the fed...when congress came callin for a testemony i would tell them "go fuck yourself, you have no power over me"...Get it?
::) ::) ::)
Utterly clueless bro.
Why do you think Ron paul has been trying to pass a law to get an audit done?
ANSWER - BECAUSE THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW IT!
-
Just a reminder
When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Rohm Emanuel said.
Where sitting on 13.701 Trillion right now
So Obama is responsible for 3 trillion as of now...
Obama in less than two years=3 Trillion Bush 8years=5 Trillion
Hyperspeed
-
The federal reserve is a private organization..It's not a "federal" organization...The fed has "Doubtful" reserves....It's never been audited in its existence.
Hope this helps..
-
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
US National Debt
12/31/2008 ........................ ........................ .....................10,699,804,864,612.13
11/05/2010....................................................................... 13,723,330,060,510.52
Bush first day ........................ ........................ ........................ ................5,776,091,314,225.33
Last.................... ........................ ........................ ...13,723,330,060,510.52
-
from your link mal...
"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government.""[/i]
again congress has very little control over the FED's policy...
Ok i think we are getting mixed up on the word Policy. The board that is appointed by President (and confirmed by congress) creates policy, but does that mean that congress has no say,,,even when there has to be a annual meeting/report to congress?
-
Ok i think we are getting mixed up on the word Policy. The board that is appointed by President (and confirmed by congress) creates policy, but does that mean that congress has no say,,,even when there has to be a annual meeting/report to congress?
YES!
The congress has no say in printing money, interestest rates, loans, the balance sheet, etc etc.
Why do you think Ron Paul is seeking a full audit?
-
Ok i think we are getting mixed up on the word Policy. The board that is appointed by President (and confirmed by congress) creates policy, but does that mean that congress has no say,,,even when there has to be a annual meeting/report to congress?
Yes, congress has zero say....
No one in congress can tell the fed what to do...
Fed can do whatever it wants in terms of monetary policy.
-
Yes, congress has zero say....
No one in congress can tell the fed what to do...
Fed can do whatever it wants in terms of monetary policy.
No.. they cant, because they still have to report to congress
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.
-
No.. they cant, because they still have to report to congress
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.
right mal but a report means what? they cant tell them what to report on what info needs to be disclosed or anything...
basically what they do is appoint board members and after the appointment they cannot remove them...its like the supreme court only with term limits...you cant remove a supreme court justice unless they choose to step down same thing with the Feds regional presidents...
none of their decisions need to be approved by the pres or congress....
what its saying is that congress has control over their structure and framework but no control over decision or actions of the FED...
this is why per your own link its called "independent within the government"
-
right mal but a report means what? they cant tell them what to report on what info needs to be disclosed or anything...
basically what they do is appoint board members and after the appointment they cannot remove them...its like the supreme court only with term limits...you cant remove a supreme court justice unless they choose to step down same thing with the Feds regional presidents...
none of their decisions need to be approved by the pres or congress....
what its saying is that congress has control over their structure and framework but no control over decision or actions of the FED...
this is why per your own link its called "independent within the government"
x2....
Big Mal this information you learned about the fed today probably contradicts what you learned in school, to some extent...Or conventional wisdom about the black box known as the fed..
-
right mal but a report means what? they cant tell them what to report on what info needs to be disclosed or anything...
basically what they do is appoint board members and after the appointment they cannot remove them...its like the supreme court only with term limits...you cant remove a supreme court justice unless they choose to step down same thing with the Feds regional presidents...
none of their decisions need to be approved by the pres or congress....
what its saying is that congress has control over their structure and framework but no control over decision or actions of the FED...
this is why per your own link its called "independent within the government"
I understand the initial decision making isnt up to congress to conjure...Conflict of intrest to the 10th power.
But to say congress has no say but you have to justify your actions to congress...well you see what im getting at...btw..its way easier to have a discussion with you than the other guy...man or 3 posts and we are at an understanding.. you my man...rock
-
I understand the initial decision making isnt up to congress to conjure...Conflict of intrest to the 10th power.
But to say congress has no say but you have to justify your actions to congress...well you see what im getting at...btw..its way easier to have a discussion with you than the other guy...man or 3 posts and we are at an understanding.. you my man...rock
Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which was previously co-sponsored by 320 members of the House (HR 1207), failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 122 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against the measure.
-
Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which was previously co-sponsored by 320 members of the House (HR 1207), failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 122 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against the measure.
They did that when Timmy and Obama placed pressure on Nancy t get everyone in line.
-
The Fed reports to congress, correct.
Congress makes recommendations to the Fed, correct.
The Fed takes those recommendations but does not have to follow them...the final decision rest with the Fed.
The Fed does not have to disclose all information in its reports to congress and is free to pick and choose.
With Obama's appointment of Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar, the Fed is granted even more freedom from congress.
-
The Fed reports to congress, correct.
Congress makes recommendations to the Fed, correct.
The Fed takes those recommendations but does not have to follow them...the final decision rest with the Fed.
The Fed does not have to disclose all information in its reports to congress and is free to pick and choose.
With Obama's appointment of Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar, the Fed is granted even more freedom from congress.
Obama granted the fed even more powers, and the beast is even larger than before.
-
Obama granted the fed even more powers, and the beast is even larger than before.
Guess who Obama placed in charge of the "Consumer Protection Agency"
-
Guess who Obama placed in charge of the "Consumer Protection Agency"
A big time wall-steet lobbyist would be an educated guess.
-
A big time wall-steet lobbyist would be an educated guess.
They are within the Federal Reserve umbrella. He tossed a bone to TEAM KNEEPAD with that warren lady - but she is ceremonial at best.
-
Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?
by Sarah Palin on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 7:58pm
________________________ ________________________ _____________
Ever since 2008, people seem inordinately interested in my reading habits. Among various newspapers, magazines, and local Alaskan papers, I read the Wall Street Journal.
So, imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”
Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”
The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”
Now I realize I’m just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I’m surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t.
- Sarah Palin
________________________ ________________
Ha ha ha ha - another idiot bites the dust.
Ouch. That's embarrassing. It does show how incompetent most journalists are these days, though.
-
Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?
by Sarah Palin on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 7:58pm
________________________ ________________________ _____________
Ever since 2008, people seem inordinately interested in my reading habits. Among various newspapers, magazines, and local Alaskan papers, I read the Wall Street Journal.
So, imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”
Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”
The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”
Now I realize I’m just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I’m surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t.
- Sarah Palin
________________________ ________________
Ha ha ha ha - another idiot bites the dust.
ANd here comes the Owning..
Palin Lashes Out At WSJ Reporter, Misquotes Story
The Huffington Post | William Alden First Posted: 11- 9-10 09:06 AM | Updated: 11- 9-10 02:50 PM
What's Your Reaction?diggfacebook Twitter
stumble
reddit
del.ico.us Inspiring
Greedy
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Infuriating
Read More: Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy, qe2, Quantitative Easing, Sarah Palin, Sudeep Reddy, Wall Street Journal, Business News 9982,334
views4 Get Business Alerts
Email Comments 8,359 This post has been updated.
In what can only be called a valiant effort, Sarah Palin has defended her monetary policy remarks from the Wall Street Journal's pointed criticism.
On her Facebook page, Palin claims the WSJ reporter who has pointed out a factual error in her speech is himself in the wrong. "Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?," her Facebook note asks.
In remarks delivered at a Phoenix convention, and first leaked by the The National Review, Palin criticized the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policy, in which the bank will purchase up to $600 billion of new U.S. government debt (as part of a plan that could reach $900 billion), and urged Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to "cease and desist."
As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual.
Even more unusual were the specifics of Palin's critique: As WSJ's Sudeep Reddy pointed out Monday, she doesn't get all of her facts right. In response to Palin's assertion that "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so," Reddy wrote Monday that "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact." He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year. It's the lowest rate on record -- so low that it inspired a high-profile Twitter fight late last month.
But Palin would have none of it. She wrote in her Facebook note, "That's odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy's own Wall Street Journal titled 'Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.' She continued:
Now I realize I'm just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I'm surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn't.
Story continues below
AdvertisementReddy has responded to Palin on Twitter, pointing out that she has actually misread the WSJ article she refers to. As Reddy notes, the article's first sentence discusses "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades."
The source of confusion comes in the next paragraph. The article says the cost of goods has risen, a burden that food sellers must decide whether to pass on to customers via prices. The rise in prices hasn't actually happened yet. Palin omits this key fact.
Reddy has also re-tweeted a tweet from Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum, who defends Reddy and blasts Palin for misquoting the WSJ story about prices. Here's Chittum:
Palin has a journalism degree, so I'm guessing she knows what an ethical no-no it is to misquote somebody like that. It ought to be awfully hard for her to get on her pedestal and condemn the media when she can't even quote somebody honestly. How about to make it up to Reddy, Palin lets a real reporter like him fly out to Wasilla to interview her for once instead of going to her house folks at Fox News?
UPDATE:
Sudeep Reddy has responded in the WSJ to Palin's Facebook note. He cites Labor Department data to reiterate that Palin's argument about food prices is not grounded in fact, and he continues:
Weak demand, high unemployment and thrifty shoppers have led retailers to keep many prices from rising despite the rising cost of some commodities, including coffee and sugar. ... Critics of the Fed's quantitative easing policy are focused primarily on concerns about potential future inflation.
-
Can i get a BUMP!!! thank ya JEEEBUSSSS
-
(.65)Governor Palin thinkgs gravatas makes apples fall from trees.
-
the ownage never stops :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
i bet 3333 hates that we kill damn near every thread he starts..
Sorry 3333..im on break till next year...gots a lot of time...
-
The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
The Reformed Broker
Food price inflation isn't theoretical anymore
Agflation has shown up in supermarket prices.
Boston resident Daniel Kemp watches his grocery bill as DeLuca's Market employee, Fabian Acosta, rings up his purchases, in this 2009 file photo from Boston, Mass. "Everybody's noticed you're spending ten dollars or more on groceries," Kemp said. Staples have risen: chuck roast is up 13 percent to $4 per pound, whole milk is up 10 percent to $3.28 a gallon, and eggs are up 7 percent to $1.75 a dozen, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(Ann Hermes / The Christian Science Monitor / File)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Joshua M. Brown
posted November 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm EST
Hate to say I told you so, but this one could be spotted a mile away. And some of us did. The law of unintended consequences is in full effect as the food price inflation (aka Agflation) I feared is finally here. We're not talking out-of-control price hikes at this point - but the trend is the trend and our monetary policy is definitely exacerbating it.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. And food makers and retailers including McDonald's Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they'll try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients.
Our officials are really into CPI as their inflation measure, which is a shame because it doesn't actually take into account, well, inflation. "Inflation ex-food and energy" is the most oxymoronic phrase in the economic glossary. Here's the troof:
Food prices are rising faster than overall inflation. The consumer price index for all items minus food and energy rose 0.8% over the year to September, the lowest 12-month increase since March 1961, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The food index rose 1.4%, however. The U.S. Agricultural Department is predicting overall food inflation of about 2% to 3% next year.
My raise rates to 1% call is looking better and better. Meanwhile, the Fed pumps more cash to the developing world - our new competitors for protein and grains.
Sources:
Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices (WSJ)
Read Also:
Raise Rates, Cowards (TRB)
Farmer Brown Wuz Right, Food Prices Exploding (TRB)
Signs of Agflation Hit Egypt (TRB)
Add/view comments on this post.
-
the SELF ownage never stops :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I love it how 338 and the rest of the palinbots jump on anything she says and take her word as the absolute true. ;D ;D ;D
-
I love it how 338 and the rest of the palinbots jump on anything she says and take her word as the absolute true. ;D ;D ;D
I love how the rest of you take everything she says as false just because she said it.
It's like having a bunch of people in a building, someone runs in and says "get out of here, the building is on fire!" But all the people look at this person and say, "get out of here you crazy conservative" even though the entire building is full of smoke and the temperature is a few hundred degrees above normal.
-
I love how the rest of you take everything she says as false just because she said it. ::) ::)
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/sarah_palin_as_media_critica_b.php (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/sarah_palin_as_media_critica_b.php)
Aw, shucks.
Sarah Palin is “just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like (her) can read the newspaper.”
Reading’s one thing. Comprehending’s another.
Palin makes the unfortunate mistake of slapping back at Wall Street Journal reporter Sudeep Reddy for calling her out for what he called “hyperbole” in a speech Palin made to the Specialty Tools and Fasteners Distributors Association convention in Phoenix.
She gets it wrong again. It was indeed hyperbole.
I noticed her remarks separately and also called out Palin in Audit Notes this evening for the inflation error. I was amused by the whole Sarah Palin Takes on QE2 thing just on its face, but also noted that she got a couple of facts wrong in her post (including another one about energy independence). She said this, which Reddy also picked up on:
All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.
That’s just not the case. As I pointed out yesterday, food prices have risen just 1.4 percent in the last year, which is about as insignificant as it gets. Reddy put it even better:
Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since the Labor Department started keeping this measure in 1968). Even if you pick a single snapshot — say, September’s year-over-year increase in prices — that was just 1.4%, far better than the 6% annual increase for food prices recorded in September 2008.
Palin (or whoever’s writing her stuff) tries to pull an “aha!” moment on the ol’ “lamestream media,” but just makes herself look worse.
Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”
The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”
What that WSJ article said—which you can in fact discern even from her selective quoting—is that food prices may be beginning to rise. And when I say selective quoting, I mean selective quoting. Note where the ellipsis in her WSJ quote there. That’s from the lede of the story, which says, in full:
An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants,threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.
So, Palin is hammering the Journal and Reddy for pointing out that she’s flat wrong about grocery prices going up significantly in the past year. What does she do? She quotes a separate Journal story that confirms what Reddy is saying—and cuts out that part with three dots. Nice!
Palin has a journalism degree, so I’m guessing she knows what an ethical no-no it is to misquote somebody like that. It ought to be awfully hard for her to get on her pedestal and condemn the media when she can’t even quote somebody honestly. How about to make it up to Reddy, Palin lets a real reporter like him fly out to Wasilla to interview her for once instead of going to her house folks at Fox News?
Maybe they can talk about the possible wave of food inflation coming our way.
-
The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
The Reformed Broker
Food price inflation isn't theoretical anymore
Agflation has shown up in supermarket prices.
Boston resident Daniel Kemp watches his grocery bill as DeLuca's Market employee, Fabian Acosta, rings up his purchases, in this 2009 file photo from Boston, Mass. "Everybody's noticed you're spending ten dollars or more on groceries," Kemp said. Staples have risen: chuck roast is up 13 percent to $4 per pound, whole milk is up 10 percent to $3.28 a gallon, and eggs are up 7 percent to $1.75 a dozen, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(Ann Hermes / The Christian Science Monitor / File)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Joshua M. Brown
posted November 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm EST
Hate to say I told you so, but this one could be spotted a mile away. And some of us did. The law of unintended consequences is in full effect as the food price inflation (aka Agflation) I feared is finally here. We're not talking out-of-control price hikes at this point - but the trend is the trend and our monetary policy is definitely exacerbating it.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. And food makers and retailers including McDonald's Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they'll try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients.
Our officials are really into CPI as their inflation measure, which is a shame because it doesn't actually take into account, well, inflation. "Inflation ex-food and energy" is the most oxymoronic phrase in the economic glossary. Here's the troof:
Food prices are rising faster than overall inflation. The consumer price index for all items minus food and energy rose 0.8% over the year to September, the lowest 12-month increase since March 1961, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The food index rose 1.4%, however. The U.S. Agricultural Department is predicting overall food inflation of about 2% to 3% next year.
My raise rates to 1% call is looking better and better. Meanwhile, the Fed pumps more cash to the developing world - our new competitors for protein and grains.
Sources:
Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices (WSJ)
Read Also:
Raise Rates, Cowards (TRB)
Farmer Brown Wuz Right, Food Prices Exploding (TRB)
Signs of Agflation Hit Egypt (TRB)
Add/view comments on this post.
you know ima get you rite?....tomorrow bro...tomorrow
-
Funny how many far-lefties are owning themselves in this thread. The guy who called Palin out about there not being inflation in food prices actually wrote an article a few weeks ago about there being just that. Now either he's lying through his teeth, which means he should be fired from the WSJ, or he's just completely incompetent, which means he should be fired from the WSJ.
-
Apparently you did not read the story - thats cool.
BTW - do you agree with all the money printing schemes Obama/Timmy/Big Ben are orchestrating?
333 Do you really think Obama is in charge o f monetary policy, ...or do you think that's in Bernanke's hands?
I can't help but believe that regardless of who sits in the oval office, the Fed is gonna do what the Fed is going to do, and the President will have his marching orders.
-
333 Do you really think Obama is in charge o f monetary policy, ...or do you think that's in Bernanke's hands?
I can't help but believe that regardless of who sits in the oval office, the Fed is gonna do what the Fed is going to do, and the President will have his marching orders.
No, but the congress and POTUS often put pressure on the Fed to assist in its meeting is priorities, whether by lowering interest rates, printing more money, etc etc.
The Fed has to print tons more money now because the govt refuses to cut spending, refuses to curtail the overseas obligations, and in fact is going to have more obligations with entitlements, obamacare, etc etc.
Additionally, as the economy is not producing enough jobs to generate the taxes to pay for the obligations of the govt, the Fed is being used to tax people to pay for these obligations though an "inflation tax", which i have a whole thread on that most people have ignored.
-
Funny how many far-lefties are owning themselves in this thread. The guy who called Palin out about there not being inflation in food prices actually wrote an article a few weeks ago about there being just that. Now either he's lying through his teeth, which means he should be fired from the WSJ, or he's just completely incompetent, which means he should be fired from the WSJ.
BF...Youre better than that bro.. i expect more from you
Even more unusual were the specifics of Palin's critique: As WSJ's Sudeep Reddy pointed out Monday, she doesn't get all of her facts right. In response to Palin's assertion that "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so," Reddy wrote Monday that "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact." He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year. It's the lowest rate on record -- so low that it inspired a high-profile Twitter fight late last month.But Palin would have none of it. She wrote in her Facebook note, "That's odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy's own Wall Street Journal titled 'Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.' She continued:
Now I realize I'm just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I'm surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn't.
Reddy has responded to Palin on Twitter, pointing out that she has actually misread the WSJ article she refers to. As Reddy notes, the article's first sentence discusses "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades."
The source of confusion comes in the next paragraph. The article says the cost of goods has risen, a burden that food sellers must decide whether to pass on to customers via prices. The rise in prices hasn't actually happened yet. Palin omits this key fact.
Reddy has also re-tweeted a tweet from Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum, who defends Reddy and blasts Palin for misquoting the WSJ story about prices. Here's Chittum:
-
BF...Youre better than that bro.. i expect more from you
Even more unusual were the specifics of Palin's critique: As WSJ's Sudeep Reddy pointed out Monday, she doesn't get all of her facts right. In response to Palin's assertion that "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so," Reddy wrote Monday that "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact." He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year. It's the lowest rate on record -- so low that it inspired a high-profile Twitter fight late last month.But Palin would have none of it. She wrote in her Facebook note, "That's odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy's own Wall Street Journal titled 'Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.' She continued:
Now I realize I'm just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I'm surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn't.
Reddy has responded to Palin on Twitter, pointing out that she has actually misread the WSJ article she refers to. As Reddy notes, the article's first sentence discusses "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades."
The source of confusion comes in the next paragraph. The article says the cost of goods has risen, a burden that food sellers must decide whether to pass on to customers via prices. The rise in prices hasn't actually happened yet. Palin omits this key fact.
Reddy has also re-tweeted a tweet from Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum, who defends Reddy and blasts Palin for misquoting the WSJ story about prices. Here's Chittum:
Oh please - do you even shop? Food prices have gone up a ton recently.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __
USDA: Food Prices to Rise in 2010...Again USDA predicts a 2.5 to 3.5 percent increase in food bills this year despite falling crop prices.
For corn, wheat, and rice farmers, the strong prices they saw in 2007 and 2008 are but a distant memory by now. As a consumer, you probably haven't noticed.
That's because when you pour a bowl of Rice Krispies, Corn Pops, or Wheaties, the price tag stuck to the box is still higher than usual.
Newspapers were filled with stories in 2008 and 2009 about exploding grocery bills, and many of those pieces included quotes from food companies that painted farmers as the villain because of higher-than-usual crop prices.
But the story about prices remaining higher, even as crop prices have retreated, hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, according to a recent announcement by the USDA, "In 2010, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food is projected to increase 2.5 to 3.5 percent" with that same increase of 2.5 to 3.5 percent forecast for food purchased at grocery stores. However, this news got little more than a passing mention in the media.
Farmer's Share
This food bill phenomenon of what goes up doesn't come down is known in economic circles as "sticky prices."
The Associated Press explained the term this way in October 2008: "[W]hen companies slap higher prices on products and keep them there even though the rationale for the price hikes—such as soaring oil prices—is gone."
A 2006 study on sugar policy prepared by McKeany-Flavell, a California-based commodity research firm, reported:
"Once prices for a retail product rise, they seldom come down without a compelling reason. As noted in The Economist, 'Prices change only when the cost of leaving them unchanged exceeds the expense of adjusting them.' In the case of sugar-containing products at the consumer-level, prices are more a result of how competitive the market is rather than how expensive (or inexpensive) the input prices are."
And according to Tom Buis, the CEO of Growth Energy in Washington, DC, these sticky prices are adding up to big-time profits for food companies.
"Companies like General Mills, Kraft, and ConAgra are all bragging to investors about their earnings," he explained. "But these profits are not just happening by accident—it's happening because consumers are paying more and farmers are making less. And to think that this is happening during a recession is unbelievable."
Buis appears to be is right. Another well-known food giant, Hershey, has seen excellent returns as of late, noting in July a nearly 6 percent sales increase. That same July announcement mentioned that commodity prices being cheaper than initial estimates have helped fuel their ascension.
When confronted with the contradiction of higher food prices at a time of plummeting ingredient costs, the food manufacturers have responded with—you guessed it—contradiction.
Unilever told the Los Angeles Times that the situation is "complex," with pricing levels remaining "both volatile and unpredictable in the medium to long term." Meanwhile, Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld told USA Today last year that, "our prices will go up and down as the cost of our ingredients goes up and down."
Based on a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, Kraft's prediction seems to be a little off.
That 2009 report found that supermarket prices for food have climbed by 128 percent since 1982, four times the increase in crop prices for farmers—which is, according to Buis, a "clear refute" of the big food companies' erroneous claims that farmers are the culprit.
"Last year the Grocery Manufacturers Association developed a multimillion dollar misinformation campaign to blame American farmers and ethanol producers for higher food prices," Buis said when the GAO report was made public. "Here is yet another study that shines the light of truth on the whole food-versus-fuel fiction that [the food companies] are peddling."
That should give you plenty to think about as you're pouring that bowl of cereal tomorrow morning.
http://www.thehandthatfeedsus.org/farm2fork_USDA-Food-Prices-to-Rise-2010.cfm
-
Food Prices Rising
November 04, 2010 06:37 AM
http://atlantapost.com/2010/11/04/food-prices-rising/
________________________ ________________________ _________
(Wall Street Journal) — An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades. Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. And food makers and retailers including McDonald’s Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they’ll try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients. For food executives, how quickly to pass along higher costs presents difficult choices. Missteps could be costly when the economy remains weak. Many Americans, nervous about high unemployment, have pledged allegiance to their pennies and are willing to trade down on brands, switch supermarkets, opt for Burger King over Applebee’s, or stop dining out altogether to save money.
Read More…
-
BF...Youre better than that bro.. i expect more from you
Even more unusual were the specifics of Palin's critique: As WSJ's Sudeep Reddy pointed out Monday, she doesn't get all of her facts right. In response to Palin's assertion that "everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so," Reddy wrote Monday that "Grocery prices haven't risen all that significantly, in fact." He notes that prices have actually increased only 0.6 percent over the past year. It's the lowest rate on record -- so low that it inspired a high-profile Twitter fight late last month.But Palin would have none of it. She wrote in her Facebook note, "That's odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy's own Wall Street Journal titled 'Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.' She continued:
Now I realize I'm just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I'm surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn't.
Reddy has responded to Palin on Twitter, pointing out that she has actually misread the WSJ article she refers to. As Reddy notes, the article's first sentence discusses "the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades."
The source of confusion comes in the next paragraph. The article says the cost of goods has risen, a burden that food sellers must decide whether to pass on to customers via prices. The rise in prices hasn't actually happened yet. Palin omits this key fact.
Reddy has also re-tweeted a tweet from Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum, who defends Reddy and blasts Palin for misquoting the WSJ story about prices. Here's Chittum:
That's all well and good, Mal. Maybe she didn't own the WSJ reporter but regardless, there is plenty of talk about food inflation. Here's an article from Britain's "The Guardian" that was written five days ago.
US accused of forcing up world food prices
Fresh round of US quantitative easing will weaken dollar and push up commodity prices, hitting consumers, say critics
The US central bank was accused today of adding to soaring food prices with its new programme of quantitative easing, after oil and commodities surged on world markets.
Critics said the $600bn (£370bn) of QE announced by the Federal Reserve would hurt consumers by pushing up prices of soy, wheat and other staple foods, along with oil, copper and zinc.
The jump in commodity prices raised the prospect of an inflationary bubble reminiscent of 2008, when oil and other industrial raw materials struck all-time highs just before the crash.
While commodity traders said a decline in the dollar's value was expected following the QE decision, the Reuters/Jefferies CRB index, a global commodities benchmark, has since hit a two-year high. It has gained 18% since the start of September.
US light crude hit a year-high of $87.2 a barrel while copper flirted with record levels of $8,769.50 a tonne, within $200 of an all-time peak of $8,940 in July 2008.
UK food prices were 9.8% higher last month than a year ago, the biggest annual increase since October 2008, according to the Office for National Statistics. Imported food prices climbed 4.5% on the year, the fastest rate since October 2009, pushing up the price of bread and margarine. Prices are likely to be pushed higher in coming months, with refined sugar reaching a record of $783.90 a tonne today.
Despite surging commodity prices, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has argued the likelihood of deflation is greater than inflation following prolonged weakness in the US economy. He said that the poor state of the housing market and continued weakness in consumer demand showed inflation was likely to undershoot the Fed's 2% target and that unemployment would remain high.
He is expected to be unmoved by the latest data showing 151,000 private-sector jobs were created in October. While many traders took the figures on face value, several analysts said they showed the jobs market remained depressed.
The Fed needs more than 300,000 jobs to be created a month to make a dent in US unemployment, which remains at 9.6%. A figure of about 150,000 is just enough to keep pace with the rising population.
However, several economists have argued the Fed's gloomy analysis cannot justify a second round of quantitative easing when high inflation and low interest rates persuade investors to seek higher returns from buying commodities and riskier asset classes.
Commodities are considered a safe haven when the dollar is falling. There is also an incentive for producers to seek higher prices to offset the falling value of the dollar.
Richard Batty of Standard Life Investments said a 10% rise in the oil price could potentially add 1% to US inflation.
"While QE may boost assets prices further and hence contribute to positive wealth effects and inflation expectations in the US economy, recent moves in oil prices, in particular, may drag on economic growth in the short term," Batty said.
China, Germany and Brazil warned that QE would have far-reaching negative effects beyond US shores. They said it amounted to promoting US exporters at the expense of rival trading nations with a scheme to artificially depress the value of the dollar.
"With all due respect, US policy is clueless," said German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble. "[The problem] is not a shortage of liquidity. It's not that the Americans haven't pumped enough liquidity into the market. And now to say let's pump more into the market is not going to solve their problems."
Zhou Xiaochuan, China's central bank governor, said while Beijing could understand that the Fed was implementing more monetary easing to stimulate US recovery, it might not be good for the global economy.
The head of Brazil's central bank agreed that further QE would cause further "distortions" in world markets and complicate his country's efforts to stem the rise of its currency. Brazil, like Thailand and other emerging economies has imposed capital controls on investors seeking to buy Brazilian assets to prevent its currency soaring.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/05/us-accused-of-worsening-price-rises
I'm not a fan of Palin by any means, but there has been plenty of talk about rising food prices across the entire world. Bad droughts coupled with the economic problems have definitely driven up the cost of certain commodity goods and it's starting to trickle into others. Either way, this WSJ reporter has come out of this looking pretty incompetent in my eyes.
-
She is talking about the impact of QE2 by Bernake which is going to great increase the already mounting food inflation, as well as the impact it is going to have on other commodities, fuel, energy, etc.
Only a complete idiot could support Bernake in this and not see what the end results of all this craziness will be -
HIGHER FOOD PRICES
HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES
HIGHER ENERGY PRICES
HIGHER INFLATION
20% LOSS OF PURCHASING POWER OF THE DOLLAR
ETC ETC.
-
Ok...is that what were gonna do. Dude, the article she was referring to she misread and lashed out before she mis read it.. Wheres the argument? Like what are we talking about right now. She Quoted a writer, commented on the writers article, she was wrong about the comment because she misquote the article. WTF is the discussion?
-
Ok...is that what were gonna do. Dude, the article she was referring to she misread and lashed out before she mis read it.. Wheres the argument? Like what are we talking about right now. She Quoted a writer, commented on the writers article, she was wrong about the comment because she misquote the article. WTF is the discussion?
1. She posted about the damaging effects of QE2, which nearly everyone but TEAM KNEEPAD is livid over. she said QE2 will add to an already bad situation, not that it was the cause.
2. The writer attacked her trying to make an argument she did not make.
3. She then posted a follow up that it was in the WSJ a few days before her posting that they noted food inflation and that the prices are partially rising due to overall inflation as a result of the money printing insanity of the FED.
4. The writer than weekly tried defending himself by posting stats irrevelent to the discussion overall.
Do you not know the sequence of events here?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/sarah-palin-federal-reserve_n_780833.html
click and read...
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/sarah-palin-federal-reserve_n_780833.html
click and read...
Seriously - you buy every propaganda argument from the government hook line and sinker. Pathetic.
And from that article:
As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual.
________________________ _______________________
I really had to laugh at that. Criticism is unusual? What freaking planet does this fool live on?
And citing official "Labor Stats". ::) ::) ::)
Ha ha ha. Dear God are you blind if you believe that crap like the "Official CPI", etc etc. Truly sad.
-
Seriously - you buy every propaganda argument from the government hook line and sinker. Pathetic.
And from that article:
As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual.
________________________ _______________________
I really had to laugh at that. Criticism is unusual? What freaking planet does this fool live on?
And citing official "Labor Stats". ::) ::) ::)
Ha ha ha. Dear God are you blind if you believe that crap like the "Official CPI", etc etc. Truly sad.
Fuckin Pot Meet kettle.. .dude. you said obamas trip cost $200 million/day bcause fox said it. So who the fuck are you talking to?
-
Sarah Palin Food Inflation Controversy
National Inflation Association ^ | 11-10-2010 | NIA
________________________ ________________________ ____________________
Sarah Palin on Monday made a speech at a trade-association convention in Phoenix urging Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to “cease and desist” his “pump priming”. Palin said the United States, “shouldn’t be playing around with inflation.” She went on to say, "All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher."
After obtaining a copy of her speech, the Wall Street Journal's Sudeep Reddy wrote an article criticizing Palin's comments about food inflation, saying that, "Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record." NIA finds it unfortunate that Reddy has been brainwashed into believing the government's phony consumer price index (CPI) numbers.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)'s CPI is not a reliable indicator of U.S. food inflation or any type of price inflation. NIA estimates the real rate of annual food inflation in the U.S. to already be 5% and projects that this rate will rise above 10% in early 2011.[/b] NIA believes the BLS has been using both geometric weighting and hedonics to artificially manipulate the CPI downward. The U.S. government has a strong motivation to keep CPI increases as low as possible because since the year 1975, retired Americans receive annual Social Security payment increases that are tied to the CPI. NIA calculates that based on the way the BLS's CPI has understated the real rate of price inflation, Americans on Social Security should be receiving payments that are more than double what they receive today. Unfortunately, the government just announced last month that Americans on Social Security will receive no payment increase in 2011, despite the f act that food inflation will likely become the biggest crisis of the year, much larger than the mortgage crisis we have today.
When calculating food inflation, the government uses deceptive geometric weighting, which gives a lower weighting to goods that are rising in price and a higher weighting to goods that are falling in price. If the price of steak is rising while the price of hamburgers is falling, the CPI will give a lower weighting to steak and a higher weighting to hamburgers. The government justifies this by saying that expensive steak prices mean Americans are more likely to eat hamburgers. Therefore, the CPI no longer accounts for the price to maintain the same standard of living. The CPI is now calculated based on the realization that America's standard of living has been in decline and the expectation that it will continue to decline in the future.
Americans subconsciously realize that it is becoming a lot harder for them to make ends meet and put food on the table, but they don't realize that inflation is the cause of it. All Americans have heard stories from older relatives about how Hershey bars 45 years ago cost only 5 cents. Americans are aware that the U.S. has already experienced massive price inflation, but they don't look at inflation as a problem because these food price increases occurred over a very long period of time. NIA estimates that at a very minimum, the same U.S. price inflation that occurred over the past 100 years, will occur again over the next 10 years as the Federal Reserve's money printing causes the world to lose confidence in the U.S. dollar.
There is a misconception in America that wages have risen at the same rate as price inflation, when this is simply not the case. The median household income in the U.S. was $11,800 in 1975 and today is $49,777. If you go by the government's CPI, $11,800 in 1975 dollars equals $47,208 in today's dollars. If the government's CPI is to be believed, Americans are earning higher real incomes today than 35 years ago. However, the truth is, once you discount the effects of geometric weighting and hedonics, the median household income in 1975 of $11,800 actually equals $154,000 in today's dollars. This explains how in 1975, a father was able to support a family on just one income and college students were able to afford their own tuition with just a part-time summer job. Today, both parents need to work and families need to get deeply into debt just to survive.
The U.S. government is currently printing money just to survive. The Federal Reserve has held the Fed Funds Rate at 0-0.25% for nearly two years and just announced that it will be printing an additional $600 billion in new U.S. dollars by the end of June 2011. Since the beginning of September until now, just in anticipation of the Fed's upcoming quantitative easing, we have experienced the largest ever short-term increase in the history of agricultural commodity prices with corn rising by 32%, soybeans rising by 32%, orange juice rising by 12%, coffee rising by 19%, and sugar rising by 66%. These agricultural commodity price increases will begin to work their way into grocery stores nationwide in the weeks and months ahead, as food manufacturers and retailers are forced to raise their prices.
Food manufacturers and retailers who don't immediately raise prices and pass their rising costs on to U.S. consumers will likely go out of business. Sara Lee just announced yesterday that their first quarter profit fell 32% as price increases it enacted during the quarter were not enough to cover steep increases for agricultural commodities. Dean Foods saw their stock decline 18% yesterday to a new 52-week low due to escalating costs for butterfat, a key ingredient in its creamers and ice creams. Dean Foods' butterfat costs were up 70% over the same 2009 period.
The U.S. has no way of paying off its $13.7 trillion national debt and $80 trillion plus in unfunded liabilities without printing the money and creating massive price inflation. China’s Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. lowered its credit rating for the U.S. to A+ from AA on Tuesday with an outlook of "negative", saying the Fed’s plan to buy government debt will erode the value of the dollar and “entirely encroaches” on the interests of creditors. The Fed, by buying U.S. treasuries, is effectively monetizing the debt. In fact, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard W. Fisher admitted yesterday that the Fed is monetizing the debt, saying in a statement, "For the next eight months, the nation’s central bank will be monetizing the federal debt."
Bernanke testified under oath on June 3rd, 2009 in front of Congress saying, "The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt." This was a lie and perjury. With baseball great Roger Clemens being indicted for lying to Congress under oath about a personal matter that is trivial compared to this, Bernanke should also be charged with similar crimes.
Although NIA believes Palin made a major mistake by supporting the government's $700 billion 'Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008', we give her credit for helping expose to the mainstream public that a massive inflationary crisis is ahead due to Bernanke's destructive monetary policies. On December 16th, 2009, the same day Time Magazine named Bernanke 'Person of the Year', NIA named Bernanke 'Villain of the Year' and said in an article that day, "When it costs $20 for a gallon of milk in a few years, Americans will have nobody to thank more than Bernanke."
The average American family currently spends 13% of their total annual expenditures on food compared to 34% on housing. As the Federal Reserve monetizes our debt and creates massive price inflation, these two numbers will reverse. For every 1% rise in consumer wages, NIA expects to see about a 4% rise in food prices. There are currently 42.4 million Americans on food stamps, up 17% from one year ago. The government does not have the resources to make these entitlement payments without printing the money and creating massive food price inflation. Ironically, food stamps are actually making those who receive them, need them even more.
If the U.S. government is somehow able to make it to the 2012 election without going bust due to a worthless U.S. dollar, by then it is likely that the average middle-class American will be dependent on the government to survive. Obama's strategy to get re-elected is to make as many Americans as possible dependent on him and scared to elect a true Libertarian candidate like Ron Paul, who will dramatically reduce government spending in an attempt to prevent hyperinflation.
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Again - Sarah was dead right on this.
-
Seriously - you buy every propaganda argument from the government hook line and sinker. Pathetic.
And from that article:
As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual.
________________________ _______________________
I really had to laugh at that. Criticism is unusual? What freaking planet does this fool live on?
And citing official "Labor Stats". ::) ::) ::)
Ha ha ha. Dear God are you blind if you believe that crap like the "Official CPI", etc etc. Truly sad.
Fuckin Pot Meet kettle.. .dude. you said obamas trip cost $200 million/day bcause fox said it. So who the fuck are you talking to?
bump
-
bump
Bump for what? Obama still wont release the actual amount, which by any measure is staggering.
-
Yes Virginia, There Is Global Food Inflation
Seeking Alpha ^ | 11-10-2010 | Mercenary Trader
________________________ ________________________ _____________
In case you were skeptical (and apparently some still are) — a quick roundup on the food inflation front:
1) Dean Foods (DF) becomes another casualty of sky-rocketing input costs (hat tip TRB). From the conference call (upon which the stock got whacked):
The negative effect of this volume softness was amplified by the dramatic increase in Class II butterfat costs in the quarter, which created additional pressure on gross profits. Class II butterfat averaged $2.12 per pound in the quarter, and increased 70% from the year-ago period and more than 25% above the second quarter.
As a reminder, Class II butterfat is a key input in our creamer, cultured and ice cream products businesses, where the pass-through of changes in input costs is less efficient than fluid milk.
The continued gross margin pressure on the business, higher fuel costs and increased bad debt expenses all contributed to drive segment operating profit well below year-ago levels…
2) From the UK:
UK food prices were 9.8% higher last month than a year ago, the biggest annual increase since October 2008, according to the Office for National Statistics. Imported food prices climbed 4.5% on the year, the fastest rate since October 2009, pushing up the price of bread and margarine.
3) And in the United States…
An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.
Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.
And food makers and retailers including McDonald’s Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they’ll try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients.
4) And of course China…
"Everything is expensive right now — food, especially the vegetables,” said Li Huijun, a 53-year-old hospital clerk, who complained as she shopped at Lianhua Supermarket in Shanghai that lettuce used to cost only 1 renminbi per 500 grams, or 15 cents for about a pound, but now costs about twice that amount. “And not to mention clothes, and shoes,” Ms. Li said. “They all went up, except my salary.”
And yet, things may be even worse than the consumer price index suggests. A growing number of analysts say inflationary pressure is stronger than the price index indicates, because it is heavily weighted toward food — particularly pork prices. Rising energy, property and transportation costs are not as significant a factor in the index. And even the price increases of many food items — aside from pork — are also not adequately weighed or calculated, analysts say…
5) Not to mention the rest of the world…
The CRB/Reuters U.S. Spot Raw Industrials index, a gauge of 22 commodities including butter and soybean oil, rose to an all- time high on Oct. 25. Meat prices advanced to a two-decade high in August, according to a UN index….
Palm oil traded on the Malaysia Derivatives Exchange may rise 18 percent to 3,600 ringgit ($1,161) a metric ton by March, extending this year’s 15 percent advance… “The critical period of tightness is yet to come,” said Dorab Mistry, a director at Godrej International Ltd. who has traded cooking oils for more than three decades…”
6) And, as a piece de resistance, the CEO of Starbucks (SBUX) weighs in:
Let me give you some perspective on coffee prices as we see it… This is the first time in our entire history that we’ve seen coffee prices artificially soar when there is no real issue on supply and demand.
So we’re dealing with uncharted waters here. And the unfortunate thing is, that the people making money on the coffee market are not coffee growers. It’s people on the financial side.
So, yeah. For those saying “inflation is contained,” try looking a little harder.
-
Fuckin Pot Meet kettle.. .dude. you said obamas trip cost $200 million/day bcause fox said it. So who the fuck are you talking to?
braaaaaaaaa :D :D :D :D :D333386 getting owned
-
Did you read anything I posted? if anyone got owned royally it was mal and yourself for believing the lies of the govt.
even Peter Schiff admitted she was dead right and that obama/bernake are FUCKING CLUELESS on the economy.
Sucker.
-
i have a hard time reading your shit ,it so full of lies ,you have to goggle every thing
-
i have a hard time reading your shit ,it so full of lies ,you have to goggle every thing
Here is a clue schmuck
-
i have a hard time reading your shit ,it so full of lies ,you have to goggle every thing
IRONY.
-
IRONY.
Its cool - i have little doubt that they read my article from the National Inflation Association
-
Hey - Mal - Even the WSJ reporters say she is right.
But fuck it - keep kneepadding Obama.
________________________ ________________________ _______________
Opinion Journal: Palin vs. Bernanke 11/9/2010 12:30:27 PM
Editorial page editor Paul Gigot scores round one for the former Alaskan Governor. Also, Columnist Daniel Henninger analyzes the Speaker's bizarre reaction to an electoral shellacking. Allysia Finley responds to reader comments about the miserable fiscal state of the Golden State.
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-palin-vs-bernanke/6A8B3973-6069-464E-B48B-4D4564C96DE5.html
-
What's America's real inflation rate? (Flashback: Why are food & energy costly with low inflation?)
WND ^ | 3/19/2008 | Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:55:15 PM by Qbert
Why is it that the federal government says the U.S. has virtually no inflation – less that 2 percent – but everything keeps getting more expensive, especially food and gasoline?
Today, gasoline is well above $3.00 a gallon. "Sticker shock" comes not just from the cost of buying a new car, but from the $50.00 or more it costs to fill up the gas tank, even if you don't own an SUV.
[Snip]
Still, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in August 2007 a remarkably low inflation rate of only 1.7 percent.
Solving this riddle – that is, why everything costs so much when the government tells us inflation rates are low – is simple:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics lies.
Inflation numbers are intentionally manipulated to keep cost-of-living numbers low.
[Snip]
How does the federal government manipulate inflation numbers?
The Consumer Price Index, or CPI, is the central statistic the federal government uses to calculate inflation.
The CPI is a complex government statistic that was introduced in the 1920s to track the market cost of a "basket of goods and services."
Beginning during the Carter administration, federal economists cleverly redefined the CPI, with the goal of removing from the index expensive items, including food and energy, that would push the CPI higher.
Today, the Federal Reserve when setting interest rates focuses on a variation of the CPI that measures "core inflation."
[Snip]
"The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it," Williams wrote. "The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage."
Williams calculates that the manipulations of the CPI index cause inflation to be under-reported by as much as 7 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------