Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

0.1% inflation for March

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by WarDamnGator, Apr 12, 2023.

  1. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    8,948
    882
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    I guess that’s just the crude oil. The raw unrefined product. With the nat gas exports to Europe it will be “net energy” for first time since WW2.

    Either way, pretty impossible to say Biden is causing any real issues here on the production side considering oil production has also been steadily recovering from 2020.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    10,852
    1,357
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    I appreciate you trying to have a serious conversation.

    But I don't think this is a case where there are two correct ways to express the same idea. CPI is an index tied to a "basket of good". As the price of those selected good changed, the CPI index changes. I don't think most people realize this, because CPI is almost always reported as a percent change of the index, rather than the actual index number. But here's how it works, and why I think the only correct way to express this is 2.8%.

    One year ago, the CPI was at 288.611 ... now it's at 302.918 ... a 4.8% increase (I get 4.9% when I do the math, but I think that slight difference is due to the fed compounding it monthly instead of annually)

    If the target number of 2% had held, then CPI should be at 294.38... (288.611 x 1.02, and again, there may be some small difference there due to how the fed compounds the rate).

    So ... the actual read of 302.918, divided by the target number, 294.38, comes out to a 2.9% miss (again, slightly off from the correct 2.8% miss, likely due to compounding, but clearly in the ballpark, and a hell of a lot closer than saying it's a 250% miss.)

    When you look it that way, there is no way to justify saying that 302.918 is 250% higher than the target number of 294.38 ... right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,834
    1,419
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    Pointless. If the economy was half as good as you seem to think it is, 60% of Americans wouldn't disapprove of Biden's handling of it. If you need any proof of that, check President Trump's economic approval numbers:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval_economy-6182.html

    Considering there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country, this dichotomy means that: a) there are a lot of Democrats who disapprove of Biden's handling of the economy and inflation; b) there were a lot of Democrats who approved of Trump's handling of the economy.
     
  4. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    Yeah I was just commenting on your poor logic skills.

    But your numbers just make my point. Dems are less prone to think that the economy is good or bad based on which party is in the White House than Repubs are.
     
  5. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,834
    1,419
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    Hey look everybody! You can have a "serious conversation" with ChapGPT too!
     
  6. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,834
    1,419
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    And where do you glean your factual basis for asserting that Dems are less prone than Republicans to think the economy is good or bad based on which party is in the White House? Seriously, cut the shit.
     
  7. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    8,948
    882
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    No, I think in 2020 our consumption collapsed and a bunch of production went offline. Then coming back out of the pandemic, the economy recovered faster than energy came back online.

    The energy market actually functioned pretty well though, compared to stuff like Lumber and semiconductor shortages. Energy didn’t get too crazy. It tested $5 in the 2020’s. Big whoop, 15+ years ago it tested $4 a few times. $3-$3.50 gas is a pretty healthy zone - economically speaking imo. After Great Recession, we had a unicorn period of near ZIRP interest rates and low gas prices (due to fracking breakthrough) that will probably never be repeated again. You could already see that break in interest rates happening in 2019, before the 2020 Pandemic crushed the global economy.
     
  8. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,834
    1,419
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    Well, we were talking about gas prices and crude oil is tied directly to that. I don't think natural gas has much of an impact on your price at the pump.

    It is very possible to say Biden is more hostile towards the crude oil industry than Trump was. Logic tells us when an administration is hostile towards a certain industry, conditions will inherently be more difficult for said industry as it relates to gaining permits and operating at a cost-effective basis. I mean, you don't lash out against fossil fuels and then make it super easy for the fossil fuel industry to flourish. If you think otherwise, you're extremely naive and gullible.
     
  9. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    10,852
    1,357
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    I wrote that myself, but I appreciate you comparing my intelligence to artificial intelligence levels. That was a very nice and surprising compliment from you, even though I don't think I am that smart. Now, you should get back to reading the #1 book Chat GTP recommended for you...
    1. "Math Doesn't Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math Without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail" by Danica McKellar
    And as I side note, without knowing what gender you identify as, I think it's incredibly sexist of Chat GTP to assume you are a female based solely on how bad at math you are.
     
  10. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,834
    1,419
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    I don't think you're that smart if you have to use ChapGPT here.
     
  11. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    But energy profits went through the roof! So high profits caused inflation, right?

    Of course not. That’s all I’m saying. The profits were a result of changes in supply and demand causing higher prices. It’s basic economic theory.
     
  12. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    10,852
    1,357
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    Nope, you are wrong about that, too...

    Can smart people use Chat GTP?

    ChatGPT
    Yes, smart people can certainly use Chat GPT. Chat GPT is designed to provide intelligent responses and engage in meaningful conversations. It can assist users by answering questions, providing information, offering suggestions, and engaging in a wide range of discussions on various topics. Smart individuals can leverage Chat GPT's capabilities to explore ideas, seek information, or simply engage in interesting conversations. However, it's important to remember that Chat GPT is an AI language model and its responses are generated based on patterns and examples from its training data, so it may not always provide perfect or completely accurate answers.
     
  13. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    We've had this chart, or charts like it, up here numerous times over the last number of years. It shows a huge positive swing amongst Republicans before and after Trump took office. Far less of a negative swing for Dems. In 2016 only 18% of Rs had a favorable view of the economy. By 2018 the number was at 75%. The Dems changed only from 46% to 44% in that same span.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    5,001
    856
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    I just used them as an example - didn’t realize Coke would piss people off so much lol
     
  15. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    If total energy profits increased by more than the price of energy increased, then yes, increased profits were part of the increased price inflation.
     
  16. Sohogator

    Sohogator GC Hall of Fame

    3,568
    576
    358
    Aug 22, 2012
    Yep All about profit margins. Saw it big time in commodities and services.
     
  17. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    21,440
    1,784
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    Update on the price of eggs. While admittedly it was a one week sale, a few days ago I paid $1.99 for a dozen of the same eggs that were priced at $2.99 a month ago and $4.99 six months ago.
     
  18. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    Exxon gross profit in 2019 was $53 billion. 2022 it was 115 billion.

    Net profit was $14 billion in 2019. It was $56 billion in 2022.

    You made a subtle change in your post. Yes, increased profit is a part of the inflation. But that doesn’t represent the correct cause and effect sequence.

    Oil prices are market driven. So in the short term profit is market driven. It’s not a bunch of greedy executives deciding to arbitrarily increase prices.
     
  19. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    The job of Coke management is to maximize their long term profit - subject to all applicable laws regulations and societal norms. If they can raise prices, why wouldn’t they?

    As I’ve illustrated elsewhere energy is a more instructive example where prices are clearly globally set. Oil company profits are through the roof. It isn’t a bunch of executives arbitrarily raising prices.
     
  20. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    That's all you had to say.