Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (555137)	3/15/2010 4:50:54 PM
From: HPilot	Respond to of 1572505

Hugh, the point is that the CBO has to make these assumptions for the purpose of simplicity. No the OMB has a regulation which says that the inflation rate should be. One part of the government should not be using one rate and another another. Or one could simpy shop for the inflation rate that would be favorable to their project. It may be 4% right now, but I think it changes a few years out. I have seen a table in the past and when the inflation rate is currently low then it typically is low for a few years and tapers up to a 20 year average, and just to opposite when current inflation rates are high.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (555137)	3/15/2010 5:15:34 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1572505

One of those assumptions, in addition to what I've already mentioned so far, is the notion that changes in the law and public policy won't have an adverse effect on the businesses they regulate. It is simply assumed that those businesses (e.g. health insurance) will simply cover the extra costs and operate exactly the same as before. What the hell does that mean? The CBO can't project the effect on economic conditions of laws and public policy that don't yet exist and/or the nature of which is unknown...yet apparently you have decided that these non laws will have an "adverse" effect on businesses. Have heard of boiler plate cover language? Al