SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (99118)10/17/2018 8:58:21 PM
From: i-node  Respond to of 356864
 
When I studied economics full employment was considered 4%. But we had far fewer giveaways.

What you call inflation some people call growth. And they find it desirable. But it is the Fed's job to control it with rates. Inflation is a bad thing but as long as we are putting people into productive work it doesn’t look like a huge threat.



To: bentway who wrote (99118)10/18/2018 9:20:22 AM
From: Ron3 Recommendations

Recommended By
bentway
Sam
Smart_Asset

  Respond to of 356864
 
Pump and Trump: Many Trump deals were projects that involved deceptive practices
features.propublica.org



To: bentway who wrote (99118)10/18/2018 12:44:06 PM
From: combjelly  Respond to of 356864
 
Dave is certainly one of those who likes his "facts" made up on the spot.

It gives him so much flexibility.



To: bentway who wrote (99118)10/18/2018 1:58:02 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 356864
 
This topic is far too complex for you or CJ to understand. As along as we have people who aren't contributing -- and we do -- we are better off with some inflation (tempered by increasing rates) than with the unemployed people. As long as we are spending 100s of billions annually on programs for people who are not working, we are not at full employment.

While some unemployment is healthy, at this point in time we need all the employment we can get.