Politics and our food supply

[swansont]

Haven't heard the whole Obama speech but I imagine he left out food uncertainty in children. Figures.

 

It's a jobs proposal. Why would food uncertainty in children be an appropriate subject?

[iNow]

The GDP and inflation numbers keep getting revised but appear to be getting ever closer. Will they announce next year that for this year any growth was actually only inflation?

Highly unlikely. As I've shared with you before, inflation has been below 2% for 32 straight months.

 

 

Haven't heard the whole Obama speech but I imagine he left out food uncertainty in children. Figures.

"I haven't actually watched, but he probably did X. Isn't that just like him?" What a really monstrously stupid thing to say, amanda. Try watching or reading the speech before commenting next time, will ya? Some of us prefer to live in actual reality, not the one people manufacture in their heads.

 

 

Watch: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/08/american-jobs-act-get-facts

 

 

Read Highlights: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/jobs_act.pdf

Read Overview: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-and-overview

Read the Entire Speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/address-president-joint-session-congress

 

Check out their slide show:

 

 

Also, while related, a plan to create jobs does not need to include a plan to address childhood hunger. These are separate topics, so it should be understandable if the president did not mention that one specific thing in this specific venue. You know what? He also didn't reference space flight or immigration or the military. So what? Those are different topics.

[amanda more]

Highly unlikely. As I've shared with you before, inflation has been below 2% for 32 straight months.

 

 

 

"I haven't actually watched, but he probably did X. Isn't that just like him?" What a really monstrously stupid thing to say, amanda. Try watching or reading the speech before commenting next time, will ya? Some of us prefer to live in actual reality, not the one people manufacture in their heads.

 

 

Watch: http://www.whitehous...s-act-get-facts

 

 

Read Highlights: http://www.whitehous...es/jobs_act.pdf

Read Overview: http://www.whitehous...et-and-overview

Read the Entire Speech: http://www.whitehous...ession-congress

 

Check out their slide show: http://www.slideshar...-jobs-actslides

 

 

Also, while related, a plan to create jobs does not need to include a plan to address childhood hunger. These are separate topics, so it should be understandable if the president did not mention that one specific thing in this specific venue. You know what? He also didn't reference space flight or immigration or the military. So what? Those are different topics.

Monstrously stupid? your comment " What a really monstrously stupid thing to say, amanda."

 

Now those are siilly words. A commentator on NPR yesterday said it took him two days to find one reference to poverty in an Obama speech. (2009)My point here is the "you can't change what you don't acknowledge"as I continue to belabor. My comment was more like - "if it is as usual even in a speech about jobs, he would have studiously avoided the deep damage that a crashing economy has on people- namely poverty." I had skimmed the transcript and the summaries. How monstrously stupid would it be to not realize that simple facts regarding this reality is studiously avoided by all sides?

 

It is now hitting the news that the census report shows poverty. Surprise.

 

Inflation below 2% and if I read real GDP it is also under 2%. They always try to leave out food and fuel but what do families have to buy? More data does not necessary result in always better reasoning. That is a particularity of an American bias.

 

 

[iNow]

Monstrously stupid? your comment " What a really monstrously stupid thing to say, amanda."

 

Now those are siilly words.

Yes, I was commenting on how you made assumptions about was and was not in the speech even though you hadn't listened to or read it. I stand by what I said.

 

 

A commentator on NPR yesterday said it took him two days to find one reference to poverty in an Obama speech. (2009)My point here is the "you can't change what you don't acknowledge"as I continue to belabor.

As was pointed out to you above by both me and swansont (with whom I cross-posted), he also didn't mention a lot of other things. So what? The speech was about jobs, not poverty. While often related, the two are not equivalent.

 

 

My comment was more like - "if it is as usual even in a speech about jobs, he would have studiously avoided the deep damage that a crashing economy has on people- namely poverty." I had skimmed the transcript and the summaries. How monstrously stupid would it be to not realize that simple facts regarding this reality is studiously avoided by all sides?

I stand by my comment that you should avoid criticizing things with which you're unfamiliar. If you wish to determine what is and what is not in a speech, then great, but stop assuming and drawing conclusions based on your manufactured reality. I also stand by my comment that a focus of jobs is almost by definition tied to poverty, even if the term poverty or the extent of the problem is not explicitly mentioned.

 

I'm not sure if he spoke about poverty when the SCHIP program was passed to provide healthcare to poor children, but it was impacted and improved upon.

 

I'm not sure if poverty was referenced when unemployment insurance was extended, but it's clearly impacted and improved by those acts.

 

I'm not sure if poverty was discussed when Medicaid benefits to states were enhanced, but they did that, too, and that clearly impacted and improved the issue of poverty.

 

 

I fail to see why you have such a big problem with the lack of one specific articulated word when the output of these programs being discussed and passed is a direct and immediate positive impact on those who are actually living in poverty.

 

 

It is now hitting the news that the census report shows poverty. Surprise.

No, it's not really a surprise at all. It's not as if it's new or something which hasn't been growing for decades. Just because YOU are only just now realizing it's an issue doesn't mean everybody is. Many of us have been aware of this for a very long time.

 

As you can plainly see, poverty has been trending upward since at least 1975, with a small respite during Clinton's term and the dot com bubble:

 

 

 

 

Inflation below 2% and if I read real GDP it is also under 2%.

What does that mean? Real GDP is under 2% of what? I presume you meant GDP growth?

 

 

They always try to leave out food and fuel but what do families have to buy? More data does not necessary result in always better reasoning. That is a particularity of an American bias.

You're assuming nefarious intent where none is necessary to explain it. There is a difference between core inflation and headline inflation. Core inflation is the one which indicates larger economic trends. Headline inflation indicates temporary shifts in commodities and rather short-term volatility. For what purpose do you place a higher value on headline inflation over core inflation when all experience and study shows this to be less accurate? If you have a good reason for doing so, I would appreciate hearing it.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_inflation

 

Core inflation is a measure of inflation which excludes certain items that face volatile price movements, notably food and energy.

 

The preferred measure by the Federal Reserve of core inflation in the United States is the core Personal consumption expenditures price index (PCE). This is based on chained dollars.

Since February 2000, the Federal Reserve Board’s semiannual monetary policy reports to Congress have described the Board’s outlook for inflation in terms of the PCE. Prior to that, the inflation outlook was presented in terms of the CPI. In explaining its preference for the PCE, the Board stated: The chain-type price index for PCE draws extensively on data from the consumer price index but, while not entirely free of measurement problems, has several advantages relative to the CPI. The PCE chain-type index is constructed from a formula that reflects the changing composition of spending and thereby avoids some of the upward bias associated with the fixed-weight nature of the CPI. In addition, the weights are based on a more comprehensive measure of expenditures. Finally, historical data used in the PCE price index can be revised to account for newly available information and for improvements in measurement techniques, including those that affect source data from the CPI;the result is a more consistent series over time. —Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Feb. 17, 2000

 

Previously the Federal Reserve had used the US Consumer Price Index as its preferred measure of inflation. The CPI is still used for many purposes, for example, for indexing social security. The equivalent of the CPI is also commonly used by central banks of other countries when measuring inflation. The CPI is presented monthly in the US by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This index tends to change more on a month to month basis than does "core inflation". This is because core inflation eliminates products that can have temporary price shocks (i.e. energy, food products). Core inflation is thus intended to be an indicator and predictor of underlying long-term inflation.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline_inflation

 

Headline inflation is a measure of the total inflation within an economy and is affected by areas of the market which may experience sudden inflationary spikes such as food or energy. As a result, headline inflation may not present an accurate picture of the current state of the economy.

 

 

Instead of recognizing the valid reasons for looking at core instead of headline inflation, you're choosing to argue we should use headline inflation and that those who don't are biased and full of malice. That's what is silly, amanda.

Edited September 15, 2011 by iNow

[imatfaal]

Monstrously stupid? your comment " What a really monstrously stupid thing to say, amanda."

 

Now those are siilly words. A commentator on NPR yesterday said it took him two days to find one reference to poverty in an Obama speech.

 

 

I had heard almost entirely good things about NPR - but the quality of their commentators and/or research team might need to be improved

 

They spent two days!! That's either a downright lie or someone AT NPR needs to learn to use Google - its the first result!

 

<br><br>edited for spelling and to fix link<br>

Edited September 15, 2011 by imatfaal

[iNow]

It's likely that amanda has confused the source, and that even if she heard it on NPR, the comment was probably from a person being interviewed, not from a commentator.

[amanda more]

It's likely that amanda has confused the source, and that even if she heard it on NPR, the comment was probably from a person being interviewed, not from a commentator.

 

This is bordering on distasteful on your part.

 

A commentator I would think would include in the general sense those who are invited on a show. They certainly call those who are political. political commentators. Your obviously intense dislike of any level of hyperbole might be better directed to others.

 

This is so simplistic as to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Politically, calling out reality is not in vogue. That may have always been true and it may be hopeless. But my personal search is to understand how extensive that is, why that is, and how light can be shed on dark corners. I started out wondering why science was so often absent from policy or misused. I may or may not publish a book on it.

 

It is very 'head in the sand' for scientists and technologists to not see that what is well known and acknowledged in their areas finds pervasive ignorance everywhere else.

 

Is it their inability for simple discourse? Even about something as mundane as food prices and availability? One wonders. As true as that may be I blame the "everyone else" to refuse any understanding of simple arithmetic. That is more of a mystery to me.

 

Perhaps you should buy my first book. Instead of this conversation it is, of course, more rigorous and I would love to discuss this actual topic "Eating on $1" in amazon.

 

One upside an economics type can mention is if the economy tanks, will food then get cheaper? I am concerned the possible stagflation may make things very dire indeed. Food supply for those Americans in need may be especially endangered by wrongheaded governors looking to cut the tiny , hole-filled safety net in place now. The new drop of the middle class into poverty should result in some kind of lessons learned should they climb out.. The Depression had, although not mentioned much in my textbooks, food riots. Could that be in our future?

[iNow]

This is so simplistic as to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Politically, calling out reality is not in vogue.

You're right. I'm not a big fan of hyperbole, and your statement above is essentially meaningless.

 

 

It is very 'head in the sand' for scientists and technologists to not see that what is well known and acknowledged in their areas finds pervasive ignorance everywhere else.

Do you have any data to support this conclusion, something to accurately reflect the population of scientists and what they do or don't see?

 

 

Perhaps you should buy my first book.

No thanks.

 

The Depression had, although not mentioned much in my textbooks, food riots. Could that be in our future?

I suppose that would be more likely if a republican took the office of president, and our social safety net programs were dismantled, but with those programs the answer to your question is very likely to be a resounding, no.

[amanda more]

And so it starts. We already have seen the effects in that bastion of wild behavior, England. This is a simple protest on Wall Street and they closed off the street on Friday.

 

I recall sociology saying that if people are very poor there is actually less social unrest. So this may now be a volatile mix of just poor enough.

 

When a family doesn't have gas to make it to the food bank at the end of a paycheck they may still be able to swing by downtown for different protests. This food price thing is so sudden everyone is still beating themselves up that it is their fault. That can't last.

[iNow]

Uhmmm... Amanda? I'm not sure if you realize this, but your video is not of food riots. It's of a group of people peacefully demonstrating about the dangers of capitalism and how the focus on profits at wall street has a negative impact on some people. It's a group of people doing yoga in downtown NY and hoping to convince the federal government to shift some priorities, like bailing out hungry children instead of failing banks.

 

Either way, it's not a food riot, and if you don't realize this, I'm truly sorry for you.