Published
Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!
25 minutes ago, nursej22 said:Yes, inflation is real, but it is a global phenomenon. Oil producers have more impact on the price of oil than the president. With the unrest in Europe, natural gas prices will likely surge. It's been reported that meat packing plants have been price gouging. Car prices are up related to computer chips. I think the president has taken measures that he can to calm inflation, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Agree. Still it's his cross to bear and you can't blame his opponents for seizing on this opportunity.
Quotenew data revealed that the European Union was seeing a record-high inflation rate of 5% in December, the highest in its twenty-year history. Canada is seeing the highest rate of inflation in two decades. Ditto South Korea. Turkey. The United Kingdom. Countries, big and small, conservative-led and progressive-led, are grappling with surging consumer prices as global demand outstrips supply. It's one big global inflation-fest, and no single leader seems to have the power to stop it.
All these countries have one thing in common: they're all struggling to recover from a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic that continues to disrupt the supply side of the economy, hampering the ability of businesses, workers, and the global supply chain to operate at full capacity and satisfy boomeranging consumer demand. Rather than putting a Biden "I did that" sticker on products with skyrocketing prices, it's probably more accurate to say "COVID did that."
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/12/politics/joe-biden-inflation-explainer/index.html
2 hours ago, chare said:While not technically precise, the phrase "the lesser of two evils" doesn't necessarily mean that both are necessarily evil. Rather, when I use it, as I did above, I was referring to choosing the better of two less than stellar choices.
Calling it "bullsh%+" is your opinion, which you are obviously entitled to. However, I'm sure your well aware of the old adage that opinions are like ...
One might typically think that use of the word evil would be hyperbole but then that would be discounting how crazy some of the people on the political right actually are. Donald Trump and Roger Stone both more than suggested that Clinton was evil and Alex Jones said she was a demon.
While you might not like the politics of the candidates, none of the presidential candidates from liberals in the last 20 years have been completely inexperienced individuals with personal history that smacks of disqualifying dishonesty and lack of ethics. But that's what Trump was. In Trumpian tradition, conservatives have elevated ethically challenged rabble rousers to congress since 2016.
Nah. There's no comparing the quality of the recent presidential candidates and there's certainly evidence that Clinton was a well qualified and well vetted candidate. Conservatives just didn't like her centrist politics and so they engaged in a smear campaign.
Yeah, that's my opinion.
20 hours ago, Beerman said:They didn't really explain why they changed their minds. They just presented a whole different position.
They explained, in lengthy detail, that there were characteristics of the virus that weren't clear how they would have developed naturally, specifically the Furin cleavage site. They then went through how the natural development occurred at the genetic level.
An example of presenting research conclusions without really explaining it would be the faux epidemiology paper you presented earlier (written by economists rather than epidemiologists). I realize it's been making the rounds in far-right circles but I am still surprised how really anybody can read that and not go "wait, what?".
It's presented as a meta-analysis, which normally would compile the available research and contextualizing it to produce a cohesive large pool of data. Your article simply excludes all of the relevant research, including the study that Trump often promoted as reliable. They offered no reasoned explanation for why they excluded the vast amount of data that shows measures that reduce the spread of Covid, do in fact reduce the spread of Covid.
41 minutes ago, MunoRN said: It's presented as a meta-analysis, which normally would compile the available research and contextualizing it to produce a cohesive large pool of data. Your article simply excludes all of the relevant research, including the study that Trump often promoted as reliable. They offered no reasoned explanation for why they excluded the vast amount of data that shows measures that reduce the spread of Covid, do in fact reduce the spread of Covid.
I'm not sure why you think they didn't explain why certain studies were or were not included.
They explain their process, starting on page 5.
3 hours ago, Beerman said:This president is responsible for the actions the oil producesse had to take.
Really? This president is responsible for the dramatic decrease in demand during the first year of the pandemic that led oil producers to shut down wells? Is he responsible for choosing to pay out profits to share holders company executives instead of ramping up production?
1 hour ago, nursej22 said:Really? This president is responsible for the dramatic decrease in demand during the first year of the pandemic that led oil producers to shut down wells? Is he responsible for choosing to pay out profits to share holders company executives instead of ramping up production?
Just for fun, we'll pretend that what you say is all there is to it.
So, seems than that high prices then were very predictable. What did the Biden administration do to help head off high oil prices? Say, for example, what did they do to encourage oil producers to ramp up production?
2 hours ago, Beerman said:Just for fun, we'll pretend that what you say is all there is to it.
So, seems than that high prices then were very predictable. What did the Biden administration do to help head off high oil prices? Say, for example, what did they do to encourage oil producers to ramp up production?
Does this mean that you are unaware of the actions taken by this federal administration to address the rising fuel costs? What options are available to American political leadership to address global oil prices?
3 hours ago, Beerman said:Just for fun, we'll pretend that what you say is all there is to it.
So, seems than that high prices then were very predictable. What did the Biden administration do to help head off high oil prices? Say, for example, what did they do to encourage oil producers to ramp up production?
QuoteThe root cause of today’s high gas prices isn’t politics: It’s financial pressure on oil companies from a decade of cash-flow losses that have made them change financial tactics. Investment in new wells has dropped more than 60%, causing U.S. crude oil production to plummet by more than 3 million barrels a day, or nearly 25%, just as the Covid virus hit, and then fail to recover with the economy. For an oil-drilling sector that lost 90% of its stock value from 2012 through early last year, it hasn’t been the toughest call in the world.
They don't want to drill more oil to lower gas prices. particularly OPEC whose have heard pleas to boost production. They need that money for debt and profit. It's a free market economy. Also, "just ramping up production" isn't as easy as it sounds. Maybe perhaps if there were government owned oil companies Biden could ramp up production. Maybe he could subsidize oil companies, giving them financial incentive to drill more oil.
What do you propose Biden do? Obviously his releasing reserves and increasing supply didn't seem to help much in the long run. Reopening closed production domestically is problematic.
Also they are having trouble keeping up with high demand due to the good economy. The old supply and demand economy. Double edged sword.
I did notice the last week they rose again around here. $3.49 a gallon yesterday.
Again, I don't blame the right for running with what they've got. Bad news about gas prices and inflation can't be ignored and it's Biden's economy.
31 minutes ago, Tweety said:They don't want to drill more oil to lower gas prices. particularly OPEC whose have heard pleas to boost production. They need that money for debt and profit. It's a free market economy. Also, "just ramping up production" isn't as easy as it sounds. Maybe perhaps if there were government owned oil companies Biden could ramp up production. Maybe he could subsidize oil companies, giving them financial incentive to drill more oil.
What do you propose Biden do? Obviously his releasing reserves and increasing supply didn't seem to help much in the long run. Reopening closed production domestically is problematic.
Also they are having trouble keeping up with high demand due to the good economy. The old supply and demand economy. Double edged sword.
I did notice the last week they rose again around here. $3.49 a gallon yesterday.
Again, I don't blame the right for running with what they've got. Bad news about gas prices and inflation can't be ignored and it's Biden's economy.
We definitely can't blame the pundits on the right from trying to capitalize on high energy prices across the globe. You did a good job of outlining the risks of simplistic and narrow thinking inspired by partisan animus as related to global energy supply. I don't think that conservatives really want the government in control of petroleum production so it's not clear what they are demanding or suggesting...unless grievance alone is the objective.
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,923 Posts
Yes, inflation is real, but it is a global phenomenon. Oil producers have more impact on the price of oil than the president. With the unrest in Europe, natural gas prices will likely surge. It's been reported that meat packing plants have been price gouging. Car prices are up related to computer chips. I think the president has taken measures that he can to calm inflation, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.