Protecting the rentier class

Is this somehow leading to how Bernanke might answer the OP's question, were inflation and unemployment reversed?

 

How Bernanke might answer is irrelevant. It is a discussion about what Bernanke can actually do to assist to bring unemployment down, or up, or sideways. It is about you and the blogger claiming that what the Fed did today was an appeal to the "rentier" class (protecting them) as you stated, by focusing instead on inflation (which is absolutely not what they did).

Now, if I misinterpreted your comment or that of the blogger, then please correct me.

Gonna run out for a bite to eat. This hotel has bad food. So it may take me a bit to reply, but if you're willing, I'd like to debate this with you.

 

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif?hl=ad&t=

there is strong inflation... second chart down compares the current measurement with the 1980s measurement.

last year we saw 10%

The wild govt spending and irrational threats of new taxes and regulation is what is keep the job market and economy depressed.

As the election starts to look more an more Romney you will see the economy start to improve.

 

Ricter or Matthew Yglesias?

 

Based on what came up on Google images, he looks like the kind of guy you wouldnt want to come across in a dark alley....

 

Bi polar manic depressive.

He writes like one and looks like one.

Of course I have no friggin clue...just sayin

 

when have we ever had 2% unemployment?

 

Are you sure that's not the new President of the hair club for men?

I love it when the effeminate ones try to look tough.

 

Let's say the Fed believed inflation was 10%, do you think they'd be announcing rate hikes, even if those would probably increase unemployment? I do, and that's the point of the article.

 

Ah, if the only point of your comments is that the Fed chooses inflation over unemployment, then I would agree with you. So what is with the title of this thread, then?