On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:57:26 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Scout wrote:


Some Australians DO predict massive, even hyper, inflation.

You said and I quote "Even the Austrians can't fly to that level of
delusion..."

Go ahead take a stab at proving they are as crazy as you are

Read Ron Paul's book _Pillars of Prosperity_, to see the Austrian
School prediction of hyperinflation:

http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

"Price inflation, although difficult to predict on a month-to-month
or even year-to-year basis, will reach unbelievable heights in
this decade."

He wrote that in 1984. Then he predicted in the same speech that we
would be at war with our major trading partners (Canada? Japan?) in
the 1990s.

Then, wisely, he published it in 2008, to show how accurately Austrian
School economics predicts events.

This is why all Austrian School loons should wear dog collars and be
kept on a leash. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:57:26 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Scout wrote:


Some Australians DO predict massive, even hyper, inflation.

You said and I quote "Even the Austrians can't fly to that level of
delusion..."

Go ahead take a stab at proving they are as crazy as you are

Read Ron Paul's book _Pillars of Prosperity_, to see the Austrian
School prediction of hyperinflation:

http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

"Price inflation, although difficult to predict on a month-to-month
or even year-to-year basis, will reach unbelievable heights in
this decade."

He wrote that in 1984. Then he predicted in the same speech that we
would be at war with our major trading partners (Canada? Japan?) in
the 1990s.

Keep in mind Ron Paul is doctor not an economist.
Price inflation was high in the 80's.
Much higher than most of the 50's and 60's when
prices increased by about 1% or less per year. What Paul
failed to predict was that people would get used
to high inflation.

Prices have steadily climbed up at this "new normal" until
the end of 2008 when the first significant downward
movement since the great depression occurred.
Today prices are still below the pre-2008 trend.

But ordinary inflation wasn't the issue being discussed.
The question was "is deflation more likely than hyper-inflation"

The Austrians correctly view inflation as a product of the
money supply created almost entirely by private sector borrowing.
And since they recognize private borrowing is practically
nonexistent today and not likely to return any time soon, the
Austrians don't see hyper-inflation as a real threat in near term.
In their view the state has its hands full now keeping ordinary
inflation alive.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:19:40 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:57:26 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Scout wrote:


Some Australians DO predict massive, even hyper, inflation.

You said and I quote "Even the Austrians can't fly to that level of
delusion..."

Go ahead take a stab at proving they are as crazy as you are

Read Ron Paul's book _Pillars of Prosperity_, to see the Austrian
School prediction of hyperinflation:

http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

"Price inflation, although difficult to predict on a month-to-month
or even year-to-year basis, will reach unbelievable heights in
this decade."

He wrote that in 1984. Then he predicted in the same speech that we
would be at war with our major trading partners (Canada? Japan?) in
the 1990s.

Keep in mind Ron Paul is doctor not an economist.

He really knows his way around a vagina, all right.

Price inflation was high in the 80's.
Much higher than most of the 50's and 60's when
prices increased by about 1% or less per year.

"High," compared to what? When Ron Paul wrote that, Volcker had just
squeezed the crap out of the economy by driving up funds rates,
lowering inflation from 13.5% to 3.2%. It stayed under 5% throughout
the rest of the '80s. It had been higher in the early '50s and the
late '60s.

It was pretty much normal for the age when Ron Paul did his
Chicken-Little routine. He was blowing Austrian smoke.

What Paul
failed to predict was that people would get used
to high inflation.

What Paul failed to predict was that his theories were crap. Inflation
did NOT "reach unbelievable heights in this decade," or any other
decade.

Austrian School theory says that our economy is impossible and that,
by now, we should all be running around in rags, with roving bands of
marauders, killing each other and fighting over rotting rutabagas.
Look out the window.


Prices have steadily climbed up at this "new normal" until
the end of 2008 when the first significant downward
movement since the great depression occurred.
Today prices are still below the pre-2008 trend.

What does that have to do with "unbelievable heights"? Unbelievable
heights was the late 70s. Inflation was already back to the 30-year
trend line when Paul wrote that speech. What in the hell was he
talking about?

The answer is, a strange theory of economics derived from depression
and wartime economics and social philosophy by a couple of Austrian
philosophers. It didn't work out. But that doesn't keep them from
predicting more of the same baloney they've been peddling since around
1950.


But ordinary inflation wasn't the issue being discussed.
The question was "is deflation more likely than hyper-inflation"

That was not Ron Paul's "question."


The Austrians correctly view inflation as a product of the
money supply created almost entirely by private sector borrowing.

They ignored money velocity. That's why we can have money supply
growth in an economic downturn, and the predicted inflation just
doesn't happen. See "Beck, Glenn, economics, stupid."

And since they recognize private borrowing is practically
nonexistent today and not likely to return any time soon, the
Austrians don't see hyper-inflation as a real threat in near term.

What the Austrians see is ghosts in the mirror.

In their view the state has its hands full now keeping ordinary
inflation alive.

Which Austrian economist are you talking about?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


?Price inflation was high in the 80's.
?Much higher than most of the 50's and 60's when
?prices increased by about 1% or less per year.

"High," compared to what?

You don't read. I stated compared to what.


?
?But ordinary inflation wasn't the issue being discussed.
?The question was "is deflation more likely than hyper-inflation"

That was not Ron Paul's "question."

That's right. You dragged in a red herring. That seems to
be your only skill.



?
?The Austrians correctly view inflation as a product of the
?money supply created almost entirely by private sector borrowing.

They ignored money velocity. That's why we can have money supply
growth in an economic downturn, and the predicted inflation just
doesn't happen.


Money Velocity is the ratio of a measure of quantity of
money to a measure of quantity production. And that is certainly
not something Austrians ignore.


See "Beck, Glenn, economics, stupid."

Beck is another of your red herrings



Which Austrian economist are you talking about?

I posted a link.

Here is another one.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012...sh-either.html

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:36:08 -0500, jim
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


?Price inflation was high in the 80's.
?Much higher than most of the 50's and 60's when
?prices increased by about 1% or less per year.

"High," compared to what?

You don't read. I stated compared to what.

But it fell flat. Dr. Paul said all hell would break loose. What
happened is that inflation rates regressed to the mean.

'Want to try again? Or is the distance between what he said and what
actually happened a bridge too far? I would think so. But then, I'm
not an ideologue. The sheer majesty of these theories just goes over
my head as I focus my attention on actual experience.



?
?But ordinary inflation wasn't the issue being discussed.
?The question was "is deflation more likely than hyper-inflation"

That was not Ron Paul's "question."

That's right. You dragged in a red herring. That seems to
be your only skill.

Hey, Jim, YOU made a comment that the Austrians aren't that craxy. I
quoted a comment from a much-loved Austrian/Texan. (Picture lederhosen
with cowboy boots) that shows they *are* crazy.

I stated the facts and then supported them with an Austrian School
prediction that proved to be nuts, as so many of them are.

Let me spell it out for you: Ron Paul, applying Austrian School
theories, predicted raging inflation by the end of the '80s, and a
"high likelihood" of actual war between the US and its trading
partners sometime in the 1990s.

Neither one happened. That's because the entire theory is a bunch of
misguided deductions based on social theories, not real economic
experience. And they just keep doubling-down.

Furthermore, you must have missed the part of Austrian theory that
says deflation is the "normal state" of economic growth. It's
essential to making a case for gold-based currency. (It requires
ignoring the effect on wages, but that's another story.)




?
?The Austrians correctly view inflation as a product of the
?money supply created almost entirely by private sector borrowing.

They ignored money velocity. That's why we can have money supply
growth in an economic downturn, and the predicted inflation just
doesn't happen.


Money Velocity is the ratio of a measure of quantity of
money to a measure of quantity production. And that is certainly
not something Austrians ignore.

Do you have an example? Their theories about inflation seem always to
be tied to money supply.



See "Beck, Glenn, economics, stupid."

Beck is another of your red herrings

Beck is not a fish. No self-respecting fish would claim him.




Which Austrian economist are you talking about?

I posted a link.

Yeah, a paper by Vijay Boyapati, a Google engineer and self-described
former leftist who never heard of Ron Paul until 2008. Two years
later, he's authoring papers on economics that contain statements like
this:

"Much of the analysis devoted to the inflation-deflation debate in the
economics profession is neoclassical in nature, focusing on economic
aggregates such as employment, GDP, CPI and their ostensible
correlations. This method of economic analysis is fundamentally
flawed."

Right, kid. Maybe you can get Dr. Paul to let you try your hand at
gynecology over Spring Break...

"The Austrian school of economics provides an alternate means of
understanding economic phenomena based on laws of economic causality
derived from the actions and motivations of individuals."

AHA! An honest Austrian. What Austrian School "economics" amounts to
is social theory about how people behave. That's ALL it is. The
"economics" is the spinoff, what they derive from the ersatz reductio
ad absurdum that is their methodology. It depends entirely upon
accepting their social theories, mixing in some gold and pixie dust,
and ignoring what happens to banks and other lending institutions when
you have a long period of deflation. (Answer: they go bust, as they
did with alarming frequency in the 19th century.).

It's EXACTLY like Marxist Economics -- a useful collection of
insights, valuable to scholars and academics to test other ideas. But
when you try to build it into an ideological system, it goes nuts. And
the practitioners seem to go a little nuts, too.

Watch out for Vijay. He's already flipped once; he may flip again,
like the other True Believers in Eric Hoffer's book by the same name.


Here is another one.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012...sh-either.html

"I believe this dynamic will induce a Scylla and Charybdis of
inflationary and deflationary forces, forcing central bankers to add
and withdraw liquidity in a manic way."

Hee-haw! Look out for the manics! And stay clear of the depressives.

Harrison is an MMTer -- a Chartalist, more or less. Real Austrians do
not embrace their support of fiat money. Evidence is his equivocal
stance on the long-term trends regarding inflation and deflation.

I wouldn't use him as an example of mainstream Austrian School
economics, although the Austrians love him, and he identifies with
them. His ideas might be called "post-Austrian."

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:36:08 -0500, jim
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


?Price inflation was high in the 80's.
?Much higher than most of the 50's and 60's when
?prices increased by about 1% or less per year.

"High," compared to what?

You don't read. I stated compared to what.

But it fell flat. Dr. Paul said all hell would break loose. What
happened is that inflation rates regressed to the mean.

What happened is people got used to much higher inflation.




I stated the facts and then supported them with an Austrian School
prediction that proved to be nuts, as so many of them are.

No you misrepresented the facts by quoting what a
non-economist said 25 years ago, and tried to claim
it is representative of Austrian thinking today.





Money Velocity is the ratio of a measure of quantity of
money to a measure of quantity production. And that is certainly
not something Austrians ignore.

Do you have an example? Their theories about inflation seem always to
be tied to money supply.

How can you think "the ratio of a measure of quantity of money
to a measure of quantity production." is not tied to the
money supply?






Which Austrian economist are you talking about?

I posted a link.

Yeah, a paper by Vijay Boyapati, a Google engineer and self-described
former leftist who never heard of Ron Paul until 2008. Two years
later, he's authoring papers on economics that contain statements like
this:

The article has well documented references to leading Austrian
economists. You asked for references in regard to Austrian views
on inflation and the paper gives them, and of course you ignore
those references and obsess instead about Ron Paul who is never
mentioned.



"Much of the analysis devoted to the inflation-deflation debate in the
economics profession is neoclassical in nature, focusing on economic
aggregates such as employment, GDP, CPI and their ostensible
correlations. This method of economic analysis is fundamentally
flawed."




"The Austrian school of economics provides an alternate means of
understanding economic phenomena based on laws of economic causality
derived from the actions and motivations of individuals."

AHA! An honest Austrian. What Austrian School "economics" amounts to
is social theory about how people behave.

And you think other economic theories are not???

The point of the article is that after many years
of Austrians correctly predicting inflation due to relentless
credit expansion, Austrians are now taking a different view
on inflation due to the sudden end of that credit expansion.





Here is another one.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012...sh-either.html

"I believe this dynamic will induce a Scylla and Charybdis of
inflationary and deflationary forces, forcing central bankers to add
and withdraw liquidity in a manic way."


Hee-haw! Look out for the manics! And stay clear of the depressives.

So far, the Fed has issued $30 trillion in short term loans
to backstop liquidity shortfalls all over the world.
How much more does it have to be before you regard it
as non-trivial?

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:04:22 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

Jim, your snipping and clipping has led you to such a dishonest
discussion that I'm going to leave you to your regular arguers. It
isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you.

For the record, here's the quality of maturity and scholarship that
you've posted as "evidence," from the Google engineer turned ersatz
economist:

"In his widely used text book Economics, Samuelson declares with
almost childish naïveté that “whenever any conflict arises between
[the Federal Reserve] making a profit and promoting the public
interest, it acts unswervingly in the public interest”67. The
ludicrous notion that an institution granted a monopoly to counterfeit
money could ever act in the public interest does not warrant scrutiny
in an Austrian analysis."

This is the work of a sophomore -- which is where he is, or was, in
hist study of economics at the time.

And as for Ron Paul's predictions being 25 years old, and not
indicative of the current thinking in the Austrian School, the book
was published in 2008. From the preface by Robert P. Murphy,
Adjunct Scholar, Ludwig von Mises Institute, and from the forward,
it's clear that the hard-core Austrians think his ideas are just
swell. Never mind that their predictive value belongs in an outhouse.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


Yeah, a paper by Vijay Boyapati, a Google engineer and self-described
former leftist who never heard of Ron Paul until 2008. Two years
later, he's authoring papers on economics that contain statements like
this:

"Much of the analysis devoted to the inflation-deflation debate in the
economics profession is neoclassical in nature, focusing on economic
aggregates such as employment, GDP, CPI and their ostensible
correlations. This method of economic analysis is fundamentally
flawed."

Right, kid. Maybe you can get Dr. Paul to let you try your hand at
gynecology over Spring Break...

Is he offering some kind of internship?

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:57:20 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .


Yeah, a paper by Vijay Boyapati, a Google engineer and self-described
former leftist who never heard of Ron Paul until 2008. Two years
later, he's authoring papers on economics that contain statements like
this:

"Much of the analysis devoted to the inflation-deflation debate in the
economics profession is neoclassical in nature, focusing on economic
aggregates such as employment, GDP, CPI and their ostensible
correlations. This method of economic analysis is fundamentally
flawed."

Right, kid. Maybe you can get Dr. Paul to let you try your hand at
gynecology over Spring Break...

Is he offering some kind of internship?

It's not hands-on. Interns just get to watch. The "try your hand" line
was misleading. 'Sorry for any misplaced excitement this might have
caused.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:04:22 -0500, jim ?"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net?
wrote:

Jim, your snipping and clipping has led you to such a dishonest
discussion that I'm going to leave you to your regular arguers. It
isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you.

I snip your childish name-calling. That seems to be all
you can muster in the way of an argument.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:30:47 -0500, jim
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:04:22 -0500, jim ?"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net?
wrote:

Jim, your snipping and clipping has led you to such a dishonest
discussion that I'm going to leave you to your regular arguers. It
isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you.

I snip your childish name-calling. That seems to be all
you can muster in the way of an argument.

Oh, by the way, regarding your frequent claim that consumer credit is
in the tank and cannot grow, it's been growing since last August and
is almost back up to its all-time peak:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=TOTALSL

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:30:47 -0500, jim ?
wrote:

?Ed Huntress wrote:
??
?? On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:04:22 -0500, jim ?"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net?
?? wrote:
??
?? Jim, your snipping and clipping has led you to such a dishonest
?? discussion that I'm going to leave you to your regular arguers. It
?? isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you.
?
?I snip your childish name-calling. That seems to be all
?you can muster in the way of an argument.

Oh, by the way, regarding your frequent claim that consumer credit is
in the tank and cannot grow,

I never claimed that a single time, much less frequently.
Consumer credit is less than 5% of total credit market debt.
Total private sector debt is still headed downward.

it's been growing since last August and
is almost back up to its all-time peak:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=TOTALSL

It looks like most of the growth in consumer credit
is due to federal loans to students. It looks like there
has been about $320 billion in growth in federal student
loans in the last 3 years.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:37:42 -0500, jim
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:30:47 -0500, jim ?
wrote:

?Ed Huntress wrote:
??
?? On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:04:22 -0500, jim ?"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net?
?? wrote:
??
?? Jim, your snipping and clipping has led you to such a dishonest
?? discussion that I'm going to leave you to your regular arguers. It
?? isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you.
?
?I snip your childish name-calling. That seems to be all
?you can muster in the way of an argument.

Oh, by the way, regarding your frequent claim that consumer credit is
in the tank and cannot grow,

I never claimed that a single time, much less frequently.
Consumer credit is less than 5% of total credit market debt.
Total private sector debt is still headed downward.

"...credit card and revolving debt is way down
today they continue to decline as people
pay off old debt and refuse to create new debt
what was going to debt service then
is now going into savings "

"You haven't explained how that is going to happen
prior to 2008 employment and earnings was driven by spending
And the money for spending was coming from
the money made available by private borrowing
that has come to an end "

"That level of borrowing isn't coming back anytime soon"

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....47144af8?hl=en

That was a discussion you had with John Carroll last June, about
consumer borrowing and consumption.

"Before the financial meltdown the US private sector was
spending $4 trillion more than they were bringing in and
that is the cause of the current mess.

"Today the private sector is paying back its debt and saving which
means the private sector is grossly under-spending its income. "

"We don't have a problem with too much production
the problem is that people are now buying less of the goods and
services that businesses produce for a reason.
The reason they are buying less is because they are borrowing less
and paying down old debts and saving against an insecure future."

That was a discussion you had with RD and emoneyjoe, last September.

If you didn't intend to say "[t]hat level of borrowing isn't coming
back anytime soon," then you could just say, "that was then, and this
is now." But it is soon. And it's baaaaaack. Which you once told me
wasn't going to happen, when I said it probably would. d8-)


it's been growing since last August and
is almost back up to its all-time peak:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=TOTALSL

It looks like most of the growth in consumer credit
is due to federal loans to students. It looks like there
has been about $320 billion in growth in federal student
loans in the last 3 years.

'Coud be. I'm through chasing numbers for the weekend.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


"...credit card and revolving debt is way down
today they continue to decline as people
pay off old debt and refuse to create new debt
what was going to debt service then
is now going into savings "

Last numbers I saw revolving debt was down 4% for January


"You haven't explained how that is going to happen
prior to 2008 employment and earnings was driven by spending
And the money for spending was coming from
the money made available by private borrowing
that has come to an end "

Total private sector borrowing is still headed down.




"That level of borrowing isn't coming back anytime soon"

Still True.



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....47144af8?hl=en

That was a discussion you had with John Carroll last June, about
consumer borrowing and consumption.

I can't remember what all I said 8 mos ago,
but it sounds like much of the statistics are
still true.



"Before the financial meltdown the US private sector was
spending $4 trillion more than they were bringing in and
that is the cause of the current mess.

That is correct the private sector added an
amount equal to 30% of GDP to its debt in 2007.

now the private sector is subtracting an amount about 8%.

You won't see the level of credit expansion
that existed in 1998-2008 in your lifetime.




"Today the private sector is paying back its debt and saving which
means the private sector is grossly under-spending its income. "

Still true. Latest figures indicate about 8% less than income.



"We don't have a problem with too much production
the problem is that people are now buying less of the goods and
services that businesses produce for a reason.
The reason they are buying less is because they are borrowing less
and paying down old debts and saving against an insecure future."

Still true.


That was a discussion you had with RD and emoneyjoe, last September.

If you didn't intend to say "[t]hat level of borrowing isn't coming
back anytime soon," then you could just say, "that was then, and this
is now." But it is soon. And it's baaaaaack. Which you once told me
wasn't going to happen, when I said it probably would. d8-)

Well sorry to disappoint you but credit expansion is
not back and it is not coming back anytime soon.
Very low interest loans to college students has propped
up consumer lending statistics.
Car loans are up a little from their low point.

But consumer loans are only 5% of total credit market debt.
You are looking at a tiny change in a tiny segment of the
credit market.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:34:49 -0500, jim
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


"...credit card and revolving debt is way down
today they continue to decline as people
pay off old debt and refuse to create new debt
what was going to debt service then
is now going into savings "

Last numbers I saw revolving debt was down 4% for January


"You haven't explained how that is going to happen
prior to 2008 employment and earnings was driven by spending
And the money for spending was coming from
the money made available by private borrowing
that has come to an end "

Total private sector borrowing is still headed down.




"That level of borrowing isn't coming back anytime soon"

Still True.



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....47144af8?hl=en

That was a discussion you had with John Carroll last June, about
consumer borrowing and consumption.

I can't remember what all I said 8 mos ago,
but it sounds like much of the statistics are
still true.



"Before the financial meltdown the US private sector was
spending $4 trillion more than they were bringing in and
that is the cause of the current mess.

That is correct the private sector added an
amount equal to 30% of GDP to its debt in 2007.

now the private sector is subtracting an amount about 8%.

You won't see the level of credit expansion
that existed in 1998-2008 in your lifetime.




"Today the private sector is paying back its debt and saving which
means the private sector is grossly under-spending its income. "

Still true. Latest figures indicate about 8% less than income.



"We don't have a problem with too much production
the problem is that people are now buying less of the goods and
services that businesses produce for a reason.
The reason they are buying less is because they are borrowing less
and paying down old debts and saving against an insecure future."

Still true.


That was a discussion you had with RD and emoneyjoe, last September.

If you didn't intend to say "[t]hat level of borrowing isn't coming
back anytime soon," then you could just say, "that was then, and this
is now." But it is soon. And it's baaaaaack. Which you once told me
wasn't going to happen, when I said it probably would. d8-)

Well sorry to disappoint you but credit expansion is
not back and it is not coming back anytime soon.
Very low interest loans to college students has propped
up consumer lending statistics.
Car loans are up a little from their low point.

But consumer loans are only 5% of total credit market debt.
You are looking at a tiny change in a tiny segment of the
credit market.

Consumer spending is up...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...s9R_story.html

....and consumer debt is moving up with it, as that Fed graph showed.
That's what those conversations above were talking about.

Consumer debt increases do seem to be strongly influenced by student
loans, but consumption is increasing, even without figuring in gas
prices.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


Consumer spending is up...

Yes. It has been trending up for almost 3 years

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshor...four-views.gif



http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...s9R_story.html

...and consumer debt is moving up with it, as that Fed graph showed.
That's what those conversations above were talking about.

Consumer debt increases do seem to be strongly influenced by student
loans, but consumption is increasing, even without figuring in gas
prices.

--
Ed Huntress