Starbuck wrote:

So in your mind increasing the money supply 25% will not result in
inflationary pressure.


???

Where did I say that?

Why not read what I *did* say, instead of making things up which I did not?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?

Bill McKee wrote:
... yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable
money.

Welcome to the Nitwits Who Can't Do Math Club for wanna-be economists.


.. Example (ignore real tax rates).

Yes, you'd do far better to ignore reality when you're doing pretend math.


Not like you who ignores reality when proposing everybody get a 25% boost in
pay.

In the real world the brackets are far enough apart that you are *much*
better off in the higher income bracket.


Only if you make more money relative to the population. If everybody gets
the 25% increase with no change in productivity. Classic inflation. And
inflation has always benefited the governments via vracket creep.

As for the rest of the "economics" bull**** you and the other angry dumb
white men are espousing, inflation and wages are linked but seperate. That
is why economists often talk of trends where incomes rise faster than
inflation, for example this was the case thru most of the 1990s. Then
there are times when income stagnates for the majority and inflation keeps
going, like the period we seem to be in now.


Productivity.

I guess it makes you feel better to try and prove that "it *has* to be
this way" so you don't have to blame your Noble Leader for screwing
everything up.

DSK


I blame my noble Congress for passing extreme amounts of spending bills.
Really larded up spending bills. I blame Bush vor not vetoing a bunch of
the spending bills, and sending them back to be de-porked. Either put the
blame where it belongs, on the only branch of government who can impose
spending, or give the POTUS line item veto.

I said if you increase the money supply without increasing productivity, it
will result in inflation where the buying power of the dollar will be the
same before the increase in money supply. I also said inflation is the most
regressive tax any country can implement.

You said no it won't, the change in buying power will not be offset by
inflation and any changes will be very slow, so it will beneficial to the
poor and those on fixed income don't matter.

My question is, why don't all presidents just print more money and
distribute that money to the less fortunate. It is a win win situation
based upon your analysis.

Why didn't President Carter (a very compassionate man), who had a democratic
Congress) just pass a bill for a 50% increase in minimum wage. Since this
will result in helping the less fortunate, those who earn the least, it
would help mankind, and not hurt our economy.

Carter should have talked to you, and you could have explained your theories
of "long terms" versus "short term", and the velocity of money. Carter had
all those Economist from Harvard and Yale on his team, and they screwed up.
They should have asked Doug to come straighten out the mess. If they did
Carter could have had a 2nd term.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:

So in your mind increasing the money supply 25% will not result in
inflationary pressure.


???

Where did I say that?

Why not read what I *did* say, instead of making things up which I did
not?

DSK

Doug,
Was President Carter and President Clinton angry white men? Why didn't they
follow your enlightened theories? You need to forward some of your posts to
the DNC, they need all the help they can get.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?

Bill McKee wrote:
... yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable
money.

Welcome to the Nitwits Who Can't Do Math Club for wanna-be economists.


.. Example (ignore real tax rates).

Yes, you'd do far better to ignore reality when you're doing pretend math.

In the real world the brackets are far enough apart that you are *much*
better off in the higher income bracket.

As for the rest of the "economics" bull**** you and the other angry dumb
white men are espousing, inflation and wages are linked but seperate. That
is why economists often talk of trends where incomes rise faster than
inflation, for example this was the case thru most of the 1990s. Then
there are times when income stagnates for the majority and inflation keeps
going, like the period we seem to be in now.

I guess it makes you feel better to try and prove that "it *has* to be
this way" so you don't have to blame your Noble Leader for screwing
everything up.

DSK

Starbuck wrote:
I said if you increase the money supply without increasing productivity, it
will result in inflation where the buying power of the dollar will be the
same before the increase in money supply. I also said inflation is the most
regressive tax any country can implement.


Both of those are basically correct. Oversimplified to the point of
being useless, but basically correct.

You said no it won't,

??? Where?

I said that your ideas about the effects of increasing wages were stupid
& wrong, which they are.



My question is, why don't all presidents just print more money and
distribute that money to the less fortunate. It is a win win situation
based upon your analysis.

Apparently you have some type of reading comprehension disorder. I said
no such thing.



Carter should have talked to you, and you could have explained your theories
of "long terms" versus "short term", and the velocity of money.

Not my theory. Standard economics, as taught at the undergrad level in
college. Anybody who passed Econ 101 should be able to explain these to you.

As for the velocity of money, that is what Dr. Milton Friedman (surely
you've heard his name, often invoked by right-wingers) won his Nobel
Prize for.


... Carter had
all those Economist from Harvard and Yale on his team, and they screwed up.

Given the conditions of the time, they didn't do so badly. Of course,
they did not pander to a lot of racist boneheads & shovel tax money into
the military/industrial complex, and so are reviled by right-wingers
unto the seventh generation.

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Not like you who ignores reality when proposing everybody get a 25% boost in
pay.


sigh

I never proposed any such thing. Why can't you right-wing whackoes pay
attention? Are you all on some kind of medication that shuts your brain
off for 23 hours a day?

What I said was that the stated ideas about the effects of increasing
wages were wrong.

So far, none of you no-math right wing nitwits has managed to answer
what I've said, and proven that you do not have so much as a freshman
level understanding of basic economics.

I have limited time to waste here, and clearly you're not getting any
better.



I blame my noble Congress for passing extreme amounts of spending bills.
Really larded up spending bills. I blame Bush vor not vetoing a bunch of
the spending bills, and sending them back to be de-porked. Either put the
blame where it belongs, on the only branch of government who can impose
spending, or give the POTUS line item veto.


Sounds to me like you are beginning to get the picture, that your
beloved angry white man Congress & President have sold you down the
river. Unfortunately the rest of us, who knew better all along, have to
ride along.

DSK

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:43:41 -0400, DSK wrote:

Starbuck wrote:

Doug,
I am glad you know more than the best economic minds in the country.

Umm, here's a clue:
People who cannot give simple definitions of terms like "long terms"
versus "short term", or understand the velocity of money and it's
influence on inflationary pressure, are not "the best economic minds in
the country."

BTW that includes Rush Limbaugh

So, to restate: I don't know more than the best economic minds in the
country, but I certainly know more than you and the rest of the
rec.boats Bush-Cheney cheerleaders club for dumb angry white men.

DSK

Most in the group would agree that you know more than most in the group, I'm
sure! I think you should proclaim yourself 'most knowledgeable about
everything'. Then people wouldn't argue with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:33:46 -0400, DSK wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:
Not like you who ignores reality when proposing everybody get a 25% boost in
pay.


sigh

I never proposed any such thing. Why can't you right-wing whackoes pay
attention? Are you all on some kind of medication that shuts your brain
off for 23 hours a day?

What I said was that the stated ideas about the effects of increasing
wages were wrong.

So far, none of you no-math right wing nitwits has managed to answer
what I've said, and proven that you do not have so much as a freshman
level understanding of basic economics.
DSK

Doug. Seriously now. Are you purposely trying to imitate Kevin?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:43:41 -0400, DSK wrote:

Starbuck wrote:

Doug,
I am glad you know more than the best economic minds in the country.

Umm, here's a clue:
People who cannot give simple definitions of terms like "long terms"
versus "short term", or understand the velocity of money and it's
influence on inflationary pressure, are not "the best economic minds in
the country."

BTW that includes Rush Limbaugh

So, to restate: I don't know more than the best economic minds in the
country, but I certainly know more than you and the rest of the
rec.boats Bush-Cheney cheerleaders club for dumb angry white men.

DSK

Most in the group would agree that you know more than most in the group,
I'm
sure! I think you should proclaim yourself 'most knowledgeable about
everything'. Then people wouldn't argue with you.

you have to love the arrogance of the liebral left..........that is what
will continue to cost them elections.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:33:46 -0400, DSK wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:
Not like you who ignores reality when proposing everybody get a 25%
boost in
pay.


sigh

I never proposed any such thing. Why can't you right-wing whackoes pay
attention? Are you all on some kind of medication that shuts your brain
off for 23 hours a day?

What I said was that the stated ideas about the effects of increasing
wages were wrong.

So far, none of you no-math right wing nitwits has managed to answer
what I've said, and proven that you do not have so much as a freshman
level understanding of basic economics.
DSK

Doug. Seriously now. Are you purposely trying to imitate Kevin?

He is certainly showing how clueless he is WRT economics.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."