Starbuck wrote:
Doug,
The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure, just ask
Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts to an
increase in money supply without an increase in productivity.

Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try
to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? After all, the old on
fixed income have lived a good life, it is more important that we give the
appearance of helping the poor.



Might be better to just distribute the existing pie better.
example...a law that would limit a CEO's salary to ten times the lowest
workers salary. Those who deserve it would still earn more...the gap
wouldn't be as big. Outrageous that CEOs are leading large companies
into bankruptcy while earning in the millions.

Don,
Yes it is a shame that CEO make millions while the company goes bankrupt.
The problem with limiting someone's income with a federal law is, the US
would experience a major "Brain Drain", with the best and brightest being
paid to work for employers overseas.


"Don White" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:
Doug,
The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure, just
ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts
to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity.

Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to
try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? After all, the
old on fixed income have lived a good life, it is more important that we
give the appearance of helping the poor.



Might be better to just distribute the existing pie better.
example...a law that would limit a CEO's salary to ten times the lowest
workers salary. Those who deserve it would still earn more...the gap
wouldn't be as big. Outrageous that CEOs are leading large companies
into bankruptcy while earning in the millions.

"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Don,
Yes it is a shame that CEO make millions while the company goes bankrupt.
The problem with limiting someone's income with a federal law is, the US
would experience a major "Brain Drain", with the best and brightest being
paid to work for employers overseas.

Or you get the market bubble and burst as happened under clintoon's
watch........income was simply shifted to stock options...which caused CEO
to shift the focus to raising stock price, like anything else, the market
adjusts to the guvmint sticking its nose in the middle and screwing things
up. Don, being the typical liebral, is a static thinker...and thus
doesn't realize that people change their ways when encumbered by an
additional guvmint burden.

The wage freeze during WWII helped created the current helath care mess as
well



"Don White" wrote in message
...
Starbuck wrote:
Doug,
The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure, just
ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace
reacts
to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity.

Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to
try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? After all,
the
old on fixed income have lived a good life, it is more important that
we
give the appearance of helping the poor.



Might be better to just distribute the existing pie better.
example...a law that would limit a CEO's salary to ten times the lowest
workers salary. Those who deserve it would still earn more...the gap
wouldn't be as big. Outrageous that CEOs are leading large companies
into bankruptcy while earning in the millions.

Starbuck wrote:

Doug,
If you increased the money supply by 25% without any increase in
productivity, you could expect inflation to be 25% in less than 2 years

You economics geniuses are really funny.

Ever heard of the velocity of money?

Check it out, dude.
Get back to me.

Oh wait, before you start talking about 'money supply' you should also
look up 'checkable deposits.'

DSK

Starbuck wrote:

Don,
Yes it is a shame that CEO make millions while the company goes bankrupt.
The problem with limiting someone's income with a federal law is, the US
would experience a major "Brain Drain", with the best and brightest being
paid to work for employers overseas.


You mean, like the way the best scientists and engineers are no longer
flocking to the US, and many foreign born ones that are here are leaving?

This is partialy a result of the Bush/Cheney Administration's emphasis
on political BS trampling science, and partly the result of the same
bunch enacting policies that leave the borders totally porous while
hassling honest citizens who happen to have non-Anglo names.

DSK

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


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

Doug,
If you increased the money supply by 25% without any increase in
productivity, you could expect inflation to be 25% in less than 2 years

You economics geniuses are really funny.

Ever heard of the velocity of money?

Check it out, dude.
Get back to me.

Oh wait, before you start talking about 'money supply' you should also
look up 'checkable deposits.'

DSK

Doug,
So you solution to the best and brightest scientist not immigrating to this
country is to force the best and brightest businessman to leave the country.
I can see why you are confused about inflation.

Keep up the good work.


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

Don,
Yes it is a shame that CEO make millions while the company goes bankrupt.
The problem with limiting someone's income with a federal law is, the US
would experience a major "Brain Drain", with the best and brightest being
paid to work for employers overseas.


You mean, like the way the best scientists and engineers are no longer
flocking to the US, and many foreign born ones that are here are leaving?

This is partialy a result of the Bush/Cheney Administration's emphasis on
political BS trampling science, and partly the result of the same bunch
enacting policies that leave the borders totally porous while hassling
honest citizens who happen to have non-Anglo names.

DSK

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

Doug,

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

If this is correct, why didn't the Bill Clinton, the compassionate president
who felt the peoples pain, just print 25% more money and distribute that
money to those in need.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
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

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:

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."

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

JohnH. Seriously- does this mean you have an answer on the economics
situation under discussion?

Or is this just an attempt at name calling because you actually don't
have a clue?

DSK

P Fritz wrote:
He is certainly showing how clueless he is WRT economics.



Okay, we have a new contestant- let's play 'Do You Know Diddley Squat
About Economics'

For one point, and the right to not be considered a dumb ass whacko:

What is the definition of "short term" versus "long term"?

Meanwhile, calling names is not considered an answer.
tick tock tick tock tick tock

Maybe you should ask Nobby, he seems to have not slept thru most of his
schooling.

DSK

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:50:34 -0400, DSK wrote:

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

JohnH. Seriously- does this mean you have an answer on the economics
situation under discussion?

Or is this just an attempt at name calling because you actually don't
have a clue?

DSK

My post was prompted by *your* name calling, which you conveniently snipped.

Did I call you a name?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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


I have always been a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. You probably
have just always been stupid.

Bill McKee wrote:
I have always been a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

That clearly explains why you so vigorouosly support a President who is
fiscally irresponsible far beyond any liberal dreamed of being, and
socially repressive.

... You probably
have just always been stupid.


yep, that must be why I understand science & economics, and you can only
answer by pretending I said something else then falling back on feeble
insults.

DSK

PocoLoco wrote:
My post was prompted by *your* name calling

Really? What name did I call you?

Did you claim to know the answer to an economics question, and then bug
out showing your ignorance?

If I call an ignoramus an ignoramus, is that an insult or the truth?

DSK

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:06:42 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
My post was prompted by *your* name calling

Really? What name did I call you?

Did you claim to know the answer to an economics question, and then bug
out showing your ignorance?

If I call an ignoramus an ignoramus, is that an insult or the truth?

DSK

Did I say you called me a name?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

PocoLoco wrote:
Did I say you called me a name?

So you're agreeing that you're an ignoramus?

DSK

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:14 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Did I say you called me a name?

So you're agreeing that you're an ignoramus?

DSK

Are you calling names again?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

PocoLoco wrote:
Are you calling names again?

Of course not. Why would I do that? *I'm* the one with fact based
logical opinions here.


DSK

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:20:36 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Are you calling names again?

Of course not. Why would I do that? *I'm* the one with fact based
logical opinions here.


DSK

Opinions, yes.

They're much like the word Kevin uses in all his posts.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

PocoLoco wrote:
Opinions, yes.


Let's see, which opinion is more valid- one based on real economics, as
explained in most freshman economics tests, and correctly using terms as
defined within that specialty, or a bunch yak-yak from people who are
trying to make excuses for the failed policies of a politician whom they
worship (who nontheless has systematically violated every principle they
try to claim)?

Which one is more valid, the one with documentation from many sources,
or the one that repeatedly says "you're wrong so shut up" and can offer
no back up? Other than a bunch of me-too from sock puppets, all equally
lacking in knowledge of facts?

Which opinion carries more weight with you, those stated by somebody who
bad-mouths libby-rulls and vigorously hates the Clintons (and homos and
Muslims etc etc) or one that presents some historical fact and real life
data?

Opinions, yes.

DSK

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:54:51 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Opinions, yes.


Let's see, which opinion is more valid- one based on real economics, as
explained in most freshman economics tests, and correctly using terms as
defined within that specialty, or a bunch yak-yak from people who are
trying to make excuses for the failed policies of a politician whom they
worship (who nontheless has systematically violated every principle they
try to claim)?

Which one is more valid, the one with documentation from many sources,
or the one that repeatedly says "you're wrong so shut up" and can offer
no back up? Other than a bunch of me-too from sock puppets, all equally
lacking in knowledge of facts?

Which opinion carries more weight with you, those stated by somebody who
bad-mouths libby-rulls and vigorously hates the Clintons (and homos and
Muslims etc etc) or one that presents some historical fact and real life
data?

Opinions, yes.

DSK

FWIW, your opinions carry no weight with me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

PocoLoco wrote:
FWIW, your opinions carry no weight with me.

It is impossible teach a one who refuses to learn.

DSK

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:07:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
FWIW, your opinions carry no weight with me.

It is impossible teach a one who refuses to learn.

DSK

A teacher's job is to motivate students in such a way that they *want* to learn.
You're no teacher.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It is impossible teach a one who refuses to learn.


PocoLoco wrote:
A teacher's job is to motivate students in such a way that they *want* to learn.

If you start paying me to teach you, then I *will* motivate you.
Otherwise, you can stew in your ignorance.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
PocoLoco wrote:
FWIW, your opinions carry no weight with me.

It is impossible teach a one who refuses to learn.

A teacher finds a way to teach the student. Your method is to beat and
belittle everyone into submission. It has not worked yet and will not work
in the future so, give it up.

Doug,
I don't know which one do you think?


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
PocoLoco wrote:
Opinions, yes.


Let's see, which opinion is more valid- one based on real economics, as
explained in most freshman economics tests, and correctly using terms as
defined within that specialty, or a bunch yak-yak from people who are
trying to make excuses for the failed policies of a politician whom they
worship (who nontheless has systematically violated every principle they
try to claim)?

Which one is more valid, the one with documentation from many sources, or
the one that repeatedly says "you're wrong so shut up" and can offer no
back up? Other than a bunch of me-too from sock puppets, all equally
lacking in knowledge of facts?

Which opinion carries more weight with you, those stated by somebody who
bad-mouths libby-rulls and vigorously hates the Clintons (and homos and
Muslims etc etc) or one that presents some historical fact and real life
data?

Opinions, yes.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
I have always been a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

That clearly explains why you so vigorouosly support a President who is
fiscally irresponsible far beyond any liberal dreamed of being, and
socially repressive.

... You probably have just always been stupid.

yep, that must be why I understand science & economics, and you can only
answer by pretending I said something else then falling back on feeble
insults.

DSK


I do not vigorously support the POTUS. Did not vote for either him or
Kerry. The Dem's, of which I am a registered member, have for the last few
election cycles, seen fit to put up unelectable extremists. As to the Iraq
war, probably needed doing, but in a much better fashion. If you do not
think Saddam was a danger, remember why he started the first Gulf War.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
PocoLoco wrote:
Are you calling names again?

Of course not. Why would I do that? *I'm* the one with fact based logical
opinions here.


DSK


Opinions that are neither fact based, or logical is a truer statement.