Starbuck wrote:

Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%.

???

You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change."

If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained
constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an
increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but
probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did
(increased spending tends to increase investment in production which
tends to increase technology etc etc).

It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close.

I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your
tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About
Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker?

DSK

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

Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%.

???

You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change."

If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained
constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an
increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but
probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did
(increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends
to increase technology etc etc).

It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close.

I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous
expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In
One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker?

DSK


A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days.
And the net gain would be a minus %. Bracket creep on tax charts. And how
are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently?

Bill McKee wrote:
A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days.

Really? Across the board? Evenly distributed in all consumer categories,
or will staples/necissities go up faster?


And the net gain would be a minus %.

If that were true, then the average standard of living would always tend
to decrease. I guess the fact that we live in air-conditioned houses,
not caves, hasn't been noticed by you?


... Bracket creep on tax charts.

Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?

... And how
are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently?


The same way President Bush raises expenditures... astronomically...
without raising revenue.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10
days.

Really? Across the board? Evenly distributed in all consumer categories,
or will staples/necissities go up faster?


And the net gain would be a minus %.

If that were true, then the average standard of living would always tend
to decrease. I guess the fact that we live in air-conditioned houses, not
caves, hasn't been noticed by you?


Productivity has gone up with wages. You are only going to raise wages.
Therefore all prices have to follow directly or greater.


... Bracket creep on tax charts.

Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax
bracket means that you now have less money?


If you raise all wages 25% and the prices will have to raise at least 25% to
cover the extra costs, yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable
money. Example (ignore real tax rates). You make $100 / week. You get the
25% raise to $125 / week But prices have gone up 25% also. At $100/ week
you paid 20% of your money in income taxes. Leaving you with $80. With a
25% increase in income your tax bracket is now 22%. Or $27.50 Leaving you
with $97.50 or a 21% increase, while prices will raise 25%.

... And how are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices
concurrently?

The same way President Bush raises expenditures... astronomically...
without raising revenue.

DSK


And you go into bigger debt. Just like this Congress and the President are
doing. Include the Congress, as they are the only ones to allocate money to
spend. And that includes the Democrats and the Republicans. Those same D's
and R's who passed a transportation bill with $27 billion, that is with a
capitol "B", load of pork in it. Yes it was voted for by the Boxer's,
Pelosi's, Feinstein's, Kennedy's, Kerry's, etc. of the Congress as well as
the Republicans.

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

"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.

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

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

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.


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

Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%.

???

You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change."

If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained
constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an
increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but
probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did
(increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends
to increase technology etc etc).

It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close.

I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous
expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In
One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker?

DSK

Starbuck wrote:

Doug,
The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure

Uh huh.
Do you know the economics textbook definition of "long term"?

Look it up.

... 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.

And how quickly is that?
When a crisis that is ten years in the making creates an "overnight
sensation" of exponential inflation, does it take an idiot to ignore the
10 year crisis and focus on the overnight? Or merely someone who is
poorly educated who also wants to promote a fundamentally dishonest agenda?



Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try
to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate?

Why, no. Are you suggesting that I suggested that?

I was merely pointing out that your ideas about economics are wrong.


... After all, the old on
fixed income have lived a good life

Is that why you & the Bush/Cheney Administration feel it's OK to pillage
Social Security and hand over the loot to Wall St?


... it is more important that we give the
appearance of helping the poor.


instead of "giving the appearance" how about actually helping them?

Or in the words of the immortal B.B. King (no relation) 'Help the
poor... Lord, help the poor... yes, help the poor... won't you help poor
me.'

DSK