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

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

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

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

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

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."

"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."