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
news
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