So who won the stupid debate?
Poll
 | 14 votes (26.41%) | ||
| | 5 votes (9.43%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5.66%) | ||
| | 11 votes (20.75%) | ||
| | 1 vote (1.88%) | ||
| | 10 votes (18.86%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5.66%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5.66%) | ||
| | 2 votes (3.77%) | ||
| | 1 vote (1.88%) |
53 members have voted
If an informed electorate is the solution, why not just have the uninformed parrot the voting pattern of the informed portion by proxy? We already know how the informed electorate polls in this election cycle. It's not for Trump.Quote: bobbartopI didn't say the two party system is inherently broken. What's broken is that the electorate is uninformed.
Quote: MathExtremistIf an informed electorate is the solution, why not just have the uninformed parrot the voting pattern of the informed portion by proxy? We already know how the informed electorate polls in this election cycle. It's not for Trump.
If I recall, you didn't even hold the basic understanding that inflation is an increase in the money supply and that rising prices were an effect of such. Thus eliminating you from the "basket" of the informed.
My guess: it's been decades.
Hmm, could be a subject for a poll (I didn't say "pole," so no pun intended)
Quote: bobbartopIf I recall, you didn't even hold the basic understanding that inflation is an increase in the money supply and that rising prices were an effect of such. Thus eliminating you from the "basket" of the informed.
Regarding inflation, it's just not that simple.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/#63802679a69b
If I recall, you believe inflation is theft but aren't able to recognize that the required "solution" involves dismantling the free market economy. Maybe take an econ course before you try to explain why prices increase. Or even spend 30 seconds thinking about why tying the value of currency to a metal like gold or silver is an idiotic idea in the era of commercial spaceflight.Quote: bobbartopIf I recall, you didn't even hold the basic understanding that inflation is an increase in the money supply and that rising prices were an effect of such. Thus eliminating you from the "basket" of the informed.
Quote: SteverinosRegarding inflation, it's just not that simple.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/#63802679a69b
That's the point. Nothing is ever "just that simple." Unfortunately, there are a lot of voters who desperately want things to be simple and who will vote for the candidate that makes things sound the simplest: taxes are bad, trade is bad, tariffs are good, Muslims are terrorists, African-Americans are living in hell, vagina is expensive, etc.
Quote: MrVNot a debate point per se, but a question I'd just LOVE to have a mod ask Hillary: "When do you last have sexual intercourse with your husband?"
My guess: it's been decades.
Hmm, could be a subject for a poll (I didn't say "pole," so no pun intended)
Hillary has a body that has the same general shape and texture as a testicle sac. Not even Bill could generate enthusiasm, and he almost certainly has better options. Hillary reportedly does too, .... um..... someone named Wasserman-Schulz.
Quote: RomesI can't believe no math/economist expert hasn't just flat disproven this with real math. Like, there should be a way to easily estimate these 2 scenarios and come up with an "EV" for the federal income:
1) Everyone is taxed 30% (or whatever) and based off the median income, or if they're the government and KNOW peoples income then EV = $X...
2) Taxes are lowered to 15% (or whatever) and based off this we would project "Z" amount of jobs with a median salary of "Y" and add this to the others we can project figure out an EV = $X...
Then compare the two.
Seems to me it would be blatantly obvious even if more jobs were created it wouldn't be nearly enough to actually overcome the other... Then all your'e left with is rich people paying less and widening their gap over the other 99%.
You say that as if its a bad thing.
Quote: MrVNot a debate point per se, but a question I'd just LOVE to have a mod ask Hillary: "When do you last have sexual intercourse with your husband?"
While they're at it, ask Melania who she thinks about while having sex with Donald.
Putin.Quote: rxwineWhile they're at it, ask Melania who she thinks about while having sex with Donald.
Quote: MathExtremistPutin.
That horse is so wearing a piece. You're not fooling anyone, Putin's horse!!!
Quote: gordonm888Hillary has a body that has the same general shape and texture as a testicle sac. Not even Bill could generate enthusiasm, and he almost certainly has better options. Hillary reportedly does too, .... um..... someone named Wasserman-Schulz.
Wow. It is pretty rare to find anyone at the age of 68 or greater that does not have that shape or texture. At that point, you have sex because you love the other person, not because she or he is sexually attractive.
And this is the whole problem with men's opinion of women, like this one. Women are constantly judged by the way they look, even at age 68, as if they have to maintain their good looks. Us men can look like sacks of s*it. Trump is technically obese yet there are no comment about how his body looks (yes, plenty of jokes on his hair and his hands, but that's not sexist, that's just Trump) or his ability to look presidential.
Because fat white dudes look presidential and component overweight older white women are bitches without stamina.
What a pile of sexist crap.
Quote: MathExtremistIf I recall, you believe inflation is theft but aren't able to recognize that the required "solution" involves dismantling the free market economy. Maybe take an econ course before you try to explain why prices increase. Or even spend 30 seconds thinking about why tying the value of currency to a metal like gold or silver is an idiotic idea in the era of commercial spaceflight.
Glad to hear you got it figured out. Don't forget, Election Wednesday will be here soon.
Just for that inane crack, I promise that this year I'll vote on a Wednesday.Quote: bobbartopGlad to hear you got it figured out. Don't forget, Election Wednesday will be here soon.
Quote: rxwineWhile they're at it, ask Melania who she thinks about while having sex with Donald.
Mr. Ed.
He's got BIG hooves.
Not to mention ...
Quote: SteverinosRegarding inflation, it's just not that simple.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/#63802679a69b
The very first sentence of your article:
"It is conventional wisdom that printing more money causes inflation."
Wrong already. That is like saying that wet streets cause rain. "Inflation" is not rising prices. Rising prices is an effect of inflation.
But I'm not looking for another pen pal. One Math Extremist is enough. Please say your piece, tell me I'm a dope, and let's move on. Thanks.
Bonus at the end of the article; New Jersey gaming commission report on Trump's rumored mob ties.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57ed79dee4b024a52d2de46d
Maybe you should try reading the entire article instead of assuming you know what it says based on only the first sentence:Quote: bobbartopThe very first sentence of your article:
"It is conventional wisdom that printing more money causes inflation."
Wrong already.
Sheesh.Quote: articleIt is conventional wisdom that printing more money causes inflation. This is why we are seeing so many warnings today of how Quantitative Easing I and II and the federal government’s deficit are about to lead to skyrocketing prices. The only problem is, it’s not true. That’s not how inflation works.
The rest of the article explains, using actual mathematics and real-world examples, how the variables in the equation of exchange change as various conditions do. It concludes with this:
Quote: articleTherefore, the rising prices led to an increase in the supply of money and not the other way around. QE, QE II, and the federal government deficit cannot by themselves cause inflation.
Quote: MathExtremistMaybe you should try reading the entire article instead of assuming you know what it says based on only the first sentence:
Sheesh.Quote: articleIt is conventional wisdom that printing more money causes inflation. This is why we are seeing so many warnings today of how Quantitative Easing I and II and the federal government’s deficit are about to lead to skyrocketing prices. The only problem is, it’s not true. That’s not how inflation works.
The rest of the article explains, using actual mathematics and real-world examples, how the variables in the equation of exchange change as various conditions do. It concludes with this:Quote: articleTherefore, the rising prices led to an increase in the supply of money and not the other way around. QE, QE II, and the federal government deficit cannot by themselves cause inflation.
Sheesh yourself. I can read. Can you?
Look. We're both on Cell Block B. Each inmate can buy two cartons of cigarettes at commissary on the 1st of the month. Cigarettes are basically currency. You can buy a little extra food with cigarettes, you can buy a little weed, whatever you want you can buy with cigarettes. The first of the month, everyone is flush with cigarettes. By the middle of the month, there's a lot less cigarettes in circulation. How does this affect the value of cigarettes?
Quote: AxelWolfI'm surprised you and Romes are not getting along considering you own a bar and he loves bars.
I'd still have a beer with him.....assuming he doesn't expect me to pay my "fair share" and cover everyone else in the bar.
He likes Zima.Quote: BozI'd still have a beer with him.....assuming he doesn't expect me to pay my "fair share" and cover everyone else in the bar.
Quote: bobbartopQuote: MathExtremistMaybe you should try reading the entire article instead of assuming you know what it says based on only the first sentence:
Sheesh.Quote: articleIt is conventional wisdom that printing more money causes inflation. This is why we are seeing so many warnings today of how Quantitative Easing I and II and the federal government’s deficit are about to lead to skyrocketing prices. The only problem is, it’s not true. That’s not how inflation works.
The rest of the article explains, using actual mathematics and real-world examples, how the variables in the equation of exchange change as various conditions do. It concludes with this:Quote: articleTherefore, the rising prices led to an increase in the supply of money and not the other way around. QE, QE II, and the federal government deficit cannot by themselves cause inflation.
Sheesh yourself. I can read. Can you?
Look. We're both on Cell Block B. Each inmate can buy two cartons of cigarettes at commissary on the 1st of the month. Cigarettes are basically currency. You can buy a little extra food with cigarettes, you can buy a little weed, whatever you want you can buy with cigarettes. The first of the month, everyone is flush with cigarettes. By the middle of the month, there's a lot less cigarettes in circulation. How does this affect the value of cigarettes?
If this is your analogy, it is OBVIOUS you didn't read the article. You don't have to read it, just a quick google search will show you that you are oversimplifying a very complicated concept.
But I am curious...why are there less cigarettes in circulation?
Quote: Steverinos
But I am curious...why are there less cigarettes in circulation?
It's not possible to answer this question without proving why this is a crappy analogy for the money supply. Oh, wait a minute...was that your point?
Quote: rdw4potusIt's not possible to answer this question without proving why this is a crappy analogy for the money supply. Oh, wait a minute...was that your point?
It's such a crappy analogy that neither one of you could figure out what happens to the value of cigarettes as they become scarce.
I tried to change the scenery a little to make it interesting. I've already been through this with Math Extremist, the college graduate, who does not know why a candy bar that cost a dime in 1963 now costs $1.30.
I also tried to explain to him that gasoline is cheaper now than in what is 1963. But it was too late, the college professors already got to him before I could. They ruined him with what he calls "critical thinking". Now he's trapped in a paper bag.
By the way, when there's a convention in town, a room at Motel 6 is still about six bucks. They'll leave the light on for you.
Quote: onenickelmiracleThey're smoking them after raping their roommates.
Actually, it was indeed a poor analogy. The State of California banned tobacco in prison. Omg, they give you 25 years to life, AND you have to give up cigarettes. In poker that's called a bad beat.
Quote: RSFewer* cigarettes, not less cigarettes.
As one of my best poker buds says when he puts down a brutal bad beat on somebody..."my bad, your fault".
Quote: SteverinosCigarettes are consumed and thus reduces the rate of currency circulation. It was a poor analogy.
Cigarettes are consumed and the money supply is constricted. The value of cigarettes goes up. It was a decent analogy.
Steve, I don't want to sound rude, you seem like a nice guy, but can I safely assume that you went to college also, just like Math Extremist did? If so, my condolences. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's just not fair what they do to people in those places. There ought to be a law.
Quote: bobbartopCigarettes are consumed and the money supply is constricted. The value of cigarettes goes up. It was a decent analogy.
Steve, I don't want to sound rude, you seem like a nice guy, but can I safely assume that you went to college also, just like Math Extremist did? If so, my condolences. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's just not fair what they do to people in those places. There ought to be a law.
this made me chuckle out loud...lol
Happy Friday!
Quote: Steverinosthis made me chuckle out loud...lol
Happy Friday!
Don't apologize, I get laughed at a lot. I'm used to it.
Happy Friday to you too.
Quote: bobbartopIt's such a crappy analogy that neither one of you could figure out what happens to the value of cigarettes as they become scarce.
I tried to change the scenery a little to make it interesting. I've already been through this with Math Extremist, the college graduate, who does not know why a candy bar that cost a dime in 1963 now costs $1.30.
I also tried to explain to him that gasoline is cheaper now than in what is 1963. But it was too late, the college professors already got to him before I could. They ruined him with what he calls "critical thinking". Now he's trapped in a paper bag.
By the way, when there's a convention in town, a room at Motel 6 is still about six bucks. They'll leave the light on for you.
It's a crappy analogy because cigarettes are a disposable good and money isn't. The cigarette supply goes down mid-month because people smoke them. There's no corresponding condition in the broader money-based economy.
Quote: bobbartop, a room at Motel 6 is still about six bucks. They'll leave the light on for you.
6 bucks? I can only get a room that fine if I share the price with 4 hobos.
(I think the original motel 6 started at 19.95 a night)
Sounds like dirty Mike and the boys are going to run a soup kitchen.Quote: rxwine6 bucks? I can only get a room that fine if I share the price with 4 hobos.
(I think the original motel 6 started at 19.95 a night)
For those who don't get the reference, a link to garbage:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u1j4mK6cs_A
Quote: rdw4potusIt's a crappy analogy because cigarettes are a disposable good and money isn't. The cigarette supply goes down mid-month because people smoke them. There's no corresponding condition in the broader money-based economy.
Maybe you've never SEEN the money supply constrict like that, but that doesn't mean it can't. What if a hypnotist appeared on national television and told everyone to burn all their paper money? Well? What then?
I don't know how old you are but unless you're over my age then you've never seen a balanced annual federal budget, nor an annual surplus.
But you may be old enough to remember some instances of money being constricted just like the consumed cigarettes at the end of the month. Do you remember the old peso? Do you remember the new peso? Wasn't there even a new new peso? And I'm talking Mexico. What about Argentina? There was peso argentino. That was replaced by the austral. 1 austral = 1000 peso argentino. And THAT was replaced by the new peso. One new peso = 10,000 australes.
Want to discuss Zimbabwe now?
PRESTO! Like magic, money constricted like burnt cigarettes. Only to be expanded and inflated again. Rinse and repeat.
You guys must be young. Someone in this thread thought Motel 6 started at $19.95. Motel 6 started at $6.
It could be argued that money is finite, or at least decreases over time, due to taxes and the fact you won't get that money back (directly). Sort of like the rake on a poker table.
Re: Taxes -- Seems like that's the job of an accountant. Doesn't seem like Trump would be doing his own taxes. Like many of us, he almost certainly has accountants to do his taxes and other financial stuff for him. Part of their job is to figure out a way to pay as little in taxes as possible -- my accountant certainly tries.
Quote: rxwine6 bucks? I can only get a room that fine if I share the price with 4 hobos.
(I think the original motel 6 started at 19.95 a night)
In 1963 I had my favorite pair of pants. I had six dollars in quarters in my pocket. Since then, I have never washed those pants. I have worn that same pair of pants every day since. Oh sure, I changed my underwear occasionally, I'm not a pig. Anyway, today I'm still wearing that same pair of pants and I have the same $6 in quarters in the pocket.
Incidentally, I'm wearing PF Flyers and I can run really fast.
Quote: RSRe: Money & Cigarette analogy -- Analogies aren't meant to say there is a 100% correlation.
In prisons where cigarettes are still allowed, it is essentially a 100% correlation. Cigarettes ARE money.
But things change. As I understand California has banned tobacco in prison. Now my Uncle Lefty has had to explain to me how the intricate world of Green Dots work. And last I heard $500 will get you your own private cell phone, delivered personally by a thoughtful and caring Correctional Officer.
The money supply cannot restrict in that way because people don't smoke dollars. Maybe you do, and maybe you have a resulting dearth of money, but in the real economy currency is not a consumable commodity. Your analogy is not just poor, it is inapt and entirely incorrect.Quote: bobbartopMaybe you've never SEEN the money supply constrict like that, but that doesn't mean it can't.
Uh, no. Everyone who can vote in this year's election has seen an annual surplus. Have you forgotten the Clinton surpluses of 1998-2001?Quote: bobbartopI don't know how old you are but unless you're over my age then you've never seen a balanced annual federal budget, nor an annual surplus.
You should stop smoking dollars. Maybe your head will clear up and you'll be able to remember how the economy works.
For anyone else who thinks consumable cigarettes in prison are an accurate analogy for currency in the global economy, consider the following scenario. Bobbartop has the last two cigarettes in prison, Big Tim has an apple, and Bob wants to buy the apple.
"I'll give you two cigarettes for that apple," says Bob.
"Okay," says Big Tim.
Bob smokes one cigarette and hands the other one to Big Tim. As he does so, Bob earnestly explains that the money supply has contracted by half and therefore the remaining cigarette has twice the value as it did before.
Does Big Tim give Bob the apple for one cigarette, or does Big Tim push Bob through the wall?
Quote: bobbartopYou guys must be young. Someone in this thread thought Motel 6 started at $19.95. Motel 6 started at $6.
Well whatever, I lived in Indiana not California when it was born. I just remember Tom Bodette ads.
My mistake is more due to memory. Or lack of it.
Quote: bobbartopIn prisons where cigarettes are still allowed, it is essentially a 100% correlation. Cigarettes ARE money...
They're worth MORE than money!
Quote: MathExtremist
Uh, no. Everyone who can vote in this year's election has seen an annual surplus. Have you forgotten the Clinton surpluses of 1998-2001?
There was no annual surplus during any year that the Clintons were in the White House. Zip, zero, nada. The cumulative debt rose EVERY year during their reign. Thus, no annual surplus. Sorry.
Read my "signature" and learn something.
Quote: bobbartopThere was no annual surplus during any year that the Clintons were in the White House. Zip, zero, nada.
.jpg)
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Quote: MathExtremist
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
I'm sorry, but that is wrong. And I'm sure you are probably tiring of being wrong. I am sure you are a nice young man so I am not trying to aggravate you. But you're wrong, and your dumb graph is wrong too. This is why I suggested you read my signature line.
Listen to me, carefully. If there were an annual surplus, the cumulative debt would decline. And, of course, if there is an annual deficit, the cumulative debt rises. If you want to look back to the Eisenhower Administration, then we can talk. But as for the Clintons, the cumulative debt rose EVERY SINGLE YEAR of their administration. Period. Fact.
Read my signature line.
Quote: bobbartop
Listen to me, carefully. If there were an annual surplus, the cumulative debt would decline.
Not necessarily. A simple example: you have a one million dollar budget surplus. You put it all in the bank, and use none of it to pay down the debt. You then borrow more money and spend it.
Budget surplus, rising debt.
That is pretty much what happened: they decided not to apply the surplus to paying down the debt.
It's not my dumb graph, it's the CBO's dumb graph. So unless you think the non-partisan CBO is lying to everyone, it's not the graph that's wrong here.Quote: bobbartopQuote: MathExtremist
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
I'm sorry, but that is wrong. And I'm sure you are probably tiring of being wrong. I am sure you are a nice young man so I am not trying to aggravate you. But you're wrong, and your dumb graph is wrong too.
That's like saying if you get a bonus at the end of the year, your mortgage automatically shrinks.Quote:Listen to me, carefully. If there were an annual surplus, the cumulative debt would decline.
Except, no it doesn't. You have to actually decide to use that bonus to pay down your mortgage. Or you can buy a new truck. If you buy a new truck, your mortgage doesn't shrink.
If there's a budget surplus and the government doesn't use it to pay down the debt, the debt doesn't shrink either.
