Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Google and research? Did you ever find even one of the 17 US government websites?
Remember, Credit Suisse is not a US government website, in spite of your many protestations.
Falling prices are not "Deflation."
1. I've responded to this multiple times and you ignore the response for your yapping point.
2. this has nothing to do with the discussion.
3. I have never claimed credit suise was, it is however a excellent source of data on occasion.
4. definition of deflation in economics:
-reduction of the general level of prices in an economy.
The dictionary disagrees with you. Of course im sure you have some new and unusual definition of deflation that you prefer, I however will stick to the one that everyone but you apparently uses.
Mircea, if you wish to have a rational discussion about topics, then please, lets do so. This is not that.
Quote:
Show us mathematically.
Certainly, I will sit down and create a thesis paper about this just to demonstrate to you that you are wrong. Wait no I will not.
Quote:
When any good or service is being consumed to excess, the Laws of Economics drive up prices to halt or lessen the over-consumption of those goods and services. That is done through Demand-pull Inflation.
Increasing wages to match the increasing prices of goods and services that are being over-consumed does what?
It enables continued over-consumption of goods and services.
How do people benefit from over-consumption?
How are resources protected by over-consumption?
Tell you what, since you dont seem to understand that increasing the minimum wage also increases demand for other products, Why dont I make it simple. Demonstrate to me that in the past increasing the minimum wage has done what you describe. You know, reality vs's your flawed theory.
Quote:
There is no Wealth Inequality.
Demonstrating your complete ignorance of reality.
Quote:
Donna spends $50/week on US Savings Bonds. Stupid Liberal spends $50/week on lotto tickets.
Fast-forward 30 years, Donna has a nice cushion for retirement, while Stupid Liberal has nothing.
You claim that is totally unfair, and we should punish Donna and rob her of the Wealth she accumulated because Stupid Liberal didn't want any Wealth.
Your position is so repugnant, even Lenin would gag and vomit.
Uh huh. Comparing me unfavorably to Lenin, via a emotionally laden false argument. Nice.
Quote:
Misrepresentation If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.
You mean like you just did?
Quote:
You still haven't figured out the difference between Income and Wealth.
Earned or unearned income (grin)
Or maybe physical wealth vs's emotional wealth? come on be specific!
LOL.
Mircea I have repeatedly done so for you, I dont know if you just dont read them, or are suffering from a memory issue of some sort.
Quote:
The question was:
Would you eat the Moon, if it was made of barbequed spare-ribs?
How freaking absurd is that?
And here you go again. Thanks for demonstrating.
Quote:
There's no irony, since the conclusion is impossible.
Labor Costs can never be $0.
I notice you take me out of context. No big surprise. You removed the next sentence where I say "Actually that is in fact possible. Or at least near enough to it that it makes no difference. But its a long ways off."
Tell me, whats the current labor cost of providing a mp3 download to your itunes account for a beatles song.
Quote:
Well, that's three reasons you should be canonized right there, and please, your definition of "personal attack" is anyone doesn't recommend your emotional rants for a Nobel Prize.
You;ve taken the time to compare me unfavorably to Lenin so far....And this is amongst your more kind posts.
Quote:
Right, because the World will be a much better place if we all spend time pondering questions like, "Would you eat the Moon, if it was made of barbequed spare-ribs and Oprah Winfrey helped you?"
No, the world would be much better if you even tried a modicum of civility. Your treatment of others makes it incredibly hard to be polite back, and I often fail. Even worse, it poisons the discussions between others as they think nonsense, and gotcha wordsmithing is a valid method of discussion. You make the world a worse place.
Quote:
It's hard to sell globally when you cannot compete.
If you think your economy will thrive on Government, Healthcare & Hospitality, you're going to be in for a big surprise.
Its probably a good thing people like me work on things that makes our economy thrive then. Got news for you, America still exports a ton of stuff, and its not all government, healthcare, and hospitality. Its also heavy equipment, engineering and design.
Quote:
Pointing out that the messenger doesn't understand Deflation is not an "attack."
The only thing that undergoes Deflation is currency.
You mean where you ignored the actual definition, and literally said the definition was wrong?
I will let others reply to your statements directed at them.
Quote:
No, wrong. Deflation is when something is less than its real value. Declining, decreasing or dropping prices is not proof of Deflation.
Again....I copied the definition for you.
Quote:
Declining wages are not proof of Deflation, either.
On that we at least agree. finally something I agree with you on in that huge wall of text.
25% is a small fraction of expenses. If my labor costs are 25% of my total expenses and they increase $3 /hour (40%), my expense cost went up a whopping.... 10%.
Surely you can do math...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How much does it cost an employer to give a $3.00/hour pay increase?
It depends on the business, the number of employees, etc. You come up with hypothetical bullcrap examples all the time, why not this time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Misrepresentation If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.
Nothing was misrepresented here. Inflation is better than deflation. It has been well-documented. It is the reason your government will prevent deflation by any means necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Unless you were alive during the Great Depression, specifically from the period October 1928 through September 1942, you have never experienced Monetary Deflation.
....and?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You have only subjective emotional beliefs to support your claim, not factual data.
Diane earns $14,200 annually from her minimum wage job.
Diane applies for HUD Section 8 housing assistance, and the government tells Diane she makes too much money to qualify.
Explain how increasing minimum wage will alter that.
You conjured up that scenario to fit your narrative, in typical Mircea Texas Sharpshooter fashion. Does Diane have kids or is she single?
ooops, minor detail!
What kind of Inflation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Inflation bad.
Monetary Inflation is bad. Cost-push Inflation is bad. Demand-pull Inflation is bad. Interest Inflation is bad. Wage Inflation is bad.
Wrong! Wage inflation is good. Monetary inflation is good. Demand-pull inflation is just a fact of economics.
"Inflation is bad" means you have no concept of economics. Housing appreciation is inflation. Money growth is inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Show us the math.
You have a computer with the internet. The CPI is available for public reference.
You've already been burned on that and proven wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No "significant correlation?"
You just admitted there was a correlation.
Your unconditional surrender is accepted.
Of course there is a correlation. If prices go up 2% because of minimum wage there is a correlation. That's why we graph these things. Surely you know what the definition of correlation. There can be slight correlation or significant >0.9 correlation.
Minimum wage causes cost-push inflation. However, if cost-push inflation is happening during a time when energy costs are plummeting (such as now), the price could still drop. There are several variables at play.
It is much easier for government to control the economy through inflating the money supply than deflating it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Ad hominem Attacking your opponents character in an attempt to undermine their argument
Yes, minimum wage should be increased.
Is it because a King and his court know the value of work better than the market does? How'd that work out with the Housing Industry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Tu quoque
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Avoiding having to engage a criticism by turning it back on the accuser.
The Fed's information is correct. It is not a good enough argument to simply resort to "do you believe the statistical source?" unless you can provide valid counter-evidence proving such.
I gave you proof of costs rising much faster than wages. You choosing to ignore it is not surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Ad hominem Attacking your opponents character in an attempt to undermine their argument
Do better.
Your posts are a joke. You trying to emulate Mircea is like a 2nd grader trying to emulate Peyton Manning. He backs it up with facts, you use vapid gibbery. I know I made up a word. It fits though.
It is much easier for government to control the economy through inflating the money supply than deflating it.
Its not about control, its about economics.
Quote:
Is it because a King and his court know the value of work better than the market does? How'd that work out with the Housing Industry?
A king and his court? what? and then you conflate it with the housing industry? You know...the one that started collapsing under Bush? Was Bush the king and his court you were refering to, or just our political system in general?
Quote:
[b]I gave you proof of costs rising much faster than wages. You choosing to ignore it is not surprising.
average wages adjusted for income are going UP, median wages are going DOWN. Which one are you discussing?
Quote:
Your posts are a joke. You trying to emulate Mircea is like a 2nd grader trying to emulate Peyton Manning. He backs it up with facts, you use vapid gibbery. I know I made up a word. It fits though.
You've just described Mirceas recent posts with that word. Go read them again and find the facts-not opinions, but out and out facts.
Its weird because in a way you're right every now and then-Mircea used to post some fact filled accurate posts, but lately they've lacked that. They're been about attacking people, not the discussion.
Anyways feel free to counter the poster you are referring to with some decent facts and references, I'd enjoy seeing them! And I truly mean that because I have seen you do that in the past.
You decry my anecdotes, yet you have absolutely zero experience to draw from.
Classic. Keep up the good work. I like free comedy!
You have yourself a great weekend, and be sure to let us know when you actually know WTF you're talking about.
Please, tell us all about how great it is for businesses to pay starvation wages, and how great that will make our country. I'm absolutely fascinated by it.
A king and his court? what? and then you conflate it with the housing industry? You know...the one that started collapsing under Bush? Was Bush the king and his court you were refering to, or just our political system in general?
The President and Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
average wages adjusted for income are going UP, median wages are going DOWN. Which one are you discussing?
Median income
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
You've just described Mirceas recent posts with that word. Go read them again and find the facts-not opinions, but out and out facts.
Its weird because in a way you're right every now and then-Mircea used to post some fact filled accurate posts, but lately they've lacked that. They're been about attacking people, not the discussion.
lol I dont see why you bother going up against Mircea. I've read many of his posts. The facts are there. You do have guts going up against him I'll give you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Anyways feel free to counter the poster you are referring to with some decent facts and references, I'd enjoy seeing them! And I truly mean that because I have seen you do that in the past.
If a business has to pay starvation wages to make a profit, they don't have a good business model. It is pretty cut and dry.
Agreed but for some reason we as a society are putting up with it then we have to pay to make up for it. If a business cannot afford to pay a decent wage just do not hire that person until you can but they do not care if they pay slave wages along and the people can not live off the wages. They will make excuses like they are only worth that amount or I can not pay more seems loyalty to the employee from the employer is gone for the most part. For those who say companies can not afford it
Trader Joes starts at $9 and you get raises pretty frequently after that
IN and OUT Burger starts employers at $10.50
Whole Foods starts employees at $10
Costco stats at $11.50
Gap raised its starting wage to $9 this year and will increase it to $10 next year
Minimum-wage workers under 25 are typically not their family’s sole
breadwinners. Rather, they tend to live in middle-class households that do not
rely on their earnings. Generally, they have not finished their schooling and
are working part-time jobs. Over three-fifths of them (62 percent) are currently
enrolled in school.[5] These workers represent the
largest group that would benefit directly from a higher minimum wage, provided
they kept or could find a job.
The characteristics of the teenagers and young adults who earn the minimum
wage or less support the notion that these minimum-wage workers rarely work to
support children and their families:
79 percent work part-time jobs.
62 percent are enrolled in school during non-summer months.
Their average family income is $65,900 per year.
More than half of those benefitting from higher minimum wage come from this group that has an average family income 12 to 13K over the average family income. Meanwhile Joe Six-pack with his stay at home wife will have to pay more for goods and services.
1. I've responded to this multiple times and you ignore the response for your yapping point.
You said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Mircea, credit suisses report on global wealth seems to indicate that its 83.7 trillion. but of course we all know you're smarter then them right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Credit Suisse is not the US government.
Which part of "US government website" do you not understand?
Got link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
2. this has nothing to do with the discussion.
Yes, it does. It's about people who live in glass houses throwing stones.
It's also about credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
3. I have never claimed credit suise was, it is however a excellent source of data on occasion.
It's not a primary source.
This is the danger of using tertiary and quaternary sources:
Quote:
After Greenspan's SS reforms the SS Administration bought T bills, which is essenitally lending the money to to the government for use in other appropriations with IOUs left for future generations. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 spent all the money - a shell game. Money comes in the front door as payroll taxes and went out the back door as deficit spending so that only new payroll taxes keep the bubble from bursting.
-Matt Taibbi
Griftopia
Why would any moron pay any attention to anything Matt Taibbi has to say, when you can go to the original source....
Social Security Act of 1935
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS
Section 201. (a)
b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired
(1) on original issue at par, or
(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 percentum perannum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.
(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.
(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.
(f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.
Once again, I took the liberty of highlighting the relevant parts.
According to Matt Taibbi's revisionist history, yes, Reagan was president in 1935.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
4. definition of deflation in economics:
-reduction of the general level of prices in an economy.
The dictionary disagrees with you. Of course im sure you have some new and unusual definition of deflation that you prefer, I however will stick to the one that everyone but you apparently uses.
What dictionary?
The operand is "general level."
Do you need a lesson in English grammar and vocabulary?
Quote:
gen·er·al
1.
affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
Not much point in sticking to a definition everyone else is using, if you don't even understand the definition.
For the sake and benefit of the people you have misled, I'll go over this one more time.
There are 5differentforms of Inflation.
Each form of Inflation has a uniquecause.
Precisely because each form of Inflation has a uniquecause, the solution for each is unique.
Monetary Inflation is one of the 5differentforms of Inflation. It is the only form caused by a central bank. The US central bank is named the Federal Reserve. The US Dollar is not "fiat currency." Although not backed by gold or any other metal, the US Dollar is backed by the total amount of goods and services produced -- hesitantly, we'll call it "GDP." Currency is nothing but a medium of exchange, and in the US, the US Dollar is the medium of exchange used to facilitate consumer transactions for what? For the goods and services produced.
Assume GDP = $15 TRILLION and MZ (Money Supply) = $15 TRILLION, then:
$15 TRILLION GDP / $15 TRILLION MZ = $1
The US Dollar as a currency is stable; there is no Monetary Inflation, nor Monetary Deflation.
$15 TRILLION GDP / $16.5 TRILLION MZ = $0.90
Your wages are $22.00/hour if -- and only if -- $1 USD = $1. If $1 USD = $0.90 then:
$22.00/hour * $0.90 = $19.80/hour
How do we resolve that? We increase wages to $24.45/hour, so that:
$24.45/hour * $0.90 = $22.00/hour
Understand your labor is not worth more, rather the intrinsic value of the currency is worth less.
It is the currency that is defective, and it causes widespread general level across-the-board price rises for everything, meaning every "thing", meaning every single freaking thing, including your wages.
Before people get naked and start doing the happy table dance, your wages will not rise for about 9-12 months, during which time you will be soaked and taken to the cleaners and lose your shirt.
Monetary Deflation is the exact opposite of Monetary Inflation.
$15 TRILLION GDP / $13.5 TRILLION MZ = $1.11
Because the intrinsic value of the currency is now worth more, we offset that by decreasing prices. I'm not aware of any instance where wages/salaries decreased.
A Dodge Challenger is $26,995 if ---and only if --- $1 USD = $1. But if $USD = $1.11, then we have to decrease the price to offset the greater value of the currency, so the price is now ~$24,025.
Typically, wages do not decrease during periods of Monetary Deflation. One reason that is true, is because benefit costs decrease.
When Wal-Mart has a price roll-back, that is not Deflation...sorry, wrong answer.
Grammatically...
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
