On 05/24/2012 10:25 AM, authfriend wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@...> wrote: >> On 05/23/2012 05:04 PM, authfriend wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>> On 05/23/2012 03:33 PM, authfriend wrote: >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>>>> On 05/23/2012 12:09 PM, authfriend wrote: >>>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 05/22/2012 09:29 PM, authfriend wrote: >>>>>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u<no_reply@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think the treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner reports directly to >>>>>>>>>> Obama.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 05/22/2012 04:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> By printing more money Obama cleverly 'steals' your money >>>>>>>>>>>> from your bank by deflating the dollar. >>>>>>>>> Hmm, I've always thought printing money results in >>>>>>>>> *inflation*, not deflation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fortunately, the runaway inflation the GOP has been >>>>>>>>> screaming is going to happen hasn't. >>>>>>>> Do you compare food prices to what they were two, three years ago? >>>>>>>> Some >>>>>>>> of us still have a memory system and can even remember what prices were >>>>>>>> 10 years ago for food, gas, etc. Inflation is very much here but yes >>>>>>>> not quite runaway yet. >>>>>>> Nowhere *near* runaway, Bhairitu. As I'm sure you're aware, >>>>>>> food and gas prices fluctuate significantly regardless of >>>>>>> the money supply, so they're often not included in measures >>>>>>> of what's called "core inflation." Core inflation is vastly >>>>>>> more important for the state of the economy--and it's still >>>>>>> *very low* (2.3% as of April). Many economists say the >>>>>>> economy would benefit if it were allowed to rise somewhat. >>>>>>> But the GOP uses the threat of inflation as a scare tactic, >>>>>>> so core inflation is kept down by the Fed, which prevents >>>>>>> the economy from improving. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> Let's see, in 2000 when I moved here a turkey wrap at the local store, >>>>>> the same one they sell now was $1.99. It's $4.99 now. It was a favorite >>>>>> of mine. I watch the price of things like potato chips because they are >>>>>> cheap to make and non-essential so you would think they wouldn't rise so >>>>>> much in price. But a bag of chips is now $3 when it was $1 back in >>>>>> 2000. That is a 300% rise. And the bags have less chips. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want more information watch the "Weight of the Nation" HBO >>>>>> episode especially episode four where they point out food price >>>>>> inflation. You can watch it for free on their web site or their channel >>>>>> on YouTube. You will not see this series on broadcast TV as food >>>>>> advertisers would complain and want to pull TV ads. >>>>> Let me say it another way: >>>>> >>>>> As I'm sure you're aware, food and gas prices fluctuate >>>>> significantly regardless of the money supply, so they're >>>>> often not included in measures of what's called "core >>>>> inflation." Core inflation is vastly more important for >>>>> the state of the economy--and it's still *very low* >>>>> (2.3% as of April). >>>> I should have known that if I replied to you all you would >>>> want to do is argue. >>> You replied to me to argue, and insultingly, too. But >>> you can't seem to deal with what I'm saying. >> You could have simply said you disagree as most people >> would but instead you took on a tone: > Yeah, wow, I explained my reasons for disagreeing, and > that upset you, obviously. > >> Judy: >> >> Nowhere *near* runaway, Bhairitu. As I'm sure you're aware, >> food and gas prices fluctuate significantly regardless of >> the money supply, so they're often not included in measures >> of what's called "core inflation." >> >> Me: >> You wrote like you are lecturing me. > My goodness, you're a delicate little flower. "Took on > a tone" indeed. Your "tone" is far more hostile and > aggressive than mine. > > Plus which, anybody who tries to equate the current > inflation in food/energy prices to "runaway inflation" > needs to be lectured. It plays right into the hands of > the GOP.
You idiot. I said way back at the beginning it wasn't exactly runaway inflation. You are the "delicate little flower" though more a weed. :-D > >> I still think that "core inflation" is a just a bunch of >> bullshit the government spins so as to not look so bad and >> most likely at the behest of the banks who have a vested >> interest in making everything look "peach keen." You of >> all people should not fall for that. > Have you ever noticed, Bhairitu, how *anything* you don't > like is driven by the bankers? Anything you don't want to > believe is lies the government tells at the behest of the > bankers? Maybe because "it is" driven by the bankers? So you are defending the bankers now, eh? Even more evidence that your are for the "status quo." Geez, I even remember when you were defending British Petroleum here a couple years ago. I guess if your sole source of economic information is going to be Paul Krugman you might be a little under informed. BTW, I listened to Krugman being interviewed locally the other day. You do know he is now calling this a "depression" albeit a with a small "D". What I really think is happening here is that Judy is deathly afraid the Barry, Vaj, a few others and myself might lead the TB'ers here astray. So she acts like a mother hen trying to laughingly "protect" her brood from us. :-D > Not that this never happens, heaven knows, but it's just > a knee-jerk reaction on your part, the result of your > having swallowed too many conspiracy theories whole. Labeling people whose opinions you disagree with as "conspiracy theorists" is a cheap shot. But certainly not beneath you.
