Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you don't get it john, the market is fixed; it is rigged by the plutocrats. Thank you Jon! I've been so naive, but you have opened my eyes. Those evil plutocrats have really kept me down, but I won't stand for it any more! > they don't care what all this capitalism is doing to the planet, or the wars > that are mortgaging your children's' future. you are nothing but a unit of > consumption to them, programmed to purchase cars that use gas, plasma > television, i-phones and a new computer every three years. I must break my programming! I need to give up my car and my TV and my cell phone and my computers, they are proof of how the evil plutocrats have kept me down! > now with all the > houses that are in foreclosures american will be a land of renters and > consumers. I've been renting and consuming for years! I can't believe I've never seen it before! This has to stop. I think my best bet is to move to somewhere in Africa so that I can cut down on my consumption (Africans don't consume much, right?) and maybe find a piece of land that no one wants so that I can avoid paying rent. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD > thing no matter how > > efficient it makes the market: > Good point. If the market were less efficient, almost no > one would be able to > afford computers or Internet access. Then no one would need > to listen > to crazies spouting nonsense about the benefits of a free > market. Woo hoo! you don't get it john, the market is fixed; it is rigged by the plutocrats. they don't care what all this capitalism is doing to the planet, or the wars that are mortgaging your children's' future. you are nothing but a unit of consumption to them, programmed to purchase cars that use gas, plasma television, i-phones and a new computer every three years. now with all the houses that are in foreclosures american will be a land of renters and consumers. WOO HOO! jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 03:25 PM Monday 9/8/2008, John Williams wrote: >Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how > > efficient it makes the market: > >How would you allocate resources among all the people who say "if I only had >this" then I could accomplish ___? Start by listing all of the people who have ever said "If I only had the money I could _" and annotating the list to show all of the accomplishments by those people who then won the lottery or got a big inheritance? Contributions Gladly Accepted Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how > efficient it makes the market: Good point. If the market were less efficient, almost no one would be able to afford computers or Internet access. Then no one would need to listen to crazies spouting nonsense about the benefits of a free market. Woo hoo! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how > efficient it makes the market: How would you allocate resources among all the people who say "if I only had this" then I could accomplish ___? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> The way I see it, a short-term focus on cash returns is a > good thing for all > but the most proven and talented forward thinkers. It keeps > the market > moving towards greater efficiency. the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how efficient it makes the market: http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-world-is-flat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm not sure that all that many people have learned not to be greedy and > short-term focused. No doubt. But some have learned that house prices don't always go up. > My posting was ironically predictive, as my job fell victim to the market's > obsession with positive cash flow. The way I see it, a short-term focus on cash returns is a good thing for all but the most proven and talented forward thinkers. It keeps the market moving towards greater efficiency. Exciting ideas for expensive long-term projects are a dime a dozen -- choosing which ones to pursue takes rare talent. It seems harsh to creative people, but I think it is a good control. After all, creative people who are good at predicting the future should have no problem amassing a small fortune, which will then allow them to pursue their pet projects as they see fit. > And we bought a house at what now seems to be pretty much the exact wrong > time. Ouch, but on the bright side, I bet you won't overpay for housing again! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:33 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Look at what has happened in a traditionally > > low-risk marketplace -- real estate -- lately. Even there, investors > > started having crazy expectations. And yes, the market is correcting, > but > > look at the fallout. > > People thought that real-estate always went up, at least for the past 30 > years in the US, they said. Now a generation of investors has learned > otherwise. > That lesson will probably stay with the current generation of investors, > but in > 20 or 30 years the lesson may need to be "re-learned". And the investors > who > learned from history will profit from the ones who did not. I'm not sure that all that many people have learned not to be greedy and short-term focused. My posting was ironically predictive, as my job fell victim to the market's obsession with positive cash flow. And we bought a house at what now seems to be pretty much the exact wrong time. On the other hand, we own the house my wife grew up in, which is in Springfield, Oregon, where housing prices are rising. So there's that, anyway. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 09:50 AM Tuesday 9/2/2008, John Williams wrote: >Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and >reduced by politicians. Indeed even casual observation suggests that the opposite is the more common outcome. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 11:41 PM Monday 9/1/2008, John Williams wrote: >Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is important is that a leader take responsibility for his > > administration. It is important that I am able to distinguish between > > someone that has done a good job and someone that hasn't when I cast my > > vote. > > > > So in that case, yea, blame is pretty important. > >Sorry, I blame myself. I was not clear. I meant to ask, is it helpful to blame >politicians for not having solutions to difficult problems? Helpful? Maybe not. But it feels sooo good . . . Not To Mention Distracts Voters From The Fact That The Other Party Hasn't A Clue How To Solve It Either Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 10:03 PM Monday 9/1/2008, John Williams wrote: > Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a > > comprehensive energy policy? > >The same one we blame for poor humanity leadership and complete lack >of a comprehensive intelligent-design policy? > >Sorry for the sarcasm, but is blame so important? Unfortunately it is only a little sarcasm to note that often in business* and government assigning blame seems to be more important than actually finding a solution, and is almost always more important than taking responsibility . . . _ *anecdotal evidence: the number of people who report recognizing their current or former employer in "Dilbert" or before that the Judge Reinhold film _Head Office_ . . . Only About 90+ Messages To Go To Catch Up Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 08:20 PM Monday 9/1/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: >Ronn! wrote: > >The "4% inflation is unacceptable" statement was the Democrat's >ridicule of Ford's "Whip Inflation Now!" campaign and it's "WIN" >buttons. I'm sure they picked the worst figure they could find, just >as whoever from the other side who came up with the "Carter said 4% >inflation was unacceptable, then he got into office and ran it up to >20%" statement back then probably picked the worst spot figure they >could find or fudge. > >Your statement had no caveats or explanations nor did it have an attribution >and its implication was that inflation jumped from 4 to 20% during the >Carter Administration. I'm sorry if I'm being didactic, but you're a >respected member of the list and people listen to what you have to say. Sorry for the confusion. I really expected that of all of the people on the list who report having lived through and remembering the Carter years at least one other would remember that series of exchanges . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For public companies, the "long run" is anything more than a year or two, What is it for politicians? > Who cares if the company will run out of trees, as long as it isn't going to > happen until long after the current senior management and board are gone? I'd peg the long-run for investors at about 20 to 30 years, which is about the longevity of many investing careers. I agree that few companies excel at planning ahead by more than a couple years. But that is because predicting the future more than a few years ahead is difficult. That is why the free-markets have historically outperformed planned economies. Humans are bad at planning ahead, but if you have a sufficiently large and diverse "gene-pool" of plans, random events and natural selection will tend to evolve a few successful plans. > Look at what has happened in a traditionally > low-risk marketplace -- real estate -- lately. Even there, investors > started having crazy expectations. And yes, the market is correcting, but > look at the fallout. People thought that real-estate always went up, at least for the past 30 years in the US, they said. Now a generation of investors has learned otherwise. That lesson will probably stay with the current generation of investors, but in 20 or 30 years the lesson may need to be "re-learned". And the investors who learned from history will profit from the ones who did not. > As long > as a few people are becoming millionaires and billionaires and the rest of > us think we have a shot at the same, nobody sees any need to change their > perspective. Amen! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or > all-encompassing. > Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to > see how similar some posts appeared as far as faith in a paternalistic > force > for good. No offense intended to your faith, or lack thereof, whatever your > inclination may be. > I'm relieved that you are unsure about that, since I don't see any conflict there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Anyway, do you think that > a logging company that clear cuts its forests will be the most profitable, > in the long run, in a competitive market? Well, I do... if by clear-cutting it drives the competition out of business. For public companies, the "long run" is anything more than a year or two, at best. The stock market likes consistent profits from quarter to quarter. There's a damned if you do and damned if you don't in the market. If you're a small company, nobody cares if you're investing for the long run because they can't be bothered to understand the strategy of a small player. If you're a large company, the market expects you to figure out how to be profitable every quarter *and* invest for the future. Thus the public markets encourage businesses to ignore the long-term issues. What's more, the tenure of top management at public companies is short and their compensation has nothing to do with how the company performs after they leave, so again, no incentive, even a disincentive, to have a real long-term strategy. Who cares if the company will run out of trees, as long as it isn't going to happen until long after the current senior management and board are gone? And if we don't keep profits up now, we'll be gone that much sooner. It is very, very hard for anybody to make present-day sacrifices for long-term profits when the guy next door is cashing in stock options worth millions. In fact, one risks a lawsuit that would argue that the board is failing in its fiduciary responsibility to protect shareholder value. Shareholder value is now or in the few years, not in a decade or two. Pardon if it seems like I'm repeating myself... but even for venture capital, which plays for a longer term than the public markets, long-term is 4-5 years. If you can't show the possibility of a 10x return in that time frame, you don't get to play. Look at what has happened in a traditionally low-risk marketplace -- real estate -- lately. Even there, investors started having crazy expectations. And yes, the market is correcting, but look at the fallout. I've played the game a lot, raising venture money, IPOs, advising large and small companies on high-risk investments in emerging markets. Maybe I'm biased because that's the world I've lived in for many years now... but what I see is people who mostly let the long term take care of itself. As long as a few people are becoming millionaires and billionaires and the rest of us think we have a shot at the same, nobody sees any need to change their perspective. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2 > emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree > with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way > to address that sort of problem. But when you are confronted with an > urgent life-or-death problem, the primary problem is not one of > efficiency. For example, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did > not worry about the most efficient, market-based way of letting the > private sector respond. The "solution" to Pearl Harbor was straightforward. The "solution" to the environment is not. I don't see how some politicians, who have spent precious little time studying either the environment or economics, will be capable of solving the "problem". Simply deciding to go to war on the environment will not help, and on balance, will probably cause harm. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
John Williams wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> It is clear that climate change is not something >> the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has >> any >> possibility of tackling this problem. >> > > I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only > way > that I have seen that consistently solves difficult problems is trial and > error. But > government does not do trial and error efficiently. Typically, there are very > few > ideas, sometimes only one, and the failures are not abandoned, but > instead suck down resources indefinitely. Far better to let prices and market > forces evolve efficient solutions. If "climate change" is a high-priority > problem > that is not adequately touched by market forces, then perhaps there is a > small role > that government can play, but never in specific policy. The government role > should be limited to addressing market failures, such as when carbon-emitters > do not pay for costs to the environment that everyone experiences. For > example, > a carbon-tax. > If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2 emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way to address that sort of problem. But when you are confronted with an urgent life-or-death problem, the primary problem is not one of efficiency. For example, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did not worry about the most efficient, market-based way of letting the private sector respond. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another." -- J. Frank Dobie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an > unfortunate way. Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or all-encompassing. Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to see how similar some posts appeared as far as faith in a paternalistic force for good. No offense intended to your faith, or lack thereof, whatever your inclination may be. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd say that the American free market is an illusion > anyway. I'd agree that the United State's market is far from free. I did not intend to compare countries. Indeed, the more global the market, the better, as far as I am concerned. > So allowing a logging company to clear fell an entire forest, > rather than only taking a percentage of trees, is fine in a free market? If the forest is someone's property, then no one has the right to prevent them from doing as they wish with their property. If the forest is the "property" of government, then government is probably in the midst of one of its many failures. Anyway, do you think that a logging company that clear cuts its forests will be the most profitable, in the long run, in a competitive market? > You should be made aware that this is a global list, and that basic > legal framework you're talking about only applies to your nation, not > mine. I was not referring to the framework for any specific country. If your country does not have basic laws protecting property and individual liberty, then I suggest worrying less about government regulations to reduce waste and more about basic legal framework. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 03/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > >> >> My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between >> religous >> people, >> with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their >> politicians. > > > Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope. > > If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations > in an > unfortunate way. Yeah. I couldn't work that out either. Right, off to work time. Conversation resumes in about 12 hours from my point of view. :-) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous > people, > with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their > politicians. Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope. If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an unfortunate way. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 03/09/2008, at 12:50 AM, John Williams wrote: > > > Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and >> environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. > > I don't understand the "yes", since what follows the yes does not > agree with what > I wrote. Yes it does. It only doesn't if you're ideologically tied to the idea that there should be no regulations at all. And given the differences in standard of living between say the USA and the Scandinavian countries, I'd say that a free market doesn't and shouldn't mean NO regulations, just a level playing field. Given the power of lobbyists in the States, I'd say that the American free market is an illusion anyway. > Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and > reduced by > politicians. In the simplest terms it can. > And "environmental damage" has become trendy for politicians to > talk about, but the cures they propose are invariably more harmful. Really? So allowing a logging company to clear fell an entire forest, rather than only taking a percentage of trees, is fine in a free market? > So, No, not > "Yes". I would probably agree with a carbon tax or similar measures > that forces > carbon-emitters to bear the costs of pollution that everyone must > endure, but > government should not be creating specific rules on "waste" and > "environmental > damage". Why not? Chemical companies should not dump their waste in rivers. The only way you make them not do that in an otherwise free market is to have financial penalties if they do. > As far as unethical practices and exploitation, the politicians > excel at > those pursuits. Not a good idea to have politicians defining what is > ethical or > exploitative, beyond a basic legal framework for protecting property > and liberty > that was already established ages ago. You should be made aware that this is a global list, and that basic legal framework you're talking about only applies to your nation, not mine. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Sep 2, 2008, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It is clear that climate change is not something the market can > handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any > possibility of tackling this problem. That's been well established. The government does best when it provides the external force necessary to push the market out of suboptimal equilibria that none of the market players want to bear the cost of breaking out of unilaterally. "Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It is clear that climate change is not something > the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any > possibility of tackling this problem. I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only way that I have seen that consistently solves difficult problems is trial and error. But government does not do trial and error efficiently. Typically, there are very few ideas, sometimes only one, and the failures are not abandoned, but instead suck down resources indefinitely. Far better to let prices and market forces evolve efficient solutions. If "climate change" is a high-priority problem that is not adequately touched by market forces, then perhaps there is a small role that government can play, but never in specific policy. The government role should be limited to addressing market failures, such as when carbon-emitters do not pay for costs to the environment that everyone experiences. For example, a carbon-tax. > Later on I > recalled the words of one of my best professors from grad school, who pointed > out that the issue with Libertarianism is that it is held most strongly by > those > who would be most likely to prosper in such a system. The same could be said of virtually all politics. There are many people who want to make laws to benefit some at others expense. I prefer to minimize all such laws. Freedom is the best policy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and > environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. I don't understand the "yes", since what follows the yes does not agree with what I wrote. Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and reduced by politicians. And "environmental damage" has become trendy for politicians to talk about, but the cures they propose are invariably more harmful. So, No, not "Yes". I would probably agree with a carbon tax or similar measures that forces carbon-emitters to bear the costs of pollution that everyone must endure, but government should not be creating specific rules on "waste" and "environmental damage". As far as unethical practices and exploitation, the politicians excel at those pursuits. Not a good idea to have politicians defining what is ethical or exploitative, beyond a basic legal framework for protecting property and liberty that was already established ages ago. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of ideas in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. If the "gene-pool" of ideas is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will find better solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If the gene-pool is not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for government to encourage greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that relies on politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. But sometimes there are problems that only govenrment *can* handle. I used to be a member (dues paying!) of the Libertarian Party, but I left that behind because of thei ssue of global climate change. What I saw inside the Libertarian Party was a very interesting dynamic. It is clear that climate change is not something the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any possibility of tackling this problem. Well, Libertarians cannot abide the thought of the government being necessary to solve a problem, so they almost instinctively tunred to embracing all of the climate change denialists. Now, I don't like unnecessary government action (there is a reason *why* I joined that party), but I also have a firm rule that I do not make scientific decisions on ideological bases. So I left the Libertarian party. Later on I recalled the words of one of my best professors from grad school, who pointed out that the issue with Libertarianism is that it is held most strongly by those who would be most likely to prosper in such a system. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 02/09/2008, at 2:41 PM, John Williams wrote: > My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between > religous people, > with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their > politicians. I'm neither of those. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking, but this List is far more dimensional than that. Recently some voices have been louder, but there is a genuine breadth of opinion here (of course, most of it's wrong, but they'll agree with me one day ;) ) > > Personally, I put my faith in evolution, both biological and > economical. I don't. Evolution exists, but I hope we can rise above mere evolution, and direct ourselves rather than being shunted about by the harsh mistress of selectional forces and mere survivability being the criterion for our future. > Humans > are fallible, and politicians are human. Putting greater > responsibility (power, > expectations, etc.) in the hands of politicians means that their > failures will be > greater disasters. Better to keep government as small as possible, > not put our > politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and > competition of ideas > in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. Partially agree. By "small government", I think we need more participatory government. We need rules and regulations to make an even playing field for business, employment, education and opportunity, but we don't need government interference in our personal lives. Not putting our politicians on a pedestal is a good thing, 'cause people are people. > If the "gene-pool" of ideas > is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market > will find better > solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If > the gene-pool is > not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for > government to encourage > greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that > relies on > politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. Beyond that, they should be as minimal as possible (and that means minimal subsidies and tarriffs too). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What is important is that a leader take responsibility for his > administration. It is important that I am able to distinguish between > someone that has done a good job and someone that hasn't when I cast my > vote. > > So in that case, yea, blame is pretty important. Sorry, I blame myself. I was not clear. I meant to ask, is it helpful to blame politicians for not having solutions to difficult problems? My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous people, with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their politicians. Personally, I put my faith in evolution, both biological and economical. Humans are fallible, and politicians are human. Putting greater responsibility (power, expectations, etc.) in the hands of politicians means that their failures will be greater disasters. Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of ideas in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. If the "gene-pool" of ideas is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will find better solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If the gene-pool is not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for government to encourage greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that relies on politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
John wrote: > > > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a > > comprehensive energy policy? > > The same one we blame for poor humanity leadership and complete lack > of a comprehensive intelligent-design policy? > > Sorry for the sarcasm, but is blame so important? Not if I'm playing a friendly game of volleyball and my team mate over-passed the ball, no. What is important is that a leader take responsibility for his administration. It is important that I am able to distinguish between someone that has done a good job and someone that hasn't when I cast my vote. So in that case, yea, blame is pretty important. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a > comprehensive energy policy? The same one we blame for poor humanity leadership and complete lack of a comprehensive intelligent-design policy? Sorry for the sarcasm, but is blame so important? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Ronn! wrote: The "4% inflation is unacceptable" statement was the Democrat's ridicule of Ford's "Whip Inflation Now!" campaign and it's "WIN" buttons. I'm sure they picked the worst figure they could find, just as whoever from the other side who came up with the "Carter said 4% inflation was unacceptable, then he got into office and ran it up to 20%" statement back then probably picked the worst spot figure they could find or fudge. Your statement had no caveats or explanations nor did it have an attribution and its implication was that inflation jumped from 4 to 20% during the Carter Administration. I'm sorry if I'm being didactic, but you're a respected member of the list and people listen to what you have to say. > > > (as that part of the recent increase due to increased > demand for gasoline in China and the loss of refinery capacity due to > Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were not under the direct control of the > current President, although there seem to be some folks willing to > count those among his multitude of sins :P). That's why we pay him > the big bucks . . . > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a comprehensive energy policy? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 06:17 PM Friday 8/29/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Ronn! wrote: > > > > > Being there. > > > > A faulty memory is a poor cite. That is an obvious statement with which anyone would have to agree. ;) > Not only wasn't inflation anywhere near >20% during the Carter administration, Somebody has already mentioned a possible explanation for that number. > it wasn't anywhere near 4% immediately >prior to his election. The "4% inflation is unacceptable" statement was the Democrat's ridicule of Ford's "Whip Inflation Now!" campaign and it's "WIN" buttons. I'm sure they picked the worst figure they could find, just as whoever from the other side who came up with the "Carter said 4% inflation was unacceptable, then he got into office and ran it up to 20%" statement back then probably picked the worst spot figure they could find or fudge. >Here's another cite to go with the ones already posted: > >http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=3 > >And here's a quote from William's reference: > >Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his >watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next >15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of >the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an >intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, >Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an >expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do >with the economic events that occurred during their terms. One of the things we learn from observing American politics is that the then-current administration can expect to be blamed for bad economic news that happens on its watch regardless of how much actual control they had or even conceivably could have had over the circumstances that led to the bad economic news. (Of course, we also learn from observing American politics that the then-current administration is likely to claim credit for any good economic news regardless of whether they were responsible for the good economy or not. :P) Certainly the big problem for most ordinary citizens in 1979-80 was the rapid increase in the price of gasoline at the pumps (like it has been in recent years) and the actual causes (primarily instability in the Middle East) were largely beyond the control of the President (as that part of the recent increase due to increased demand for gasoline in China and the loss of refinery capacity due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were not under the direct control of the current President, although there seem to be some folks willing to count those among his multitude of sins :P). That's why we pay him the big bucks . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> > I'm pretty sure it never got into the 20s for any sustained period. > > I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the > web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in > 1980. > > Dave Well, IIRC, the primary source for this is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If not the primary, they are a darn good mirror source. At http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm they have a calculator, which is an easy way to calculate the total inflation over a period. They also have monthly tables for people really into it. >From inflation was 75-76 5.8% 76-77 6.5% 77-78 7.6% 78-79 11.4% 79-80 13.5% 80-81 10.0% Also of note, under the 4 years of Carter, there were about twice as many jobs created (10.3 million or a 12.8% increase), than have been created under Bush in 7+ years (5.1 million or a 3.9% increase). And, with employment expected to continue to fall through next January, I expect this number to drop below 5 million. (anyone want to bet against me?) Given the fact that housing prices are tumbling and unemployment is rising, we may have a bit of stagflation, but I don't think that wages will hold up their end of the wage-price spiral. So, I don't expect much more than 5%-6% inflation before things settle down. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Ronn! wrote: > > Being there. > > A faulty memory is a poor cite. Not only wasn't inflation anywhere near 20% during the Carter administration, it wasn't anywhere near 4% immediately prior to his election. Here's another cite to go with the ones already posted: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=3 And here's a quote from William's reference: Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms. Doug The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. --Stephen Hawking ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 11:29 AM Friday 8/29/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: >Ronn! wrote: > > > > > Or just remember the Carter administration. > > > > > > He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was > > Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus Percent Maru > > > > > > Cite? > >Doug Being there. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> > I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the > > web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in > > 1980. > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm The US Bureau of Labour Statistics places CPI inflation at 13.5% in 1980. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt Williams' link uses this number as well as states the following, "In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II." Perhaps some media sources have been confusing these numbers. Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 29 Aug 2008, at 18:34, Dave Land wrote: > > I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the > web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in > 1980. > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm Second Hand Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > >> Ronn! wrote: >> >>> Or just remember the Carter administration. >>> >>> He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was >>> Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus >>> Percent Maru >>> >>> Cite? > > Might Ronn! be conflating twenty-plus percent _interest_ rates > (which were > definitely in effect during the Carter administration) with such > inflation? > > The phrase "double-digit" is commonly mentioned in articles about > the Carter > years and inflation, but that could be as "low" as 10% and as high > as 99%. > > I'm pretty sure it never got into the 20s for any sustained period. I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in 1980. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Ronn! wrote: > >> Or just remember the Carter administration. >> >> He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was >> Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus >> Percent Maru >> >> Cite? Might Ronn! be conflating twenty-plus percent _interest_ rates (which were definitely in effect during the Carter administration) with such inflation? The phrase "double-digit" is commonly mentioned in articles about the Carter years and inflation, but that could be as "low" as 10% and as high as 99%. I'm pretty sure it never got into the 20s for any sustained period. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Ronn! wrote: > > Or just remember the Carter administration. > > > He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was > Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus Percent Maru > > > Cite? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 07:30 AM Friday 8/29/2008, Alberto Monteiro wrote: >I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation >in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation >is about 10% (!!!) > >Welcome to Hyperinflation. If you want any hints on how to survive >and prosper under hyperinflation, just ask me. Or just remember the Carter administration. He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus Percent Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Zimbabwe inflation rate is around 810% **per month** ! c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro Sent: 29 August 2008 14:31 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Welcome to Hyperinflation! I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation is about 10% (!!!) Welcome to Hyperinflation. If you want any hints on how to survive and prosper under hyperinflation, just ask me. Brazil had it for decades. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Welcome to Hyperinflation!
I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation is about 10% (!!!) Welcome to Hyperinflation. If you want any hints on how to survive and prosper under hyperinflation, just ask me. Brazil had it for decades. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
