The Republicans didn't raise The Important Issues
Darrell Udelhoven
How about some "Real Issues," that have meaning and value to the entire
global human community.
http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/political_campaigns_common_wealth.html
It is time to discuss and debate some important issues for a change.
Come on Vice President Gore show us what you are made of. If you don't
get on these issues big time, you will lose the election and you will
deserve to lose it!
That goes for the rest of the congressional candidates as well!
Darrell a.k.a.,
udarrell
Harold
<DDudar...@DDpcii.net> wrote:
>The GOP's same old political hogwash trash.
>
>How about some "Real Issues," that have meaning and value to the entire
>global human community.
When the globe helps elect the US President, then their issues will no
doubt be addressed. But I don't think you should hold your breath
waiting for the US to conquer the world.
>
> http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/political_campaigns_common_wealth.html
>
>It is time to discuss and debate some important issues for a change.
>
>Come on Vice President Gore show us what you are made of.
Gore is made of whatever you want.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
-------
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
nothing worth a war, is worse. . . . "
---John Stuart Mill, (1859)
Darrell Udelhoven
use issues directly affect all of us.
The global citizenry doesn't elect the Transnational corporate CEOs but they
are determining the quality of their lives and their economic and environmental
destiny through the WTO and other organizations.
Global economic policy is the backbone of all foreign policy and should be on
the front burner in all congressional and presidential debates here in the USA
and elsewhere around the world.
Harold wrote:
> [deleted] When the globe helps elect the US President, then their issues will
> no
> doubt be addressed. But I don't think you should hold your breath
> waiting for the US to conquer the world.
>
> > http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/political_campaigns_common_wealth.html
>
> Gore is made of whatever you want.
> Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
Harold
<DDudar...@DDpcii.net> wrote:
>We are presently in a global village community and global economic and resource
>use issues directly affect all of us.
>
>The global citizenry doesn't elect the Transnational corporate CEOs
Sure they do. Every day, all day, relentlessly. Every time someone
buy say, a Eurovan, you are giving that CEO of Volkswagen your vote
in the most persuasive possible voice, your money. Real honest-to-god
money, not just talk.
>but they
>are determining the quality of their lives and their economic and environmental
>destiny through the WTO and other organizations.
Those who fail to satisfy can only stay in business by bribing special
favors from government, like tariff protections. So tell your
government you want no favors for business. Let each compete in the
open market for the vote of the consumer.
>
>Global economic policy is the backbone of all foreign policy and should be on
>the front burner in all congressional and presidential debates here in the USA
>and elsewhere around the world.
That is certainly true, and the policy should be to keep their hands
off unless the consumer is hurt.
Regards, Harold
-------
"The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the
individuals composing it . . . a State which dwarfs its men,
in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands
even for beneficial purposes-will find that with small men
no great thing can really be accomplished."
---John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,(1859).
Darrell Udelhoven
> Harold wrote:
> Sure they do. Every day, all day, relentlessly. Every time someone
> buy say, a Eurovan, you are giving that CEO of Volkswagen your vote
> in the most persuasive possible voice, your money. Real honest-to-god
> money, not just talk.
You have no sense of the ultimate consequences that this non competitive production
cost equation is producing. It is not a comparative advantage but a totally
noncompetitive advantage in production costs, due to the exploitive use of slave
labor and an entirely different set of regulations, land values -- you name it. This
is not an equal economic opportunity policy principle, but a way for the powerful
wealthy TNCs to impoverish or eliminate the homeland producers. It's a destructive
policy principle that intelligent people understand must be changed.
It will do me no good to respond to your philosophy of anything goes -- because that
is what is happening, they make the economic policies and everyone is supposed to
live or die by it. Well, that's not my idea of self government. When the policy
principles that determine your ability to earn a livelihood is off the agenda --
that is not a constitutional republic -- that is tyranny!
> Those who fail to satisfy can only stay in business by bribing special
> favors from government, like tariff protections.
An unregulated unprincipled capitalist economic policy system grants all its favors
to the TNCs (Transnational corporations), and they don't just bribe they buy and own
the political system and the mass media system! So what is left -- well you can make
believe you control your life and your destiny but the TNCs have become the
sovereign's and you are a mere puppet employee if you can't compete in their game
rules! Principled economic policies creates and economic relationship environment
where the wealthy prosper as well as all economic classes, and this produces a broad
per capita demand side that allows for sustainable economic growth for the majority
and not the few.
> So tell your government you want no favors for business. Let each compete in the
> open market for the vote of the consumer.
You will learn the fallacy of the above statement the hard way -- as millions in
many countries have already experienced the consequences. When consumers on a per
capita basis lose their real earning power the products and services become
unaffordable and they are far worse off! Additionally, the TNCs are a class interest
monopoly that sell through the retailers for very little less than domestic produced
products.
> >Global economic policy is the backbone of all foreign policy and should be on
> >the front burner in all congressional and presidential debates here in the USA
> >and elsewhere around the world.
>
> That is certainly true, and the policy should be to keep their hands
> off unless the consumer is hurt.
As you will learn there are many ways that the consumers can be hurt -- the initial
cost of a product is only one of numerous critical factors that determine whether
the majority of consumers and the resultant domestic economies are being hurt as
well.
Additionally, GDP is only part of the equation, per capita not household earning
power of the individual is the factor to examine.
> Regards, Harold
> -------
> "The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the
> individuals composing it . . . a State which dwarfs its men,
> in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands
> even for beneficial purposes-will find that with small men
> no great thing can really be accomplished."
> ---John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,(1859).
You are describing the corporate State... "a State which dwarfs its men,
in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands
even for beneficial purposes-will find that with small men
no great thing can really be accomplished."
Darrell a.k.a.,
udarrell http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/political_campaigns_common_wealth.html
Harold
<LLudar...@OOpcii.netLL> wrote:
>The global citizenry doesn't elect the Transnational corporate CEOs
>
>> Harold wrote:
>> Sure they do. Every day, all day, relentlessly. Every time someone
>> buy say, a Eurovan, you are giving that CEO of Volkswagen your vote
>> in the most persuasive possible voice, your money. Real honest-to-god
>> money, not just talk.
>
>You have no sense of the ultimate consequences that this non competitive production
>cost equation is producing.
What cost equation? You taliked abou a cost equation?
>It is not a comparative advantage but a totally
>noncompetitive advantage in production costs, due to the exploitive use of slave
>labor and an entirely different set of regulations, land values -- you name it.
Yes, and where do you see "slave labor"?
>This
>is not an equal economic opportunity policy principle, but a way for the powerful
>wealthy TNCs to impoverish or eliminate the homeland producers. It's a destructive
>policy principle that intelligent people understand must be changed.
Ah, so, anyone who thinks you are as ill-informed as a fence post and
dumb as a box of rocks is by implication not intelligent?
Count me in.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-----
"For the left, politics is ultimately not about practical choices,
concerning which reasonable people may differ. It is about moral
choices that define one as human. It is about taking sides in a
war that will decide the human future and whether the principle
of justice will prevail. It is about "us" being on the side of
the angels, and "them" being the party of the damned."
---David Horowitz, Salon, 1999
Darrell Udelhoven
> Ah, so, anyone who thinks you are as ill-informed as a fence post and
> dumb as a box of rocks is by implication not intelligent?
>
> Count me in.
>
> [deleted]
>
> Regards, Harold
You will find the answers to your questions in my web pages.
Incorporated in your response is all the revelation that is necessary.
Your response is typical... .
Darrell,
a.k.a., udarrell on the Net.
Lance Ringquist
once they can no longer ignore the obvious, they always resort to
insults.
its typical from narrow minded free trade/free market types.
there is no such thing as a free market, remove government, and in move
the sharks who rip, and tear till all is theres.
Harold
<udar...@pcii.net> wrote:
>Harold wrote:
>
>> Ah, so, anyone who thinks you are as ill-informed as a fence post and
>> dumb as a box of rocks is by implication not intelligent?
>>
>> Count me in.
>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>> Regards, Harold
>
>You will find the answers to your questions in my web pages.
Thanks, but self flagellation is just not my bag.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----------
"But what experience and history teach is this-that peoples and
governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on
principles deduced from it."
---Georg Hegel, The Philosophy of History, Introduction (1807).
Harold
Hey Lance, you and he make good pals. You may even be the same
people.
Regards, Harold
---
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not
freedom, but license."
---John Milton
Darrell Udelhoven
of view on the issues at hand, your bag is to just trash them --
notwithstanding the experiential validity of the claims.
There was no call for insults of that magnitude. Why don't you respond (in
context) to what I have written in my web pages and we'll see, with the
passage of time, which one of us is correct in his judgment of the these
policy making issues.
No I don't know Lance, but he hit the nail on the head. I apologize if I
insulted you or anyone else with the intelligence statement. I will change
my overall points of view if you can demonstrate that all of my overviews
taken together are wrong and that yours are right and are the best for
everyone to follow.
http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/my_pages.html
Darrell
a.k.a., udarrell
Edward Flaherty
Darrell Udelhoven wrote:
> Your bag is obvious -- you do not intend to read the other person's points
> of view on the issues at hand, your bag is to just trash them --
> notwithstanding the experiential validity of the claims.
>
> There was no call for insults of that magnitude. Why don't you respond (in
> context) to what I have written in my web pages and we'll see, with the
> passage of time, which one of us is correct in his judgment of the these
> policy making issues.
>
> No I don't know Lance, but he hit the nail on the head. I apologize if I
> insulted you or anyone else with the intelligence statement. I will change
> my overall points of view if you can demonstrate that all of my overviews
> taken together are wrong and that yours are right and are the best for
> everyone to follow.
>
> http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/my_pages.html
>
> Darrell
> a.k.a., udarrell
I was bored this afternoon, so I wandered over to your page and
found a few items.
"Due to the 15 trillion dollars of debt service shared by
households, business, and government, raising interest
rates is a flawed monetary economic policy that automatically
generates inflation in all of the major economic arenas. As a
result production costs are increased which increases overhead
costs and prices. Therefore, raising interest rates forces business
and industry to raise prices to cover increased operating costs.
Result the economy slows and everyone is a loser."
No, that's wrong. If the Fed restricts the money supply and
interest rates rise, then the effect by far is one on aggregate
demand. The higher rates slow consumer spending on
durable goods and business spending on capital goods.
The reduction in aggregate demand lowers the GDP
growth rate and eases upward pressure on the CPI.
The idea that interest rates cause the inflation rate is myth;
it's the other way around.
"Major false assumption number one. And this is a big one. Any
increase in wages above productivity gains will reduce company
profits or cause them to raise prices. When the real earnings of
employees goes up there is an increased demand for goods and
services. Profits are based as much on volume of sales as on the
price for each unit sold. Therefore, the volume of sales will go up
and the unit price could possibly even be lower."
Greenspan is correct on this one. Any increase in the unit cost
of production will always necessarily either cause the firm to
raise its prices and/or reduce its profits. You also fall victim to
the fallacy of composition: While higher wages will increase the
income of the firm's employees, it will not translate into an
increase in demand for the firm's product because the firm's
workforce is only a tiny fraction of the economy's total labor
force. Regardless, even if the demand for the firm's product
did increase, it would put upward, not downward, pressure
on price.
"Major false assumption number two: Greenspan is for unfair
and extremely exploitive free trade, with no mention of fair trade.
Greenspan is determined to continue monetary policies that are
skewed against labor and that promote unfair exploitive trade
and foreign investment."
The Fed and Greenspan have nothing to do with trade policy.
Regardless, lowering trade barriers raises is a good thing. Lower
trade barriers increase foreign competition in many industries
and this lowers prices to the consumers. It also expands production,
employment, and profits in export industries.
"National indebtedness: has a major affect on the amount of
money available for lending and therefore interest rates."
Grammer note: 'effect' is a noun; 'affect' is a verb. You should
have used 'effect' here.
"All forms of debt reduce real purchasing power due to the additional
costs of interest."
No, that's not true.
"We need to disincentivize monopolization and increase the
incentivization of small and medium sized competitors in the
Supply Side production, distribution, and retailing sectors."
I can't make head or tails of this. And what the hell is
'disincentivize'? Is that even a word? Why not just say
'discourage'?
"Inflation is being generated primarily by excessive corporate
profits, excessive CEO salaries, and financial sector inflation."
That's nonsense. Inflation is caused by none of these things.
"Raising Interest Rates Produces Inflation - High Interest
Rates Generate Inflation"
You're doing that myth thing again.
Overall, your pages show an admirable degree of passion for
improving things. Unfortunately, your knowledge of economics
appears rather limited and your policy recommendations dubious.
--
Edward Flaherty
flah...@cofc.edu
Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty/index.html
Harold
<OOudar...@Opcii.netO> wrote:
>Your bag is obvious -- you do not intend to read the other person's points
>of view on the issues at hand, your bag is to just trash them --
>notwithstanding the experiential validity of the claims.
The truth is I have seen and heard these claims over and over and am
convinced they have no more validity than they did decades (or more)
ago when most of them were first presented.
I see no point in reading another misinformed economic screed.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep
in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must
run at least twice as fast as that!
---Lewis Carroll (1832-98), The Red Queen in
Through the Looking-Glass, ch. 2, (1872).
Darrell Udelhoven
message and when I tried to send it there was too much of your message included.
It wouldn't take it and I keep reducing it, but netscape locked up and I lost
the whole thing.
I had responded to everything! Words can't express how I feel!
I'm not well and that was a sickening experience!
Bet this will go this time!
Sorry ED,
Darrell
Edward Flaherty wrote:
Darrell Udelhoven
any of the claims or assumptions by any position put forward. When many other
related areas are changed then we have to factor in the effects those related
changes in policy have on all the other individual elements that we are speaking
to.
I need to review and edit all that I have written, however, writing is a great
effort for me these days and I don't want to go into all the reasons why this
has happened. I am aware that there is some grammar errors and usage problems in
my work. Yes, it is a shameful thing and I ought to do some editing.
We ought to examine every assumption that Alan Greenspan and other
establishmentarians make, as many of their assumptions, claims and statements
don't fit reality either. Just because their claims and assumptions are widely
accepted by the elite's means nothing to me I let the ultimate realities
separate the wheat from the chaff.
No, that's wrong or no that's not true is a bit over declarative because I can
say the same things about a lot of the statements that Greenspan and others
offer as being the gospel truth carved in reality stone for all of eternity.
Read my pages and view the parts in context with the whole of what is put forth
in each page as well as in all of my other related pages and then criticize all
you want as I know you could fill ten books with them. I have my own reasons for
splitting the pages up.
Tell us how countries with runaway inflation can stop it with tight money — high
interest rate policies. Did it, in the past, curb inflation when we had 20%
interest rates. No it did not; too many times, we ended up with "stagflation,"
the worst of both worlds where we had sky high interest rates and a depressed
economy. Isn't that a wonderful economic predicament to be in! When the cost of
money goes up the cost of business goes up and business failures become more
prevalent. Tight money and high interest rates is effective in shutting down the
economy but it doesn't follow that it automatically reduces inflation in all
sectors.
http://userpages.pcii.net/udarrell/1_real_political_issues.htm
Darrell,
A.k.a., udarrell
Edward Flaherty wrote:
> And what the hell is 'disincentivize'? Is that even a word? Why not just
> say
> 'discourage'? [Because the context concerns incentives. It is my word for
> now.]
>
> "Inflation is being generated primarily by excessive corporate
> profits, excessive CEO salaries, and financial sector inflation."
>
> That's nonsense. Inflation is caused by none of these things. [Really -- only
> by higher wages, huh.]
>
> "Raising Interest Rates Produces Inflation - High Interest
> Rates Generate Inflation"
>
> You're doing that myth thing again. [as do my opponents -- there you go
> again.][A 20% interest rate does not generate any increased costs --
> interesting.]
>
> Overall, your pages show an admirable degree of passion for
> improving things. Unfortunately, your knowledge of economics
> appears rather limited and your policy recommendations dubious.[I wouldn't
> expect any other analysis from your keyboard.] [That is perfectly okay as your
> comments have not altered my belief in the principles that I espouse.]
Dido -- for the policy making ideas and assumptions of the establishmentarians.
JHogan2359
>Date: 8/10/00 12:43 PM Central
>I was bored this afternoon, so I wandered over to your page and
>found a few items.
>
>
>"Due to the 15 trillion dollars of debt service shared by
>households, business, and government, raising interest
>rates is a flawed monetary economic policy that automatically
>generates inflation in all of the major economic arenas. As a
>result production costs are increased which increases overhead
>costs and prices. Therefore, raising interest rates forces business
>and industry to raise prices to cover increased operating costs.
>Result the economy slows and everyone is a loser."
>
>No, that's wrong. If the Fed restricts the money supply and
>interest rates rise, then the effect by far is one on aggregate
>demand. The higher rates slow consumer spending on
>durable goods and business spending on capital goods.
>The reduction in aggregate demand lowers the GDP
>growth rate and eases upward pressure on the CPI.
>
>The idea that interest rates cause the inflation rate is myth;
>it's the other way around.
Or is it? The major bouts of inflation the US has faced in the last 30 years
were caused by something that the FED had absolutely no control over,
whatsoever.
In the late 1960's there was an uptick in inflation, caused by LBJ's refusal to
raise taxes to prosecute the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty,
simultaneously.
This inflation was caused during a time when the US was on a "commodity money"
standard.
Then in the early 1970's the US underwent another bout of inflation, this time
caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil.
This time the US was on a "soft money" standard.
During the late 1970's the US had another bout of inflation, caused this time
by another sharp rise in the price of oil.
Since the FED cannot control the price of oil, and since the US is no longer on
a "commodity money" standard, how is the FED supposedly responsible for these
external influences?
Even today, if energy and food prices are removed (as they are), inflation is
nowhere to be found. So reasonable people might ask: Why is the FED clamping
down on interest rates?
>"Major false assumption number one. And this is a big one. Any
>increase in wages above productivity gains will reduce company
>profits or cause them to raise prices.
You are correct. Wages will rise, and profits will fall, and inflation will
remain neutral. Is there anything wrong with that, except that the investing
class might be denied additional profits?
When the real earnings of
>employees goes up there is an increased demand for goods and
>services.
But how are they supposed to buy goods and services if the costs are driven up
by interest rates? "Real earnings" are going up by such a miniscule rate that
even a tiny increase in interest rates would wipe out any gains by a
concommitant increase in wages.
Profits are based as much on volume of sales as on the
>price for each unit sold. Therefore, the volume of sales will go up
>and the unit price could possibly even be lower."
Huh? How are prices going to fall, when the driving forces are trying to make
goods and services more expensive? That is the entire purpose of the FED's
raising interest rates.
>
>Greenspan is correct on this one. Any increase in the unit cost
>of production will always necessarily either cause the firm to
>raise its prices and/or reduce its profits. You also fall victim to
>the fallacy of composition: While higher wages will increase the
>income of the firm's employees, it will not translate into an
>increase in demand for the firm's product because the firm's
>workforce is only a tiny fraction of the economy's total labor
>force. Regardless, even if the demand for the firm's product
>did increase, it would put upward, not downward, pressure
>on price.
Well, swing low, sweet chariot,
coming for to carry me home.
This has to be about the goofiest thing you have ever posted. Do you assume
that a single firm's' employees are responsible for the advance or decline of
an entire economy?
Spread over an entire economy, the demand for goods and services would rise.
>"Major false assumption number two: Greenspan is for unfair
>and extremely exploitive free trade, with no mention of fair trade.
>Greenspan is determined to continue monetary policies that are
>skewed against labor and that promote unfair exploitive trade
>and foreign investment."
>
>The Fed and Greenspan have nothing to do with trade policy.
>Regardless, lowering trade barriers raises is a good thing. Lower
>trade barriers increase foreign competition in many industries
>and this lowers prices to the consumers. It also expands production,
>employment, and profits in export industries.
This is disingeuous. Greenspan appeared on TV, numerous times, urging the
passage of NAFTA and PNTR for China, lending his visible support to both
causes. Importing goods from the slave states before the US Civil War also
lowered costs to consumers, but was that a good thing? I don't think so. That
is exactly what is occurring now, except on a global scale.
.
>"All forms of debt reduce real purchasing power due to the additional
>costs of interest."
>
>No, that's not true.
That is a ridiculous statement. Of course, interest payments reduce purchasing
power. For example, if I have $1,000 a month to spend and 150 dollars is taken
up by interest payments, then I only have $850 to spend on things other than
interest.
>
>"We need to disincentivize monopolization and increase the
>incentivization of small and medium sized competitors in the
>Supply Side production, distribution, and retailing sectors."
>
>I can't make head or tails of this. And what the hell is
>'disincentivize'? Is that even a word? Why not just say
>'discourage'?
>
>"Inflation is being generated primarily by excessive corporate
>profits, excessive CEO salaries, and financial sector inflation."
>
>That's nonsense. Inflation is caused by none of these things.
Plese enlighten us all. What causes inflation?
Could it be that inflation is the shadow behind the wall? Are we using
"commodity money" standards in an era of "soft money"?
mne...@my-deja.com
jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359) wrote:
> >From: Edward Flaherty flah...@cofc.edu
> >Date: 8/10/00 12:43 PM Central
> Even today, if energy and food prices are removed (as they are),
inflation is
> nowhere to be found. So reasonable people might ask: Why is the
FED clamping
> down on interest rates?
Well there was that little blip in march.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
InsuranceBroker
>From: jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359)
>Date: 8/12/00 12:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000812004603...@ng-bh1.aol.com>
>Then in the early 1970's the US underwent another bout of inflation, this
>time
>caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil.
>
Today they claim that same sharp rise in the price of oil will not cause
inflation.
>
>Since the FED cannot control the price of oil, and since the US is no longer
>on
>a "commodity money" standard, how is the FED supposedly responsible for these
>external influences?
>
They will respond in what they do best. They will lie like hell and tell you
that their is no inflation. Remember the FED only purpose is to protect the
profit of the banking interest.
>Even today, if energy and food prices are removed (as they are), inflation is
>nowhere to be found
Really have you been house hunting. Have you been to your local drug store?
Even if you happen to live in a cave which one must if they cannot find
inflation then how much is left when food and energy is taken out of the family
budget?
>Why is the FED clamping
>down on interest rates?
Because the Euro is .90 and the japanese yen is falling. They are raising
interest rates to protect the value of the banks dollars.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
Edward Flaherty
JHogan2359 wrote:
> >From: Edward Flaherty flah...@cofc.edu
> >Date: 8/10/00 12:43 PM Central
>
>
> Even today, if energy and food prices are removed (as they are), inflation is
> nowhere to be found. So reasonable people might ask: Why is the FED clamping
> down on interest rates?
Yes, it's a reasonable question, and there is a reasonable answer.
It is more difficult, perhaps much more difficult, to attack inflation
when it has already appeared than to take steps now to prevent
it from appearing in the first place. We can raise interest rates a
little today and slow GDP growth to a more sustainable level, or
we can wait until inflation has struck to the point where a
recession is necessary to get rid of it.
> >Greenspan is correct on this one. Any increase in the unit cost
> >of production will always necessarily either cause the firm to
> >raise its prices and/or reduce its profits. You also fall victim to
> >the fallacy of composition: While higher wages will increase the
> >income of the firm's employees, it will not translate into an
> >increase in demand for the firm's product because the firm's
> >workforce is only a tiny fraction of the economy's total labor
> >force. Regardless, even if the demand for the firm's product
> >did increase, it would put upward, not downward, pressure
> >on price.
>
> Well, swing low, sweet chariot,
> coming for to carry me home.
>
> This has to be about the goofiest thing you have ever posted. Do you assume
> that a single firm's' employees are responsible for the advance or decline of
> an entire economy?
It looks like you posted this in the wee hours of the morning,
so I'll look kindly on the nonsensical nature of your reply.
I never said any such thing that one firm's workers significantly
affect the entire economy. Darrell wrote that if a firm gives its
employees a nice raise (one above the growth in productivity),
then the workers will have lots more income and the demand
for the firm's product will rise. Then Darrell claims this will
cause the firm to lower its price.
My points are (1) that the fraction of the firm's workers who also
buy the firm's product is likely to be rather low (but maybe
in some cases, like electricity, the fraction might be 100%),
and (2) that employee demand for the firm's product is going to
be extremely small relative to the total demand for the firm's
product. Thus, a higher income for the employees will have
no noticeable effect on the firm's demand. This was Darrell's
fallacy of composition: what was true for the part was not
true for the whole. My final point (3) was that even if it did
increase the firm's demand, then price would go up, not
down as Darrell indicates in the quotation.
> >"Major false assumption number two: Greenspan is for unfair
> >and extremely exploitive free trade, with no mention of fair trade.
> >Greenspan is determined to continue monetary policies that are
> >skewed against labor and that promote unfair exploitive trade
> >and foreign investment."
> >
> >The Fed and Greenspan have nothing to do with trade policy.
> >Regardless, lowering trade barriers raises is a good thing. Lower
> >trade barriers increase foreign competition in many industries
> >and this lowers prices to the consumers. It also expands production,
> >employment, and profits in export industries.
>
> This is disingeuous. Greenspan appeared on TV, numerous times, urging the
> passage of NAFTA and PNTR for China, lending his visible support to both
> causes.
Greenspan's views on economic policy are taken seriously, to be
sure, but it's not at all disingenuous to say he does not set trade
policy.
> Importing goods from the slave states before the US Civil War also
> lowered costs to consumers, but was that a good thing? I don't think so. That
> is exactly what is occurring now, except on a global scale.
You must be looking for a reason, any reason, to justify erecting
trade barriers against imports. Why else would you build a totally
ficticious "slave labor" strawman? Look, I don't know what world
you live in, but in the real world slave labor is not happening on a
"global scale" anymore.
> >"All forms of debt reduce real purchasing power due to the additional
> >costs of interest."
> >
> >No, that's not true.
>
> That is a ridiculous statement. Of course, interest payments reduce purchasing
> power. For example, if I have $1,000 a month to spend and 150 dollars is taken
> up by interest payments, then I only have $850 to spend on things other than
> interest.
It's only ridiculous if you have little or no ability to think clearly.
If a debt and an interest payment just suddenly showed up in a
person's budget out of nowhere, then I'd agree with you.
However, this is never the case. One must go out of his way
to incur a debt. Interest payments are made to pay for the
use of someone else's money, which in turn is used to purchase
some useful thing that either provides utility or income, or both.
People incur a debt in order to purchase an asset.
I make a monthly mortgage payment. This does not reduce my
purchasing power; it is a part of my purchasing power. By
making those payments I purchase housing services. It would
be all very well and good if I didn't have to make those payments;
I'd certainly be better off if I could keep the house *and* not
have to make payments. But that would be no different that
wishing someone would just give me a house for free. We don't
live in that kind of fantasy world. If I decided to stop making
those payments, then I would lose the use of the house.
> Plese enlighten us all. What causes inflation?
>
> Could it be that inflation is the shadow behind the wall? Are we using
> "commodity money" standards in an era of "soft money"?
The distinction you make is illusionary. There's not a bit of difference
between the causes and effects of inflation under a gold standard as
under a fiat standard.
I've said before many, many times what the cause of inflation is. In
the short-run there can be many factors that could cause demand-pull
or cost-push inflation, examples of which you have given. However,
persistent, long-run inflation can have only one possible cause:
excessive money growth.
Grinch
>........
>The major bouts of inflation the US has faced in the last 30 years
>were caused by something that the FED had absolutely no control over,
>whatsoever.
False, absolutely.
For instance....
>Then in the early 1970's the US underwent another bout of inflation, this time
>caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil.
>
>This time the US was on a "soft money" standard.
>
>During the late 1970's the US had another bout of inflation, caused this time
>by another sharp rise in the price of oil.
Now, we've been over all this before, yet you keep repeating it.
The US inflation was caused not by the oil price rise, but by the
Fed's mistaken and inept response it, which was to reduce interest
rates to *negative* levels and let the money supply rip.
As I've pointed out to you before, if you think the oil price rise
itself caused inflation, then you have to explain why it *didn't*
cause inflation in other countries where it was felt much more sharply
than in the US. Not in Germany or Switzerland, for instance.
And look at Japan: 20% inflation there before the first oil shock in
'73 was steadily *reduced* during the crisis to under 2% inflation one
year after the second oil shock -- just when "oil price inflation"
should have been topping (and was in the US).
Remember that Japan, Germany and Switzerland all felt a much *larger*
oil shock than did the US, because they had no domestic oil industries
still pumping out large amounts of cheap Texas oil.
But unlike the Fed, the German and Swiss central banks undertook
explicit monetary policies aimed at maintaining price stability -- and
the Bank of Japan stuck to an explicit policy of *reducing* inflation
all the way through the oil crisis.
So... if you really think that inflation resulting from the oil crisis
was something that central banks had "absolutely no control over,
whatsoever", then just *how* do you explain the way inflation varied
so much in each country -- in total accord with each's central bank
policy?
And how do you explain that inflation *declined* where the oil shock
hit *hardest*, and rose the most where it was most cushioned?
JHogan2359
>Date: 8/12/00 7:30 AM Central
>>Then in the early 1970's the US underwent another bout of inflation, this
>>time
>>caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil.
>>
>
>Today they claim that same sharp rise in the price of oil will not cause
>inflation.
>>
>>Since the FED cannot control the price of oil, and since the US is no longer
>>on
>>a "commodity money" standard, how is the FED supposedly responsible for
>these
>>external influences?
>>
>
>They will respond in what they do best. They will lie like hell and tell you
>that their is no inflation. Remember the FED only purpose is to protect the
>profit of the banking interest.
>
>>Even today, if energy and food prices are removed (as they are), inflation
>is
>>nowhere to be found
The point that I'm trying to make is that food and energy DO affect the cost of
living. The economic guru's have deemed that they don't matter, since they can
fluctuate from month-to-month. It seems to me that if this was the problem,
then it could be statistically weighted in such a way as to level out the
monthly fluctuations.
This irks me to no end, because is is basically dishonest. It appears that the
main reason (though not the only one) for adopting this dishonest standard is
to deny (or lessen) COLA's (cost of living adjustments) for recipients of
some governmental entitlement programs, such as Social Security.
>
>Really have you been house hunting. Have you been to your local drug store?
>Even if you happen to live in a cave which one must if they cannot find
>inflation then how much is left when food and energy is taken out of the
>family
>budget?
>
>>Why is the FED clamping
>>down on interest rates?
>
>Because the Euro is .90 and the japanese yen is falling. They are raising
>interest rates to protect the value of the banks dollars.
I think it would be the other way around; if the dollar was falling, and the
FED wanted to protect the value of the dollar, then the FED would raise
interest rates to make dollar-denominated assets more attractive.
JHogan2359
>Date: 8/12/00 9:46 AM Central
>JHogan2359 wrote:
>
>> >From: Edward Flaherty flah...@cofc.edu
>> >Date: 8/10/00 12:43 PM Central
>>
>>
>> Even today, if energy and food prices are removed (as they are), inflation
>is
>> nowhere to be found. So reasonable people might ask: Why is the FED
>clamping
>> down on interest rates?
>
>Yes, it's a reasonable question, and there is a reasonable answer.
>It is more difficult, perhaps much more difficult, to attack inflation
>when it has already appeared than to take steps now to prevent
>it from appearing in the first place. We can raise interest rates a
>little today and slow GDP growth to a more sustainable level, or
>we can wait until inflation has struck to the point where a
>recession is necessary to get rid of it.
For years and years, we worried about the Phillips Curve and the NIARU (the
non-inflationary rate of unemployment.) It was thought that there was a level
of unemployment below which additional employment would set off a series of
wage increases, as employers began to outbid each other for employees.
There may be such a point--indeed, common sense suggests that there must be
one.
But it isn't at the present level of unemployment, which nationally is running
at about 4%.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the "unemployment" rate. I don't think
that what is reported is the true level of unemployment, as measured by the
number of people available for work. I think--and there have been some studies
to support this--that there are many more people who would make themselves
available if the pay was higher. I have even seen studies that the
_employment_ rate in the US is no higher that 65-70% of the available work
force.
Even if the true unemployment number was near zero, it would not matter if no
one could ever get a "real" raise in pay--the unit labor cost would remain the
same.
And even under the same circumstances, if employees got a raise equal to the
increase in productivity, inflation would still not materialize. Today,
employees are getting much less than the increases in productivity.
<snip rhetorical flourish>.
>
>> Importing goods from the slave states before the US Civil War also
>> lowered costs to consumers, but was that a good thing? I don't think so.
>That
>> is exactly what is occurring now, except on a global scale.
>
>You must be looking for a reason, any reason, to justify erecting
>trade barriers against imports. Why else would you build a totally
>ficticious "slave labor" strawman? Look, I don't know what world
>you live in, but in the real world slave labor is not happening on a
>"global scale" anymore.
Just as a point of reference, I lived a part of my youth in central Alabama.
In those days, the field hands were picked up at daybreak in flatbed trucks.
They brought their lunch with them. They worked all day long, chopping cotton.
At sunset, the trucks brought them home. For their days work, they made the
sum of $2.00. That amounted to the whopping total of $10 a week.
During the late summer months, they picked cotton. It paid $0.02 cents per
pound, or $2.00 per cwt.
One time, I thought I'd try it. During an average day, I think I picked about
60 pounds of cotton, dragging that 6'-long sack behind me. So, I think I know
what slavery is--de facto and de jure--and what I describe as "slavery" isn't
too far off the mark. I cleared $6.00 that week, and never forgot it.
If people making pennies an hour is not considered "slave labor," then I don't
know what is.
I see the real world around me every day; I see people working for $6 to $7 an
hour doing jobs that would normally pay $10 to $15 an hour.
Many transnational corporations actively seek out countries where the wage
rates are low, where there is little or no protection for workers, where there
is no protection for the environment the workers live in. The CEO of General
Electric once said that his idea of the ideal corporation was one that was "on
a barge," so that it could relocate to the lowest cost country in the world.
The CEO of Boeing said that he looked forward to the day when Boeing could be
thought of as an international company, or something like that.
I am for "fair trade," not free trade. I have enough common sense to know that
I cannot compete against another person who does the same job for 1/10th my
wages. No matter how it is figured, it is a matter of survival--not so much
for me, but for my children. Politicians who would put me, and them, in this
spot will never get my support. Period.
Hooray for your house, and mine, too. We both make mortgage payments.
But according to Bank Rate Monitor, the average interest rate on credit cards
is over 17%, and the average balance is above $8,000. I haven't done the
arithmetic, but surely that translates into a major expense for the average
credit-card holder. Are people stupid to spend more than they make? Maybe.
Or are they simply postponing the ultimate day of reckoning? I suspect the
latter.
>
>> Plese enlighten us all. What causes inflation?
>>
>> Could it be that inflation is the shadow behind the wall? Are we using
>> "commodity money" standards in an era of "soft money"?
>
>The distinction you make is illusionary. There's not a bit of difference
>between the causes and effects of inflation under a gold standard as
>under a fiat standard.
Not to sound like a gold bug or anything (which I am not), but it was much
easier to keep track of the math then. Now it's like trying to nail Jello to
the wall. I always worry when the standards are so fluid that they escape real
definition. Makes me think they are meaningless.
>
>I've said before many, many times what the cause of inflation is. In
>the short-run there can be many factors that could cause demand-pull
>or cost-push inflation, examples of which you have given. However,
>persistent, long-run inflation can have only one possible cause:
>excessive money growth.
Then why was Japan not successful in "igniting" inflation with its "ZIRP" (Zero
interest rate policy), which, BTW, was the subject of your hero, Paul
Krugman's, last article.
JHogan2359
>Date: 8/13/00 1:20 AM Central
>On 12 Aug 2000 04:46:03 GMT, jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359) wrote:
>
>
>>........
>
>>The major bouts of inflation the US has faced in the last 30 years
>>were caused by something that the FED had absolutely no control over,
>>whatsoever.
>
>False, absolutely.
>
>For instance....
>
>>Then in the early 1970's the US underwent another bout of inflation, this
>time
>>caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil.
>>
>>This time the US was on a "soft money" standard.
>>
>>During the late 1970's the US had another bout of inflation, caused this
>time
>>by another sharp rise in the price of oil.
>
>Now, we've been over all this before, yet you keep repeating it.
That is because I am right and you are wrong.
In the late 1960's, Johnson refused to raise taxes to fund the Federal Budget.
The FED "monetized" the debt. That led to a devaluation of the dollar, hence
the incipient inflation that followed from that episode.
>
>The US inflation was caused not by the oil price rise, but by the
>Fed's mistaken and inept response it, which was to reduce interest
>rates to *negative* levels and let the money supply rip.
>
>As I've pointed out to you before, if you think the oil price rise
>itself caused inflation, then you have to explain why it *didn't*
>cause inflation in other countries where it was felt much more sharply
>than in the US. Not in Germany or Switzerland, for instance.
>
>And look at Japan: 20% inflation there before the first oil shock in
>'73 was steadily *reduced* during the crisis to under 2% inflation one
>year after the second oil shock -- just when "oil price inflation"
>should have been topping (and was in the US).
In most European countries the actual cost of crude oil is a minor cost of
fuel; the major part of the cost is taxes. So in Germany, Switzerland, Japan
the percentage cost rise of fuel was much lower than in the US. Also, those
countries have a much higher population density than the US. That matters
because at their population densities, alternative forms of transportation
become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by electricity
rather than petroleum-based fuels.
(Given the difficulty that the airlines have with overloading, maybe a
high-speed rail network in the US could alleviate some of these problems.)
>
>Remember that Japan, Germany and Switzerland all felt a much *larger*
>oil shock than did the US, because they had no domestic oil industries
>still pumping out large amounts of cheap Texas oil.
But "cheap" Texas oil wasn't cheap after the price of crude oil was
deregulated. It move then, as it does now, with the world price of crude,
which is set by OPEC.
>
>But unlike the Fed, the German and Swiss central banks undertook
>explicit monetary policies aimed at maintaining price stability -- and
>the Bank of Japan stuck to an explicit policy of *reducing* inflation
>all the way through the oil crisis.
I seem to remember a fellow named Paul Volcker, (then-Chairman of the FED), who
jacked interest rates up into the stratosphere. He stopped the rise in oil
prices, all right--after he had created a severe recession, and America was
introduced to a new word: "stagflation."
The bankers loved it. OPEC collected our money, put into their banks, which
then loaned it back to us at usurious interest rates.
Inflations stopped going up when the price of oil stopped going up. It came
down with the fall in the price of oil.
Most recently, the gains in the stock market have been fueled by a combination
of higher productivity of American workers (at nearly the same pay levels), and
a falling oil price.
Now one of the components has begun to change direction, and the FED still has
no control over the price of oil.
>
>So... if you really think that inflation resulting from the oil crisis
>was something that central banks had "absolutely no control over,
>whatsoever", then just *how* do you explain the way inflation varied
>so much in each country -- in total accord with each's central bank
>policy?
>
>And how do you explain that inflation *declined* where the oil shock
>hit *hardest*, and rose the most where it was most cushioned?
I think I explained some of this above, but if you are referring to Japan, it
was a property price "bubble" that undid them. When the Emperor's Royal
Grounds were valued at a level higher than the entire state of California,
something had to give, and it did.
They have never recovered.
mne...@my-deja.com
> countries have a much higher population density than the US. That
matters
> because at their population densities, alternative forms of
transportation
> become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by
electricity
> rather than petroleum-based fuels.
Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
Harold
>Also, those
>> countries have a much higher population density than the US. That
>matters
>> because at their population densities, alternative forms of
>transportation
>> become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by
>electricity
>> rather than petroleum-based fuels.
>
>Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
Nuclear power, of course!!
Regards, Harold
-----
"Why should we believe that you [AlGore] will tell the truth if
you are president when you don't when you are a candidate?"
-----Bill Bradley
Grinch
us one of his most entertaining posts yet....
>>From: Grinch oldn...@mindspring.com
>>Date: 8/13/00 1:20 AM Central
>
>>On 12 Aug 2000 04:46:03 GMT, jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359) wrote:
>>>........
>>
>>>The major bouts of inflation the US has faced in the last 30 years
>>>were caused by something that the FED had absolutely no control over,
>>>whatsoever.
>>
>>False, absolutely.
>>
>>For instance....
>>
>>>Then in the early 1970's the US underwent another bout of inflation, this time
>>>caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil.
>>>
>>>This time the US was on a "soft money" standard.
>>>
>>>During the late 1970's the US had another bout of inflation, caused this time
>>>by another sharp rise in the price of oil.
>>
>>Now, we've been over all this before, yet you keep repeating it.
>
>That is because I am right and you are wrong.
He says ... before refuting himself in his next three sentences. ;-)
>In the late 1960's, Johnson refused to raise taxes to fund the Federal Budget.
>The FED "monetized" the debt. That led to a devaluation of the dollar, hence
>the incipient inflation that followed from that episode.
Um... to "monetize" debt means to *run up the money supply* (the
"money" root of "monetize" might perhaps have tipped you off to this)
in order to inflate the currency so debt denominated in it costs less.
Governments do this when they don't want to raise taxes to finance
their debts off.
And yes, that is exactly what happened.
So you now are indeed right that you are wrong and I am right. ;-)
The Fed ran up the money supply and created the inflation.
>>The US inflation was caused not by the oil price rise, but by the
>>Fed's mistaken and inept response it, which was to reduce interest
>>rates to *negative* levels and let the money supply rip.
>>
>>As I've pointed out to you before, if you think the oil price rise
>>itself caused inflation, then you have to explain why it *didn't*
>>cause inflation in other countries where it was felt much more sharply
>>than in the US. Not in Germany or Switzerland, for instance.
>>
>>And look at Japan: 20% inflation there before the first oil shock in
>>'73 was steadily *reduced* during the crisis to under 2% inflation one
>>year after the second oil shock -- just when "oil price inflation"
>>should have been topping (and was in the US).
>
>In most European countries the actual cost of crude oil is a minor cost of
>fuel; the major part of the cost is taxes. So in Germany, Switzerland, Japan
>the percentage cost rise of fuel was much lower than in the US.
Wow! How many howlers in just three short lines?! ROTFL.
Well, I guess when you assume the task of simutaneously explaining why
rising oil prices must irresistably drive up inflation, and also why
inflation *fell* or remained unmoved in these countries during the
greatest oil price hike in history, the rest of us can expect to see
some Olympic Team-quality rationalizations on display.
First, do you want to check *when* the Europeans impopsed their famous
gasoline -- not oil -- taxes?
Second, let's assume (falsely) that they had their gasoline tax
structure of today -- price is 2/3rds tax -- then in effect in the
'70s on all oil. Then oil price rises 500% in real terms as it did. Is
the price of oil still only a minor part of the price of oil? ;-)
Are you saying that a tax-inclusive price of oil that's 333% of what
it was before is *too small* an increase to be noticed in Europe? ;-)
Third -- a new economic principle! If taxes are steep enough there can
be no inflation!! How have all the textbooks missed this so far? You
should write this idea up for publication and get yourself a Prize.
Fourth, the percentage cost rise of oil in those countries was
*higher* than in the US -- over 33% higher at the refinery, according
to the Department of Energy's historical data on its web site --
because 75% of US oil production was low-cost domestic while they
relied entirely on top-price imports.
Fifth -- how do you translate your claimed "lower rate of rise" of oil
prices into a 20%-to-2% *decline* in inflation in Japan?
Of course, the Bank of Japan immodestly says its monetary policy --
which reduced money growth by an *exactly* corresponding amount --
accomplished that feat.
But you have a *better* explanation below... ;-)
>Also, those
>countries have a much higher population density than the US. That matters
>because at their population densities, alternative forms of transportation
>become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by electricity
>rather than petroleum-based fuels.
And of course they didn't use oil in power stations to generate
electricity for those electric trains. And they didn't have diesel
trains. And with much higher population densities they didn't use oil
for home heating, or for fueling a denser population of cars, or on
energy generation for domestic consumption, or in industry...
>(Given the difficulty that the airlines have with overloading, maybe a
>high-speed rail network in the US could alleviate some of these problems.)
Coal powered?
>>Remember that Japan, Germany and Switzerland all felt a much *larger*
>>oil shock than did the US, because they had no domestic oil industries
>>still pumping out large amounts of cheap Texas oil.
>
>But "cheap" Texas oil wasn't cheap after the price of crude oil was
>deregulated. It move then, as it does now, with the world price of crude,
>which is set by OPEC.
You never have *any* data to back up any of your claims, do you?
Because if you looked things up you couldn't say such things.
Back to the DOE web site.... imported oil cost 60% more than domestic
oil at US refineries throughout the entire period. And 75% of US oil
was domestic. The result was that total average national cost of oil
at the refinery was 33+% higher in Japan and Germany than in the US
throughout the oil crisis. And as oil prices rose, of course they rose
by larger amounts in Japan and Germany than in the US to maintain the
relationship. Real data. Deal with it.
So again, how did inflation *decline so far* in Japan during all this?
And stay the same in Germany?
Hint: Money supply
>>But unlike the Fed, the German and Swiss central banks undertook
>>explicit monetary policies aimed at maintaining price stability -- and
>>the Bank of Japan stuck to an explicit policy of *reducing* inflation
>>all the way through the oil crisis.
>
>I seem to remember a fellow named Paul Volcker, (then-Chairman of the FED), who
>jacked interest rates up into the stratosphere. He stopped the rise in oil
>prices,
To quote the DOE historical timeline on this, "The rise in oil prices
was stopped by the Saudis in 1982 when they flooded the market with
cheap oil".
The DOE is right, you are wrong.
>all right--after he had created a severe recession, and America was
>introduced to a new word: "stagflation."
Gosh, you can't get *any* fact right.
Stagflation was slow growth plus inflation in '70s, after the first
oil price shock. Volcker wasn't there then.
What Volcker provided was a *recession* in the '80s that was the
steepest since the '30s. I'd think you would know *that*.
>The bankers loved it.
Oh yes, bankers *love* steep recessions when they can't make any
loans and the default rate zooms on the loans they have. ;-).
Like all good businesspeople, they love to have their profits slashed.
> OPEC collected our money, put into their banks, which
>then loaned it back to us at usurious interest rates.
The bankers also loved losing 60% of their principal on outstanding
loans to inflation, in addition to the recession.
It was a *golden age* of banking!
>Inflations stopped going up when the price of oil stopped going up.
Wrong again! Inflation peaked in '80 and started falling in '81.
Oil prices continued rising through '81 and started falling only in
'82.
You have no respect for facts at all.
>It came down with the fall in the price of oil.
Besides, you have to specify: In what country?
In Japan inflation started going down in '73 just as the price of oil
surged up. Inflation kept going down all through the oil crisis.
Then when the price of oil started going down again in '82, inflation
in Japan started going up! Go figure.
That dang monetary policy again.
>Most recently, the gains in the stock market have been fueled by a combination
>of higher productivity of American workers (at nearly the same pay levels), and
>a falling oil price.
The fall in oil prices over the last 18 months from $12 to $30? ;-)
Which actually is a much larger increase than during the oil crisis of
'73. Which, you instruct us, inevitably produced all that inflation.
>Now one of the components has begun to change direction, and the FED still has
>no control over the price of oil.
How long are we going to have to wait for the inflation (and resulting
stock market debable) of the oil crisis of '99?
We sure didn't have to wait this long in '73. We were already well
into gas lines by now.
Oil prices are going down again now. Don't tell us we've missed it.
Of course, after the '73 shock the Fed lowered rates to create a
*negative* interest rate for a couple years, while through this shock
it raised rates. Do you suppose that makes any difference regarding
inflation?
>>So... if you really think that inflation resulting from the oil crisis
>>was something that central banks had "absolutely no control over,
>>whatsoever", then just *how* do you explain the way inflation varied
>>so much in each country -- in total accord with each's central bank
>>policy?
>>
>>And how do you explain that inflation *declined* where the oil shock
>>hit *hardest*, and rose the most where it was most cushioned?
>
>I think I explained some of this above, but if you are referring to Japan, it
>was a property price "bubble" that undid them. When the Emperor's Royal
>Grounds were valued at a level higher than the entire state of California,
>something had to give, and it did.
>They have never recovered.
Gasp! You are saying that inflation in Japan declined from 20% to 2%
during the oil crisis of the 1970s as a result of the "bubble" of the
early 1990s?
The deflationary impact of the bubble bursting was transmitted
backwards through time!!
Prove that and you really *will* get a Prize!
You are giving a nice display of what happens when one separates
oneself from factual reality to preserve a cherished belief system.
David Cross
news:vmahpsctl3vscvvis...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Aug 2000 02:00:24 GMT, jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359) provided
> us one of his most entertaining posts yet....
of
> >fuel; the major part of the cost is taxes. So in Germany, Switzerland,
Japan
> >the percentage cost rise of fuel was much lower than in the US.
[ snip ]
> Fifth -- how do you translate your claimed "lower rate of rise" of oil
> prices into a 20%-to-2% *decline* in inflation in Japan?
>
> Of course, the Bank of Japan immodestly says its monetary policy --
> which reduced money growth by an *exactly* corresponding amount --
> accomplished that feat.
>
> But you have a *better* explanation below... ;-)
[ megasnip ]
Just a small note - I've seen graphs (I actually know what book they're in,
but I don't own it; I'll have to reget it from the library and check the
graphs in Debt and Delusions by a guy named Warburton) that show that in
Europe, even in West Germany (a country well-known for being paranoid about
inflation), inflation did spike up in 1973 across the board; the degree to
which it spiked up, though, was directly dependent on to what level the
central banks involved tried to accomodate the price shock (ie. to what
degree the monetary policy was biased towards lowering unemployment at the
expense of higher inflation).
My errors are my own, of course =)
Grinch
<david...@telus.net> wrote:
>"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:vmahpsctl3vscvvis...@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Aug 2000 02:00:24 GMT, jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359) ...
.
>> >In most European countries the actual cost of crude oil is a minor cost
>> >of fuel; the major part of the cost is taxes. So in Germany, Switzerland,
>> >Japan the percentage cost rise of fuel was much lower than in the US.
>
>[ snip ]
>
>> Fifth -- how do you translate your claimed "lower rate of rise" of oil
>> prices into a 20%-to-2% *decline* in inflation in Japan?
>>
>> Of course, the Bank of Japan immodestly says its monetary policy --
>> which reduced money growth by an *exactly* corresponding amount --
>> accomplished that feat.
>>
>> But you have a *better* explanation below... ;-)
>
>[ megasnip ]
>
>Just a small note - I've seen graphs (I actually know what book they're in,
>but I don't own it; I'll have to reget it from the library and check the
>graphs in Debt and Delusions by a guy named Warburton) that show that in
>Europe, even in West Germany (a country well-known for being paranoid about
>inflation), inflation did spike up in 1973 across the board; the degree to
>which it spiked up, though, was directly dependent on to what level the
>central banks involved tried to accomodate the price shock (ie. to what
>degree the monetary policy was biased towards lowering unemployment at the
>expense of higher inflation).
That is correct, sir.
Hyman Blumenstock
mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Also, those
> > countries have a much higher population density than the US. That
> matters
> > because at their population densities, alternative forms of
> transportation
> > become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by
> electricity
> > rather than petroleum-based fuels.
>
> Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
Fundamentally, the same place lightning comes from.
HB
mne...@my-deja.com
place does lightning come?
In article <399A80C3...@home.com>,
Hyman Blumenstock <hys...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Also, those
> > > countries have a much higher population density than the US. That
> > matters
> > > because at their population densities, alternative forms of
> > transportation
> > > become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by
> > electricity
> > > rather than petroleum-based fuels.
> >
> > Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
>
> Fundamentally, the same place lightning comes from.
>
> HB
> >
Hyman Blumenstock
mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> No one but Blumenstock answer, please. Hyman, from what fundamental
> place does lightning come?
Do you still need advice on toilet training?
What is the source of all our energy on earth? No, not the moon. It
is the SUN. The sun causes convection currents in the atmosphere that
when it becomes violent enough, shifts countless electrons from their
molecules to create an electrical charge, that when it finally breaks
down the electrical resistance of the air, creates a tremendous spark.
The oil deposits are the result also of the energy emanating from the
sun, for the sun promotes growth of vegetation carbohydrates that become
after a while, hydrocarbons, from which fossil is derived. It is a
total waste and highly destructive to use the energy stored in those oil
deposits because it is restoring the original atmosphere that is
poisonous to all air breathing animals, including us. Instead we should
by now have massive programs deriving all our energy needs directly from
the sun. Where is the funding? Ask Greenspan and the rest of the
economic fraternity?
HB
>
> In article <399A80C3...@home.com>,
> Hyman Blumenstock <hys...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, those
> > > > countries have a much higher population density than the US. That
> > > matters
> > > > because at their population densities, alternative forms of
> > > transportation
> > > > become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by
> > > electricity
> > > > rather than petroleum-based fuels.
> > >
> > > Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
> >
> > Fundamentally, the same place lightning comes from.
> >
> > HB
> > >
mne...@my-deja.com
Hyman Blumenstock <hys...@home.com> wrote:
> Do you still need advice on toilet training?
No I am perfectly capable of pissing on your leg without your
assistance.
> It is a
> total waste and highly destructive to use the energy stored in those ?
> oil
> deposits because it is restoring the original atmosphere that is
> poisonous to all air breathing animals, including us.
Funny that you should bring this up. Because it was my original point
that trains powered by electricity are ultimately powered by fossil
fuels. We get very little of our energy from nuclear, solar, and
hydroelectric plants.
JHogan2359
>Date: 8/15/00 11:51 AM Central Daylight Time
>
>On 15 Aug 2000 02:00:24 GMT, jhoga...@aol.com (JHogan2359)
>
Give yourself a point. The FED did, indeed, have some control over the
inflation that took place prior to 1971.
I'm going to do some major snippage in this post to shorten it. Besides, I
cannot refute what you have posited, in the particulars. You may well be
absolutely corrrect in every statistic you posted.
But the inescapable fact remains that the major reason that there was an
increase in monetary demand was to pay for the increased price of oil.
***
Paul Voelker was chairman of the FED from August 6, 1979 to August 11, 1987.
(See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data/m/fedfund.txt)
He did indeed raise interest rates sharply, and in the process created a severe
recession. This was to try to wring out the inflation that was caused by the
increased price of oil.
And after he left, the price of oil jumped again.
So, we're back to square one.
JHogan2359
>Date: 8/15/00 8:26 AM Central
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:20:12 GMT, mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Also, those
>>> countries have a much higher population density than the US. That
>>matters
>>> because at their population densities, alternative forms of
>>transportation
>>> become viable; for instance, train travel, which can be powered by
>>electricity
>>> rather than petroleum-based fuels.
>>
>>Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
>
>Nuclear power, of course!!
>
Are you sitting down, Harold? I don't want you to faint and fall down and hurt
yourself, or anything.
This will put me at odds with some of my like-minded cohorts, but I think that
we should employ nuclear power wherever it is possible to do so, with the
following constraints:
o- That the plants be located in geologically-stable areas. Electricity can
easily be transmitted over (reasonably short) distances.
o- That a method of disposing of the wastes be in place before any additional
plants are constructed. There are several methods that readily come to mind
that would contain any potentially-hazardous material.
o- That a uniform design be employed in constructing the plants, with the only
deviation being the method of anchoring them to the earth. This would greatly
reduce the engineering costs of the plants. Building "experimental" plants
should be done on a very small scale.
o- The Federal government should build and operate all of them. One of the
great successes of earlier years was the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). We
should build on that experience.
Harold
>>From: Harold haroldb...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 8/15/00 8:26 AM Central
>
>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:20:12 GMT, mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
[edited]
>>>
>>>Powered by electricity? Where does the electricity come from?
>>
>>Nuclear power, of course!!
>>
>Are you sitting down, Harold? I don't want you to faint and fall down and hurt
>yourself, or anything.
>
I am happy I took your advice, I was in grave danger after reading
your post.
>This will put me at odds with some of my like-minded cohorts, but I think that
>we should employ nuclear power wherever it is possible to do so, with the
>following constraints:
>
>o- That the plants be located in geologically-stable areas. Electricity can
>easily be transmitted over (reasonably short) distances.
>
>o- That a method of disposing of the wastes be in place before any additional
>plants are constructed. There are several methods that readily come to mind
>that would contain any potentially-hazardous material.
>
>o- That a uniform design be employed in constructing the plants, with the only
>deviation being the method of anchoring them to the earth. This would greatly
>reduce the engineering costs of the plants. Building "experimental" plants
>should be done on a very small scale.
>
>o- The Federal government should build and operate all of them. One of the
>great successes of earlier years was the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). We
>should build on that experience.
I am not sure why you think the Government would be better than
private parties, particularly in view of the observation that almost
all of the most polluted sites, and many of the nuclear "incidents",
have been under government control.
The rest of your comments I think well reasoned and on point.
Regards, Harold
-------
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap,
we should soon want bread."
--- Jefferson, 1816
Hyman Blumenstock
And the reason why that is the case? Because of a deliberate
insufficiency of funding that preserves the ancient status of Have vs.
Have-Not, that maintains taxation of money, that extols the concept of
taxpayer's money that creates hostility towards spending towards
creating methods of more and better uses for solar energy
HB.
H. Schmoll
news:399AF6B6...@home.com...
> mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > No one but Blumenstock answer, please. Hyman, from what fundamental
> > place does lightning come?
>
>
> is the SUN.
Actually, the potential for energy on earth comes from a huge number of
sources not just the sun. The largest source of continuous "energy" (The
term is kind of ambiguous in this context.) that influences the earth is
probably Gravity. The force that is applied to the earth by gravity in one
day greatly exceeds the potential for energy that is received from the sun.
Think about the huge amount of pressure that every human on the earth is
subject to every second of their life, not to mention the direct force of
gravity on that person. Man uses gravity through hydro-plants,
geothermo-plants, etc.... The sun may be the next largest source of
"energy" though I'm not sure. Other energy sources include the moon
(through gravity, electromagnetic fields, and radiation), radioactive decay
of elements within the earth, chemical reactions, etc....
> The sun causes convection currents in the atmosphere that
> when it becomes violent enough, shifts countless electrons from their
> molecules to create an electrical charge, that when it finally breaks
> down the electrical resistance of the air, creates a tremendous spark.
Lightning can occur without influence of the sun. Sunlight can hardly
scratch the surface of Venus but lightning occurs there. The pressure of
Venus' huge atmosphere causes the surface of the planet to be very hot. A
by-product is sever weather including lightning from negatively charged
particles reacting with positively charged particles. Volcanoes also cause
lightning....
> The oil deposits are the result also of the energy emanating from the
> sun, for the sun promotes growth of vegetation carbohydrates that become
> after a while, hydrocarbons, from which fossil is derived. It is a
> total waste and highly destructive to use the energy stored in those oil
> deposits because it is restoring the original atmosphere that is
> poisonous to all air breathing animals, including us. Instead we should
> by now have massive programs deriving all our energy needs directly from
> the sun. Where is the funding? Ask Greenspan and the rest of the
> economic fraternity?
I agree. I think that fossil fuels are definitely harmful. If it were up
to me fossil fuels would have been abandoned a long time ago. However, you
and me don't really have a say. It is our "actions" as a society that will
determine when we finally drop the use of fossil fuels. It is our actions,
not our motives or our individual thoughts of what is right or wrong. We
say that burning fossil fuels is wrong and yet we still drive to work, still
buy products that were shipped in using fossil fuels, etc.... Think about
it for a sec: Everything you buy in a store has been transported, at least
in part, using fossil fuels. Everything. So switching to a new but
expensive alternative will have huge effects of inflation.
Essentially, it all comes down to costs and benefits. The benefits gained
to the consumer by using fossil fuel still greatly outweigh the costs. And
the costs to the consumer of using alternative fuels outweigh the benefits.
Slowly over time, the costs of fuel will rise and the costs of alternative
fuels decrease. Eventually, fossil fuels will be phased out.
As for government intervention, subsidizing solar power is alright if it is
done right. So you raise taxes to give money to those people who
produce/research alternate energy sources thereby lowering the cost of
production and hopefully lowering the price to the consumer assuming perfect
competition (otherwise bad things will happen....). If the price is still
too high (price alternative >> price gasoline let's say) nobody is going to
switch so the money is mostly wasted and the tax payers lose. Social
planners would be better off increasing the price of fossil fuels by
increasing the gas-tax (everyone knows how popular that would be).
Increasing the price of fossil fuels would encourage people to switch as
well as help to compensate for negative externalities. The technology
exists. It has for at least 20 years. It just couldn't compete with low
gas prices.
Anyway, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm just calling it like I see
it.
H. Schmoll
Hyman Blumenstock
"H. Schmoll" wrote:
>
> "Hyman Blumenstock" <hys...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:399AF6B6...@home.com...
> > mne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No one but Blumenstock answer, please. Hyman, from what fundamental
> > > place does lightning come?
> >
> > Do you still need advice on toilet training?
> >
> > What is the source of all our energy on earth? No, not the moon. It
> > is the SUN.
>
> Actually, the potential for energy on earth comes from a huge number of
> sources not just the sun. The largest source of continuous "energy" (The
> term is kind of ambiguous in this context.) that influences the earth is
> probably Gravity. The force that is applied to the earth by gravity in one
> day greatly exceeds the potential for energy that is received from the sun.
> Think about the huge amount of pressure that every human on the earth is
> subject to every second of their life, not to mention the direct force of
> gravity on that person. Man uses gravity through hydro-plants,
> geothermo-plants, etc.... The sun may be the next largest source of
> "energy" though I'm not sure. Other energy sources include the moon
> (through gravity, electromagnetic fields, and radiation), radioactive decay
> of elements within the earth, chemical reactions, etc....
Well, I was thinking of kinetic energy rather than potential energy in
this instance. The potential energy of gravity could not be turned into
kinetic energy unless kinetic energy could be applied first, to say,
lift a body resting on the earth up into space, and then that energy
that it took to lift it, would be available if the body would be let
loose to fall again, to be fully expended upon coming to a stop again.
The moon circling the earth contains an enormous amount of potential
energy, but very litle of it is expended in its circling the earth.
That little is the reaction of the gravitational pull of the earth and
the miniscule lift of the earth's substance as the moon passes overhead,
and the fall again as it goes on its way.
Eventually, the potential energy of the moon at its altitude above the
earth will all be expended, and the moon will move ever closer to the
earth, and eventually strike it, to become one with it. Likewise, the
planets, including the earth, being pulled into the sun. The energy of
lightning is almost instantanous by comparison, as the electrons are
stripped from air molecules by the rapid convection of the air, until
enormous quantities of electrons are shifted to create the millions of
volts that will break down the air with a massive return of electrons to
their original neutral positions in a lightning flash. The convection
currents are generated by the heat energy emanating from the sun.
How the solar system was formed in the first place, is still subject to
all kinds of conjecture -- perhaps a primal big bang.
>
> > The sun causes convection currents in the atmosphere that
> > when it becomes violent enough, shifts countless electrons from their
> > molecules to create an electrical charge, that when it finally breaks
> > down the electrical resistance of the air, creates a tremendous spark.
>
> Lightning can occur without influence of the sun. Sunlight can hardly
> scratch the surface of Venus but lightning occurs there. The pressure of
> Venus' huge atmosphere causes the surface of the planet to be very hot. A
> by-product is sever weather including lightning from negatively charged
> particles reacting with positively charged particles. Volcanoes also cause
> lightning....
Whatever heat there is on Venus, is sourced in the primal source, as is
our own inner earth temperatures, evident in volcanoes. The lightning
on earth, that is the subject here, is mostly an atmospheric phenomenon,
and that is what was addressed.
>
> > The oil deposits are the result also of the energy emanating from the
> > sun, for the sun promotes growth of vegetation carbohydrates that become
> > after a while, hydrocarbons, from which fossil is derived. It is a
> > total waste and highly destructive to use the energy stored in those oil
> > deposits because it is restoring the original atmosphere that is
> > poisonous to all air breathing animals, including us. Instead we should
> > by now have massive programs deriving all our energy needs directly from
> > the sun. Where is the funding? Ask Greenspan and the rest of the
> > economic fraternity?
>
> I agree. I think that fossil fuels are definitely harmful. If it were up
> to me fossil fuels would have been abandoned a long time ago. However, you
> and me don't really have a say. It is our "actions" as a society that will
> determine when we finally drop the use of fossil fuels. It is our actions,
> not our motives or our individual thoughts of what is right or wrong. We
> say that burning fossil fuels is wrong and yet we still drive to work, still
> buy products that were shipped in using fossil fuels, etc.... Think about
> it for a sec: Everything you buy in a store has been transported, at least
> in part, using fossil fuels. Everything. So switching to a new but
> expensive alternative will have huge effects of inflation.
Here, you reveal a sad anomaly in your train of thought, adhering to
clear logical evidence in real scientific matters, but allowing it to be
subject to doctrinaire economic BS. That is evident in your comments
about "expensive," "inflation," and ignoring the fact that "money" is a
pure fantasy, that money was invented to act as a surrogate for scarce
food so as to insure that those deemed least entitled to eat could not
access food they needed. The concept of "expensive" means literally,
that you think we cannot afford to feed those people who would have to
have food expended in their support for them to perform those
"expensive" tasks. Do we suffer from food scarcity this last century,
that raises such a question legitimately? No, what we suffer from is an
arbitrarily declared money scarcity, and arbitrarily require money as an
exchange for food, so that people are still put into the category of
Have-Not, despite there being enough for everyone to be a Have. People
are fed anyhow via charity and welfare programs, but are still demeaned
and humiliated enough to retain the old evils of not having enough when
food was scarce.
>
> Essentially, it all comes down to costs and benefits. The benefits gained
> to the consumer by using fossil fuel still greatly outweigh the costs. And
> the costs to the consumer of using alternative fuels outweigh the benefits.
> Slowly over time, the costs of fuel will rise and the costs of alternative
> fuels decrease. Eventually, fossil fuels will be phased out.
Again, what does "cost" mean? It means, literally, "can we afford the
'cost' of feeding everyone needed to do anything?" Can we not with food
coming out of our ears, with a current 50% obesity rate? How can
someone with your obvious intellect give any credence at all to the
economic fraternity?
>
> As for government intervention, subsidizing solar power is alright if it is
> done right. So you raise taxes to give money to those people who
> produce/research alternate energy sources thereby lowering the cost of
> production and hopefully lowering the price to the consumer assuming perfect
> competition (otherwise bad things will happen....).
Here again, was not "taxes" in the direct form of food, during the
Agrarian era, when everyone had to be his own food producer? What logic
dictates that taxes in the form of "money" makes any sense, particularly
when we are strictly forbidden to create money ourselves, as once we had
to create food ourselves? Only the Federal Reserve has been granted
that right, and to any degree it chooses. What sense is there in also
creating the IRS at the same time, and having it seek money revenue only
from the taxpayer, who is forbidden to create money, and not from the
only legal source of money, the Federal Reserve? That we also have our
faces rubbed in this BS by declaring any expenditure of money to be
"taxpayer's money" wherein public resistance to spending is created,
indicates a venal situation created against our welfare. And why
"prices" when simple logic indicates, that as with Air and Water, freely
available (though apparently not for long) food should be made as much
freely available, eliminating all consideration of "cost" and "expense?"
> If the price is still
> too high (price alternative >> price gasoline let's say) nobody is going to
> switch so the money is mostly wasted and the tax payers lose. Social
> planners would be better off increasing the price of fossil fuels by
> increasing the gas-tax (everyone knows how popular that would be).
> Increasing the price of fossil fuels would encourage people to switch as
> well as help to compensate for negative externalities. The technology
> exists. It has for at least 20 years. It just couldn't compete with low
> gas prices.
>
> Anyway, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm just calling it like I see
> it.
You ought to rethink and eliminate that dichotomy in your mind that on
the one hand, sees the successful physical sciences as they are, and on
the other hand gives any faith and credit at all to the social sciences
(an oxymoron if there ever was one), a collection of disciplines
experiencing total failure at ever resolving any problems within their
domain. The chief one is Economics, whose members have managed to
infest every nook and cranny of society like cockroaches, and are
running things, advising presidents and kings and our legislative
bodies, not for our welfare, but only theirs-- their self
aggrandizement. We are being had by the most oppressive and skilled con
men that ever afflicted any society in history.
The essence of "economics" is that which a new born baby is born knowing
naturally, "Feel a hunger pang, do something about it, and then, on
feeding, know peace and contentment, until the next hunger pang." What
has any of the 800 page propaganda and BS filled, deliberately
obfuscating, current economic textbooks got to do with that? Time is
running out for our civilization as they are driving us to their
cherished goal where they originated and gained some standing on the
merits of determining who shall not eat, though one of their number,
Marx, suggested a sharing process rather than too much for some and
nothing for the rest. See <http://dieoff.org/page5.htm> for the near
future if we don't shake them off our backs.
HB
>
> H. Schmoll