Hey YOU! Think this is a Great Economy? Are You HIGH?
milt....@gmail.com
Hey YOU! Think this is a Great Economy? Are You HIGH?
by Milt Shook
Hey you!
Yeah, I'm talking to you!
How do you think the economy's doing? If you think it's going great,
raise your hands!
Wow, that's a lot of hands… guess it's going really well, then, huh? I
guess, because the government tell you how great it is every chance it
gets, well, it must be just great. I mean the numbers they put out
every month indicate that the economy's moving right along. I mean,
all of that growth! And unemployment's still kind of low, right? And
hey -- according to the Consumer Price Index, inflation's really not
so bad, is it?
But wait -- isn't this the same government continues to tell you that
Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots on 9/11? Aren't these the same
people who told us that the war in Iraq would only cost a few billion
dollars, take a month or two, and be entirely paid for with Iraqi oil
money? Don't they tell us they don't torture anyone, while they're
torturing people? Didn't they assure us that they would never spy on
us without a warrant, while they were in the midst of a plan to spy on
us without a warrant?
Yeah, but they're a bunch of greedheads, right? They love money! No
way they would lie to us about how well the economy's doing, right?
Hell, yes they would.
Remember the economic doldrums we found ourselves in from about 1973
until about the mid-1990s? It's back with a vengeance. Forget the
statistics, folks; use your instincts for once. How do you actually
feel about the economy? Well, if you're feeling good about it, then
you're buying into the bullshit. Stop it!
Take your head out of the statistics and ask yourself, what’s so great
about it, anyway? They keep telling you everything's wonderful, but
name one thing that's gotten better in the last six years, besides the
size of the limits on your credit cards. Okay, maybe the security
guard industry's doing well lately, but that's about it.
Now, let me start off by saying that, in pure dollar terms, we are
still the 900-lb economic gorilla when it comes to Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) But there is more smoke and mirrors there than you
think. As taxpayers, we've saddled our children with more than $9
trillion in debt, and a trade deficit that won't be eliminated in
their lifetimes, either. Not only that, but we're adding to the debt
to the tune of almost a half trillion per year, when you include the
hundreds of billions they're skimming off the Social Security surplus.
Our annual expenditure for debt service is almost as high as our
defense budget, which is ridiculous. It's not only the largest in the
world; it exceeds the amount every other nation in the world spends,
combined. And to buy what? It sure doesn't go to pay soldiers'
salaries and benefits. It doesn't go to body armor, or to take care of
soldiers when they come home. No, most of it goes to lining the
pockets of defense contractors. Think I'm kidding? Think of all of the
high tech gadgets the Pentagon brags about having, then ask yourself
when any of it has been put to use in any useful defense capacity. How
many stealth bombers are we using in Iraq? We apparently have the
technology to be able to see a flea on a rock from outer space and
pick him off with a laser, yet, we've been looking for a six-and-a-
half-foot tall Arab carrying a dialysis machine through the Pakistani
desert for six years now, and can't find him or his video studio.
Now, I'm not saying we should stop making stuff for the Pentagon. God
forbid; that's about all we manufacture anymore. Our entire
manufacturing base seems to be overpriced weapons systems, Japanese
branded cars and a some computer components. Aircraft industry giant
Boeing's highly anticipated 787 wasn't even built here; parts of it
were built all over the world, and they assembled them here. There is
very little in our stores that is made here these days. I live in
Maryland, and even a lot of the crab meat you buy here comes from
overseas.
Our economy started to tank in the 1970s, when the first of the
Republican breed was in charge, Richard Nixon. Nixon came from the
Herbert Hoover school of economics, that says, if you leave it alone,
the scab will heal itself. When inflation started in earnest, in
1973, his approach was to freeze wages and prices for 90 days. I'd be
willing to bet that any middle school kid can tell you why that's a
stupid idea; when the freeze is lifted, the result is just a steeper
price increase. Nixon's problem was that he didn't believe in
regulation, if he thought it could be avoided, so instead, he chose
manipulation. His "banking" program for gasoline prices kept prices
artificially low, by giving oil companies subsidies for keeping the
price under a dollar. Not only was it a stupid idea, but it only kept
gasoline prices low. Oil prices went through the roof, and we the
engine that drove that incredible inflationary period.
Under Nixon, we started closing plants here, and opening them up
overseas, with the government's blessing. Whole sections of the
country that had once been flush with well-paid factory jobs, became
the "Rust Belt." Companies which had used American labor for
incredible profits for many years after World War II, suddenly
complained about having to pay them at all, and decided that their
bottom line was more important than the country, and abandoned us for
cheap labor elsewhere. That trend eased in the mid-1990s, when Bill
Clinton actually made deals with trading partners, and factories began
opening up a bit.
But except for that brief period, which coincided with the
government's rare exercise of fiscal responsibility, the Wingnut era
of economic stupidity has practically destroyed everything the GI Bill
and the Marshall Plan built up in the 25 year period after World War
II. We have been lulled into a false sense of economic security by a
government that prints money as if it's just, well, paper, and which
has supported an economic regimen that essentially consists of moving
large amounts of money from one pocket to another. It's gone on for
more than 30 years now, although the real stupidity didn't start until
the 1980s, under that economic genius, Ronald Reagan.
Let's start out with one truism. Reagan did not win election in 1980
because of his boffo economic plan. Jimmy Carter lost because he had
the courage of his convictions and really did try to stop inflation,
by tightening the money supply for a time. If that had continued,
interest rates would have gone down, and inflation would have gone
back to normal levels. Did you know that a bottle of Coke was a nickel
in the 1930's and a dime in the early 1970's? A loaf of bread was a
quarter during World War II and about 35 cents in 1969. In other
words, for some reason, this country managed to function for many
years without huge price increases. Now, they happen every year,
regardless of whether they're necessary.
But Reagan started the downturn when he came into office with the
intent of deregulating everything, and by regaling us with tales of
"trickle-down," that wonderful, magical "theory" (read "bullshit
story") that, when the rich had more money, they would invest more in
those things that helped the poor. I challenge anyone to find me any
time in human history when a majority of the rich voluntarily helped a
majority of the poor. Sure, they'll buy more stock, and make
investment that way, but as I pointed out; most of that money goes to
building plants overseas. In the past, the rich were faced with a high
starting tax rate, but could lower it by investing in infrastructure.
Beginning with Reagan, they got that lower rate without doing a thing.
Meanwhile, we keep saddling our children and grandchildren with more
and more debt, pretty much guaranteeing high taxes during their adult
lives.
Look around you; where have lower taxes, deregulation and a near-
unanimous refusal on the part of Congress to enforce the Sherman Act
gotten us? Well, those policies have largely rendered entrepreneurship
dead, unless you call placing tiny little classified ads in newspapers
and getting people to buy copies of books on how to get rich
entrepreneurship. Think about it; what type of business can you start
these days that isn’t dominated by some huge multinational
conglomerate? Forget just about any retail, except for high-end shops
for rich people. In the last 40 years, we have gone from a nation of
really nice shops that took on the identity of their neighborhood and
their region, to a nation of strip malls and factory outlets, full of
the same businesses over and over.
Have you been to Times Square recently? I was there a few months ago,
and some idiot behind me was marveling about what a wonderful job
former Mayor Rudy Giuliani did in "rehabilitating" the area. I was
thinking, he had to be kidding, except that, when you think about it,
Times Square has become what Americans are accustomed to. I will admit
that it's probably better for tourists that the porn shops and nudie
bars are gone. But there is almost nothing in the area that screams
"New York," except the theaters. Who in their right mind goes to
fricking New York City and then hankers for some Applebee's? (Yes,
folks, there is an Applebee's, and a Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.) And
the shopping is a joke! Most of the stores are simply bigger, gaudier
versions of the same shops you can find in any suburban shopping mall
in the country. That's right, the famous Times Square has been turned
into a suburban shopping mall, and it's no longer possible for anyone
to simply rent a little space and sell their wares, because the
greedheads have driven the prices way out of anyone's range. You see,
those big chains are American business in the 21st century; a bunch of
look-alike stores selling the same Chinese-made garbage, which is
cheap, but pretty much guaranteed to break if you actually use it.
Seriously, folks; we're in deep trouble, economically speaking, and
it's only our incredible mountain of debt that has been hiding the
truth. Like I said; most of our supposed "wealth creation" consists of
moving money from one pocket to another. Enormous debt has been built
into our culture; we actually think it's "normal." It's difficult to
get a good job without a college degree, but the only way to pay for
college degrees nowadays is through student loans, and lots of them.
And not only does the average college student leave college with
mounds of student loan debt, but the same banks that make tons of
money from those guaranteed no-risk loans, also allow students to run
up a huge amount of credit card debt before they've even received a
pay check from the career they've trained for.
Our debt has given us the illusion that we are a thriving economy
since the early 1980s. And why not? If I gave you an unlimited line of
credit and said, "Buy anything you want, and as long as you just pay
me the interest, you can carry the debt until I decide I need the
money back," you could have a great time. You could borrow money to
make more money, and buy yourself a whole lot of bling, a house, a few
Ferraris -- no one would ever know that you're unemployed. But you
wouldn't really be rich, and when I asked for all of that money back,
you'd have a hell of a time paying it, wouldn't you?
Well, debt has been sinking this economy for more than 30 years.
Because of Republican right wing economic policy, which takes a
"social Darwinist" approach to economic policy, we are now looking,
for the first time, at a generation that will do less well than their
parents, in part because they will have to pay much higher taxes in
order to retire the debt we are leaving for them. Because of their
obsession with tax cuts as a panacea, their complete deregulation of
everything, a completely unrealistic approach to "free market"
economics that completely ignores the fact that there is no such
thing, and their patronage of their rich friends, to the detriment of
the grass roots, they have sold us down the river, and it's going to
take us a while to get back upstream.
Taxes do have an effect on the economy, but not the effect the right
would like you to believe. The tax code used to create incentives for
investment. When the top tax rate was 70%, for example, no one
actually paid 70%. If a person or a company helped build economic
infrastructure, they got tax credits or tax deductions. In other
words, if a company wanted to save money on taxes, it had to invest in
the country. Now, they don’t pay very much tax, so there is no
incentive to invest. And the result is what you see today; our
infrastructure is falling apart; 80 year old steam pipes are bursting
in Manhattan, factories are sitting idle, while its former workers are
flipping burgers or encouraging people to "have a nice day" for $7 an
hour. Taxes are no longer seen as an investment in the country;
they're seen as punitive, they're avoided, and we're forced to borrow
money just to keep things running.
Then there's the whole "deregulation" debacle which, combined with
this whole half-assed "free market" concept, demonstrates just how
stupid the right is, but how great they are at selling this snake oil.
Folks, people who believe that a lack of regulation and a completely
"free" market leads to economic prosperity must also believe that the
Easter Bunny flies around collecting teeth and handing kids toys on
Yom Kippur; it's absurd. There is a reason the Founding Fathers put
commerce regulation right there in the Constitution. They put it there
because they knew that capitalism is a brutal business; without
regulation, opportunities dry up. And boy, were they ever on the
money! What's happened since the government started giving up its
regulatory duties is exactly as the founders predicted. Since the
idiots on the right started handing everything over to the mystical,
magical "market forces," you're seeing companies gobbling each other
up, getting bigger and bigger, and elbowing every competitor out of
the market. Every single "market" is on the verge being dominated by
one company, and individual opportunity has been squelched. Sure, we
get cheap prices on lower quality junk, but we also see a complete
lack of customer service, and absolutely no sense of public interest
or civic responsibility.
And can we please get off this whole "free market" nonsense? First of
all, there is no such thing. Someone always runs the market. It's not
"free" just because government doesn't regulate it sufficiently. When
Wal-Mart puts a store into a small town and run everyone else out of
business, that's not a "free market," and to think so is delusional.
What's happened is, the people of the community have ceded the market
to Wal-Mart, and they run it. When Home Depot or Lowe's moves into an
area, and all of the hardware stores close within months, that's not a
function of a "free market;" it's just the opposite. A "free market"
is one in which any entrepreneur can open up and make or sell his
wares. The government's job is to protect the actual free market with
regulations, not allow businesses to kill opportunity. You can't open
a business selling widgets, if one or more of the largest corporations
in the world has exclusive contracts on widgets, and controls the US
widget market. That's not a free market.
We are in deep trouble, and we're sealing our own fate by falling for
this economic double-speak. I'm not one to long for the olden days; I
like my HDTV and my laptop. But we have to return to the old economic
model; you know, the one that worked; the one in which we invested in
the future, and everyone had an opportunity to live the American
dream. Not only are we not making anything, but now, the corporations
who made their riches off of our sweat for so many years are
increasingly moving offshore to avoid even the low taxes they're still
required to pay. Pretty soon, we won't have anything left; no
manufacturing, no corporations. At what point do we start investing in
us again? Our economic infrastructure is already suffering; what will
it be like in 20 years? How about 50 years?
There are a lot of warning signs, if you would bother to take your
eyes off the latest LindsayBritney nonsense to look around and see
them. They're not only warning signs, they're messages of dark
foreboding.
We are completely dependent on oil, precisely because the oil
companies want us to be, and the government to date has been more than
willing to help us. Did you know, for example, that the first hybrid
engine technology was patented in 1917? Did you know that the first
electric cars were created at about the same time? In both cases,
large behemoth corporations bought out the companies, and their
technology, and buried it. That's what happens when you cede control
of the economy to a few greedy bastards who care more for the bottom
line than the future of the country.
Our largest industries are all about recycling money. The Federal
Reserve prints more money, and companies vie for the right to siphon
as much off as they can, without getting caught. There are only two
solid investments in this country; the stock market and real estate,
and if you'll notice, they both rarely go up at the same time. The
exception was for the last few years of the Clinton Administration,
when there was a flash of that entrepreneurial spirit once again, due
to the creation of enterprise zones, and other creative investment
ideas. But it didn't last long; as soon as the right took over again,
we went right back into stupid-land. First, the Enron mess shined a
light on just how crooked the pursuit of money is, especially when
money is your only actual product. So when the Enron mess screwed the
economy, and the players in the stock market were forced to play fair
and at least try to be truthful, the same con men then turned to real
estate.
When they turned to real estate, they did the same thing they did in
the pre-Enron market. They created mortgages which were little more
than financial sleight of hand, and lo and behold! A whole bunch of
people who couldn't afford to buy a house before, were suddenly able
to buy a house! What a great thing, right? After all, home ownership
is a cornerstone of the American Dream™, right?
Well, yes and no.
Working hard and making it to the point that you can buy a nice home
that you can afford is actually a good thing, and it is something that
people strive for. Habitat for Humanity helps people do just that;
predatory lending practices most certainly do not. For the last 8-10
years or so, we have been subject to creative financing that should
have sent up red flares. I'm no financial whiz, but you know, when
someone advertises a $400,000 mortgage for $900 a month, or something
like that, huge warning bells should go off in someone's head. It's
Enron financing writ large on the housing industry.
And what a great time it was, too, huh? Real estate prices just shot
through the roof, and a whole bunch of people made a lot of money
because of that fact. Except that it was all fake. Housing prices
didn't go up based on actual supply and demand; the houses were paid
for by essentially moving money from one pocket to the other. Houses
were being sold and mortgages were being written for people who
couldn't pay for them. And now, we're at the precipice of a housing
crash unlike anything we have ever seen, as people who have been
carrying these fake mortgages are hit with the real mortgages that
were deferred for a few years. Meanwhile, the people who came up with
these fake mortgages made out like bandits, quite literally, as they
bought and sold homes with real mortgages to people who could afford
them, at the prices that they caused to be overinflated. Yep, that's
right, folks. A whole lot of people either have lost, or are about to
lose everything, and a whole bunch of other people have been making a
lot of money from it. The current housing crisis is Enron II, and it's
in its beginning stages; it's about to get worse.
This is the story of the right wing approach to economy, folks. Since
Nixon took over, the economic fortunes of this country have tumbled,
and it's time we start taking stock and taking steps to reversing the
trend. An economy that runs on borrowed money is also living on
borrowed time. And an economic model that stifles creativity and
innovation is an economic model that can't recover when the inevitable
bad times hit. What got us out of the Great Depression was World War
II, but what got us into an unprecedented boom after World War II was
an incredible amount of innovation. It used to be possible to open a
small business on a shoestring, and make a good living; now, almost
all of us are dependent on a job with one of the handful of huge
corporations that still do business here. Entrepreneurship is dead,
and because of our massive debt, we are largely a nation of wage
slaves.
It's time we started demanding economic change. The government needs
to get off its ass and do something about this, because we cannot live
on borrowed money forever, and the money we had is drying up quickly.
Large corporations are running this country, not us, and the
politicians who are running things are largely employees of these
companies. Everything is becoming homogenized to the point that every
freeway exit on every Interstate in the entire country is the same,
the stores in every shopping mall in the country are the same, and
innovation is being stifled. We have a lot of problems in this
country, not the least of which is global economic competition unlike
any we've seen before, and we must prepare for it, but it's not
possible to prepare for it in an economic climate that no longer feeds
innovation. Most problems need creative solutions, but the only
creativity allowed these days seems to involve ways to squeeze more
money into the bottom line of a large company that already has plenty
of money.
Loads of debt, limited income opportunities, legalized bribery and
extortion, and a series of Ponzi schemes. That is what marks our
economy nowadays, thanks to Reagan-Bush-Bush, and the right wing's
obsession with "market forces."
Isn't it time the government did its goddamn job?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>>From http://www.pleasecutthecrap.com and http://www.miltshook.com
>
>Hey YOU! Think this is a Great Economy? Are You HIGH?
>
>by Milt Shook
>
>Hey you!
>
>Yeah, I'm talking to you!
>
>How do you think the economy's doing? If you think it's going great,
>raise your hands!
>
>Wow, that's a lot of hands=E2=80=A6 guess it's going really well, then, huh=
>? I
>guess, because the government tell you how great it is every chance it
>gets, well, it must be just great. I mean the numbers they put out
>every month indicate that the economy's moving right along. I mean,
>all of that growth! And unemployment's still kind of low, right? And
>hey -- according to the Consumer Price Index, inflation's really not
>so bad, is it?
>
>But wait -- isn't this the same government continues to tell you that
>Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots on 9/11? Aren't these the same
>people who told us that the war in Iraq would only cost a few billion
>dollars, take a month or two, and be entirely paid for with Iraqi oil
>money? Don't they tell us they don't torture anyone, while they're
>torturing people? Didn't they assure us that they would never spy on
>us without a warrant, while they were in the midst of a plan to spy on
>us without a warrant?
>
>Yeah, but they're a bunch of greedheads, right? They love money! No
>way they would lie to us about how well the economy's doing, right?
>
>Hell, yes they would.
>
>
>Remember the economic doldrums we found ourselves in from about 1973
>until about the mid-1990s?
Milt is such a useful idiot.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/economy/images/figure_5.gif
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>Fromhttp://www.pleasecutthecrap.comandhttp://www.miltshook.com
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/economy/images/figure_5.gifhttp://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
>
> JSL
And Jeffrey is so irony deficient.
The above charts don't refute anything I said in the article. It's
obvious you didn't even read it...
I'll summarize my point, since your ADD is obviously such a problem.
If our economy was so great, there would be no reason to create junk
bonds (Milken), employ creative accounting (Enron), or create scam
mortgage schemes in order to sell homes and artificially increase
housing prices. A huge portion of the GDP increase consists of even
greater increases in debt. If people went "cash-only" for a year, our
economy would collapse.
How many bubbles do we have to go through before you people figure out
that our economy is built on a house of cards?
That was the point of the article you didn't read, but felt it
necessary to "refute" with two charts that were totally irrelevant to
the point I was making.
You know, when calling someone else an 'idiot," it's best that you
best know that what you're saying isn't idiotic...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Other than the fact that we weren't experiencing an economic doldrum
from 1973- to the mid 90's.
And why would anyone read the article when you're whole premise is
full of shit?
>
>I'll summarize my point, since your ADD is obviously such a problem.
>
>If our economy was so great, there would be no reason to create junk
>bonds (Milken), employ creative accounting (Enron), or create scam
>mortgage schemes in order to sell homes and artificially increase
>housing prices.
Yes there would be Milt because people will be people and will be
greedy no matter how good or bad the economy is.
>A huge portion of the GDP increase consists of even
>greater increases in debt. If people went "cash-only" for a year, our
>economy would collapse.
>
>How many bubbles do we have to go through before you people figure out
>that our economy is built on a house of cards?
>
>That was the point of the article you didn't read, but felt it
>necessary to "refute" with two charts that were totally irrelevant to
>the point I was making.
Then maybe you shouldn't choose a false premise on which to base your
analysis.
>
>You know, when calling someone else an 'idiot," it's best that you
>best know that what you're saying isn't idiotic...
>
>http://www.pleasecutthecrap.com
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
>
> >> JSL
>
> >And Jeffrey is so irony deficient.
>
> >The above charts don't refute anything I said in the article. It's
> >obvious you didn't even read it...
>
> Other than the fact that we weren't experiencing an economic doldrum
> from 1973- to the mid 90's.
Um... from 1973 through 1996, real wages never rose once and
inflation, while more stable and lower than in the 1970s, has rarely
been below 6% since, while the inflation rate for the 25 years before
that was rarely above 2%.
>
> And why would anyone read the article when you're whole premise is
> full of shit?
>
Is it? Then prove it.
My article says that the numbers lie, Jeffrey. You can't prove that
the numbers aren't lying by posting the numbers.
You really should read the article, if you're going to comment.
>
>
> >I'll summarize my point, since your ADD is obviously such a problem.
>
> >If our economy was so great, there would be no reason to create junk
> >bonds (Milken), employ creative accounting (Enron), or create scam
> >mortgage schemes in order to sell homes and artificially increase
> >housing prices.
>
> Yes there would beMiltbecause people will be people and will be
> greedy no matter how good or bad the economy is.
Yeah, you ignorant turd. That's my point! The last time they did this
kind of crap and got away with it, we had a Great Depression! Remember
usury laws? The wingnuts killed them. Basically, my point is, the
deregulation has led to a bunch of scams designed to make the economy
LOOK good, while it's really only hanging on with fishing line and
gum.
>
> >A huge portion of the GDP increase consists of even
> >greater increases in debt. If people went "cash-only" for a year, our
> >economy would collapse.
>
> >How many bubbles do we have to go through before you people figure out
> >that our economy is built on a house of cards?
>
> >That was the point of the article you didn't read, but felt it
> >necessary to "refute" with two charts that were totally irrelevant to
> >the point I was making.
>
> Then maybe you shouldn't choose a false premise on which to base your
> analysis.
>
Prove it false, Jeffrey.
Prove that the numbers the government gives are accurate reflections
of what's really happening out there. Prove that phony scams designed
to inflate paper profits, a huge amount of debt and a government
spending far more than it collects in revenue have no net negative
effect on the economy in the long run. Entrepreneurship is dead, for
the most part, and Sherman has been largely ignored to our detriment;
I don't see you refuting those premises. And don't give me anecdotal
evidence of computer geeks who get rich.
You don't even understand my premise, and yet, you're assuming it's
false. Plus, you think that merely stating that I'm wrong, and
reposting figures I say don't reflect the real economy is somehow in
itself a refutation. It's not.
Steve
<LOL> that's typical Shook... He posts nonsense than demands that
you prove him wrong...
>My article says that the numbers lie, Jeffrey. You can't prove that
>the numbers aren't lying by posting the numbers.
...and, of course, Shook can't document that the numbers "lie."
<LOL> prove it true, little momma's boy....
>Prove that the numbers the government gives are accurate reflections
>of what's really happening out there. Prove that phony scams designed
>to inflate paper profits, a huge amount of debt and a government
>spending far more than it collects in revenue have no net negative
>effect on the economy in the long run. Entrepreneurship is dead, for
>the most part, and Sherman has been largely ignored to our detriment;
>I don't see you refuting those premises. And don't give me anecdotal
>evidence of computer geeks who get rich.
>
>You don't even understand my premise, and yet, you're assuming it's
>false. Plus, you think that merely stating that I'm wrong, and
>reposting figures I say don't reflect the real economy is somehow in
>itself a refutation. It's not.
>>
>>
>> >You know, when calling someone else an 'idiot," it's best that you
>> >best know that what you're saying isn't idiotic...
>>
>> >http://www.pleasecuthecrap.com
>>
>> JSL
>
milt....@gmail.com
> you prove him wrong...
>
> >My article says that the numbers lie, Jeffrey. You can't prove that
> >the numbers aren't lying by posting the numbers.
>
Sure I can. And have.
To you? No thanks; I've spent three years trying to teach you Civics
101 on the First Amendment, and you still don't get it.
I've given up on even bothering with your sorry ass.
Steve
<LOL> You've never understood that your fantasies don't count,
Mousie Miltie..... like when you were bragging.....: "I've
DATED people that you would die to meet."
--Milt.Shook... Jul 4 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives/msg/d2ff681c7865876d?hl=en&
How the heck do you face yourself in the mirror in the morning without
laughing at yourself?
Run away, little girly boy... before I repost your stupidity about
all your neighbors having the same IP as you....
>I've given up on even bothering with your sorry ass.
About time that you started taking the therapist's advice, momma's
boy... now if you could only get over your disorder...
Oh, and Birdie says for you to stop bothering her... she's not
interested in little mousie wimps like you who run up big credit card
debts...
milt....@gmail.com
>
Hmmm.... anyone else notice that he's citing a post of a conversation
with JOHN PARKER?
Curious...
Steve
So now Shook tries to divert attention from his dishonest brags....
>Curious...
Oh, so now I'm JOHN PARKER instead of "Henry?" <ROTFLMAO> Better
tell Zepp about that, Mamma's boy...
Oh, and what about that proof you claimed to have that my name was
"Henry?"
..and what about me being the same person as Rob?
...and then there's all those other people who are on record as
pulling Shook's chain over the years? I must be all of them...
milt....@gmail.com
It's not dishonest. It's true.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Real wages never rose once? Only if you don't know what you're
looking at:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3523656.html
Inflation rarely below 6%?
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2
Year Avg Inflation
1992 3.03%
1991 4.25%
1990 5.39%
1989 4.83%
1988 4.08%
1987 3.66%
1986 1.91%
1985 3.55%
1984 4.30%
1983 3.22%
1982 6.16%
1981 10.35%
1980 13.58%
1979 11.22%
1978 7.62%
1977 6.50%
1976 5.75%
1975 9.20%
1974 11.03%
1973 6.16%
Rare?
And those previous 25 years it was over 2% 10 times.
>>
>> And why would anyone read the article when you're whole premise is
>> full of shit?
>>
>Is it? Then prove it.
See above.
>My article says that the numbers lie, Jeffrey. You can't prove that
>the numbers aren't lying by posting the numbers.
And your statements about the numbers are demonstrably wrong.
>
>You really should read the article, if you're going to comment.
>>
>>
>> >I'll summarize my point, since your ADD is obviously such a problem.
>>
>> >If our economy was so great, there would be no reason to create junk
>> >bonds (Milken), employ creative accounting (Enron), or create scam
>> >mortgage schemes in order to sell homes and artificially increase
>> >housing prices.
>>
>> Yes there would beMiltbecause people will be people and will be
>> greedy no matter how good or bad the economy is.
>
>Yeah, you ignorant turd. That's my point! The last time they did this
>kind of crap and got away with it, we had a Great Depression!
You should really learn some history.
>Remember
>usury laws? The wingnuts killed them. Basically, my point is, the
>deregulation has led to a bunch of scams designed to make the economy
>LOOK good, while it's really only hanging on with fishing line and
>gum.
If you say so...but then you're a kook.
>>
>> >A huge portion of the GDP increase consists of even
>> >greater increases in debt. If people went "cash-only" for a year, our
>> >economy would collapse.
>>
>> >How many bubbles do we have to go through before you people figure out
>> >that our economy is built on a house of cards?
>>
>> >That was the point of the article you didn't read, but felt it
>> >necessary to "refute" with two charts that were totally irrelevant to
>> >the point I was making.
>>
>> Then maybe you shouldn't choose a false premise on which to base your
>> analysis.
>>
>Prove it false, Jeffrey.
See above
>
>Prove that the numbers the government gives are accurate reflections
>of what's really happening out there. Prove that phony scams designed
>to inflate paper profits, a huge amount of debt and a government
>spending far more than it collects in revenue have no net negative
>effect on the economy in the long run. Entrepreneurship is dead, for
>the most part, and Sherman has been largely ignored to our detriment;
>I don't see you refuting those premises. And don't give me anecdotal
>evidence of computer geeks who get rich.
I didn't. But then what is the your evidence? You don't have any
that hasn't been refuted.
>You don't even understand my premise, and yet, you're assuming it's
>false. Plus, you think that merely stating that I'm wrong, and
>reposting figures I say don't reflect the real economy is somehow in
>itself a refutation. It's not.
Ah...so YOU get to decide what is a reflection of the "real economy"
and damn the numbers that people use to judge the economy. No suprise
there.
Steve
<LOL> It's total bullshit, Shook. You were a obscure little minimum
wage retail store clerk and the closest you got to a woman was by
going alone to a crowded movie theater where some couple had to sit
next to you... even today you quake in your shoes at the mere
thought of meeting people eye to eye...
milt....@gmail.com
I know what I'm looking at, and it's not spin from the web site
above.
>
> Inflation rarely below 6%?
Yes. Rarely.
>
> http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation...
Come back when you've read the article and you get the basic premise,
because you're not even addressing what I wrote.
milt....@gmail.com
> Year Avg Inflation
> 1992 3.03%
> 1991 4.25%
> 1990 5.39%
> 1989 4.83%
> 1988 4.08%
> 1987 3.66%
> 1986 1.91%
> 1985 3.55%
> 1984 4.30%
> 1983 3.22%
> 1982 6.16%
> 1981 10.35%
> 1980 13.58%
> 1979 11.22%
> 1978 7.62%
> 1977 6.50%
> 1976 5.75%
> 1975 9.20%
> 1974 11.03%
> 1973 6.16%
>
> Rare?
>
Jeffrey falls into what seems to be a very common trap. He buys
government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
housing and energy...
milt....@gmail.com
> wage retail store clerk and the closest you got to a woman was by
> going alone to a crowded movie theater where some couple had to sit
> next to you... even today you quake in your shoes at the mere
> thought of meeting people eye to eye...
You just keep thinking there, Butch...
I just wonder why I get you in such a lather... if I'm so
insignificant, as you say, why do you waste your time?
I know you want to kiss me, but sorry; I'm straight.
star...@yahoo.com
manner) is that you fail to realize that the whole idea of this cabal
is to bankrupt the country such that 1% of the people in this country
own everything and can basically do what they please (including mass-
murder) those in the populace they find undesirable.
That day is coming.
Mike
Steve
...which is why you pretend, even to yourself, that the few remote
relationships that you actually have, or have had, are closer than
they actually are... Hope you and the therapist are working on that
dysfunction.
>You just keep thinking there, Butch...
>
>I just wonder why I get you in such a lather... if I'm so
>insignificant, as you say, why do you waste your time?
Actually, Milt, *you* are a significant example of a loser leftist...
You're all talk, bluster and dishonest bullshit. Now your silly
websights, blogs and other internet crap.. those are what is
insignificant, while you yourself, are a really good example, for
today's kids, of what not to become, of what happens when a person
makes irresponsible choices in the life and insists upon substituting
wishful thinking and fantasies for reality.
>I know you want to kiss me, but sorry; I'm straight.
>
Nobody wants to kiss you Shook.... and your silly fantasizing about
women on the other side of the world is really poor substitute.
milt....@gmail.com
Well, I actually DO realize that. We've been wage slaves for at least
a generation. Every century, this country is forced to undergo a
reform movement to get rid of these idiots, and we're overdue for
ours...
Steve
Shook's been a wage slave for all of his adult life. His chances of
escaping that status are bleak.
3655 Dead
The only real difference this time is they used lots and lots of mass
media propaganda to get the custard-heads to support them in the
addle-pated notion that they would share the wealth.
milt....@gmail.com
I think it's more than mass-media propaganda this time. They've
essentially started printing fake money for themselves, and they allow
the rest of us to carry a whole lot of debt, so as to make us think
we're better off than we are. Most people don't actually own the house
they live in; they actually own a mortgage or two or three...
star...@yahoo.com
> Well, I actually DO realize that. We've been wage slaves for at least
> a generation. Every century, this country is forced to undergo a
> reform movement to get rid of these idiots, and we're overdue for
> ours...
We're going to have to spend a lot more time underneath the jackboots
of the rich before these people wake up and realize that, though.
Unlike many such previous movements, this generation is more than
content not to do as well as their parents.
And, once they do wake up, they'll be up against a power unlike that
which we've ever seen.
Mike
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Why did you delete the data that directly refutes what you claimed
Milt?
That's OK, I'll put it back for you.
Year Avg Inflation
1992 3.03%
1991 4.25%
1990 5.39%
1989 4.83%
1988 4.08%
1987 3.66%
1986 1.91%
1985 3.55%
1984 4.30%
1983 3.22%
1982 6.16%
1981 10.35%
1980 13.58%
1979 11.22%
1978 7.62%
1977 6.50%
1976 5.75%
1975 9.20%
1974 11.03%
1973 6.16%
Now of the 20 years of data I've posted for you only 9 have been above
6% and only 7 over 6.5%.
>>
>> http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation...
>
>Come back when you've read the article and you get the basic premise,
>because you're not even addressing what I wrote.
Yes I did. You made a claim, it was refuted.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
What's that Milt? Posting some data?
>He buys
>government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
>represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
>been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
>and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
>huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
>better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
>picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
>base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
>very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
>in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
>the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
Then why don't you post some evidence Milt?
>This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
>continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
>your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
>aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
>because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
>housing and energy...
>
You keep making such claims yet seem unable to back it up. No suprise
there.
JSL
3647 Dead
And personal debt is at all time highs. America at large has been
trying to borrow itself into prosperity since Reagan.
>
3647 Dead
How come you deleted Milt's comments about why the CPI was a crap index
because it excludes food and energy costs, but DOES include consumer
electronics?
>
> JSL
>
>
3647 Dead
It's crap data. Repeating it won't make it true.
Steve
Ahh, another pissant revolutionary..
milt....@gmail.com
Hey you read the article I wrote.
Could you please explain that to Jeffrey? He insists on commenting,
even though it's obvious he's never read it.
milt....@gmail.com
Irrelevant data.
The main premise of the article, you twit, is that the stats don't
tell the whole story.
Therefore, your posting of stats is just plain stupid.
>
> >He buys
> >government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
> >represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
> >been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
> >and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
> >huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
> >better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
> >picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
> >base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
> >very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
> >in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
> >the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
>
> Then why don't you post some evidenceMilt?
>
> >This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
> >continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
> >your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
> >aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
> >because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
> >housing and energy...
>
> You keep making such claims yet seem unable to back it up. No suprise
> there.
>
You don't even know what claims I've made, Linder. You STILL haven't
read the article.
milt....@gmail.com
>
> It's crap data. Repeating it won't make it true.
>
the key points I made was "forget the statistics." The fact of the
matter is, traditional entrepreneurship is pretty much dead, and our
entire economy is based on creating money out of thin air and moving
it from one pocket to another. THAT was the point of the article, and
he post economic statistics... um, for what purpose, exactly?
Probably because he's Jeffrey Linder...
milt....@gmail.com
Well, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far.
You see, as powerful as they'd like to be, they still can't be
powerful without our help.
As for "this generation," well, I'm seeing some major stirrings, and
the next generation is royally pissed, by and large, over the fact
that they will be the first generation in US history to NOT do as well
as their parents. I think the baby boom generation had better hold
onto its hat, because retirement is not likely to be pretty, once our
kids are paying our bills.
Seriously, I don't understand why there's so little shame over being
spendthrifts, and leaving the debt for our kids to pay...
Damn right wing is over for at least a generation. Unfortunately, the
damage will be felt for some time...
milt....@gmail.com
> because it excludes food and energy costs, but DOES include consumer
> electronics?
>
he didn't delete it.
yet.
Steve
I think it's sort of funny how Shook tries to pan off his loopy
opinions as fact... Of course, to Milt, his opinions are facts...
That's part of his disorder, and if you don't accept his opinions as
fact, he feels greatly insulted.
It's become a Shook tradition for him to post some totally illogical
argument and claim that it's fact unless you prove him wrong...
...like claiming that his lawsuit was based on the First Amendment
because the First Amendment granted him some unstated right to stand
on a street corner and that a judge would be violating the First
Amendment by ruling that the First Amendment didn't apply and throwing
the lawsuit out...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Yet you seem to be unable to post any data at all. One is supposed to
believe its crap because you say it is?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
No, what you mean is "ignore the inconvenient facts otherwise my
argument falls apart".
>The fact of the
>matter is, traditional entrepreneurship is pretty much dead, and our
>entire economy is based on creating money out of thin air and moving
>it from one pocket to another. THAT was the point of the article, and
>he post economic statistics... um, for what purpose, exactly?
To demonstrate that your premise is false. Now you can complain that
the economy isn't based upon the same goods and services as it was
before but then I don't hear you complaining about buggy whip makers
either.
>
>Probably because he's Jeffrey Linder...
>>
>> >> He buys
>> >> government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
>> >> represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
>> >> been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
>> >> and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
>> >> huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
>> >> better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
>> >> picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
>> >> base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
>> >> very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
>> >> in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
>> >> the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
>>
>> > Then why don't you post some evidenceMilt?
>>
>> >> This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
>> >> continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
>> >> your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
>> >> aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
>> >> because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
>> >> housing and energy...
>>
>> > You keep making such claims yet seem unable to back it up. No suprise
>> > there.
Again, no evidence.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
They may not Milt. You said:
"Remember the economic doldrums we found ourselves in from about 1973
until about the mid-1990s?"
I challenged that. You replied as to why the economy was in the
doldrums and you gave this reason:
"...inflation, [...], has rarely been below 6% since,"
I posted data that directly refuted the evidence you used to support
your premise.
So, of course, you now tell us to ignore the stats yet you want us to
believe stats you pulled out of thin air to support your premise.
>Therefore, your posting of stats is just plain stupid.
Of course it is Milt...you can't have it any other way.
>>
>> >He buys
>> >government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
>> >represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
>> >been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
>> >and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
>> >huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
>> >better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
>> >picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
>> >base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
>> >very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
>> >in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
>> >the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
>>
>> Then why don't you post some evidenceMilt?
>>
>> >This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
>> >continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
>> >your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
>> >aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
>> >because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
>> >housing and energy...
>>
>> You keep making such claims yet seem unable to back it up. No suprise
>> there.
>>
>You don't even know what claims I've made, Linder.
You claimed some false things...but then that's par for the course.
>You STILL haven't read the article.
As I said before Milt...why should I read something based upon a
faulty premise?
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
No, Jeffrey. If you'd even bothered to read the article, you would
know that I didn't discuss statistics. I discussed the fact that
entrepreneurship is largely dead, most people, corporations and even
the government are in debt up to their eyeballs, and the Sherman Act
is largely ignored. The result is an economy built on smoke and
mirrors. It SEEMS strong, but it's all fake.
Now, given that the above is the simple premise of the article, please
explain to us how regurgitating a few stats is relevant...
>
> >The fact of the
> >matter is, traditional entrepreneurship is pretty much dead, and our
> >entire economy is based on creating money out of thin air and moving
> >it from one pocket to another. THAT was the point of the article, and
> >he post economic statistics... um, for what purpose, exactly?
>
> To demonstrate that your premise is false. Now you can complain that
> the economy isn't based upon the same goods and services as it was
> before but then I don't hear you complaining about buggy whip makers
> either.
>
You still don't even understand what the premise is. It's as if I was
arguing against global warming, by saying that the way they collect
temperature data is wrong, and you refute me by presenting the
temperature data.
I even SAID in the article that the US was still the 900-lb gorilla
when it came to GDP. My premise was that most of our GDP consists of
manufacturing more money out of thin air and moving money from one
pocket to the other.
Our economy's only product right now is the dollar; do you get that?
We don't manufacture anything else to speak of. It's not about
transitioning from buggy whips to iPods; it's about the fact that our
largest domestic manufacturers are now Toyota and Honda.
3647 Dead
Really? You aren't using the CPI for your numbers, Jeffy?
>
> JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> "Remember the economic doldrums we found ourselves in from about 1973
> until about the mid-1990s?"
>
> I challenged that. You replied as to why the economy was in the
> doldrums and you gave this reason:
>
> "...inflation, [...], has rarely been below 6% since,"
Right...
>
> I posted data that directly refuted the evidence you used to support
> your premise.
That wasn't my premise, you tool. How much clearer to I have to make
it?
Why do you think you can just ignore what I said, create some straw
arguments based on something I didn't say, and then focus on that?
You posted the same data I said is bullshit.
The numbers the government posts are lies. They cherry pick whichever
part of the economy makes them look good, and ignore all of the rest.
Can you think of anything besides electronics that hasn't damn near
doubled in price in the last 10 years? Housing is double, fuel and
energy are more than double; groceries are up at least 40-50% in that
time. College tuitions have doubled in that time.
You're positing that inflation has been less than 6% per year in that
time, yet, it is impossible for the cost of living to double in 10
years if the inflation rate is less than 6%. Impossible. In fact, that
would indicate an average of 7%.
IOW, my basic premise is that the entire economy's "success' is based
on smoke and mirrors, and you present government data to "prove me
wrong?"
And you think you're smart?
>
> So, of course, you now tell us to ignore the stats yet you want us to
> believe stats you pulled out of thin air to support your premise.
>
> >Therefore, your posting of stats is just plain stupid.
>
> Of course it is Milt...you can't have it any other way.
>
I didn't present stats. You did.
>
>
>
> >> >He buys
> >> >government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
> >> >represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
> >> >been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
> >> >and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
> >> >huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
> >> >better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
> >> >picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
> >> >base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
> >> >very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
> >> >in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
> >> >the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
>
> >> Then why don't you post some evidenceMilt?
>
> >> >This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
> >> >continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
> >> >your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
> >> >aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
> >> >because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
> >> >housing and energy...
>
> >> You keep making such claims yet seem unable to back it up. No suprise
> >> there.
>
> >You don't even know what claims I've made, Linder.
>
> You claimed some false things...but then that's par for the course.
Like what? Prove them wrong.
>
> >You STILL haven't read the article.
>
> As I said beforeMilt...why should I read something based upon a
> faulty premise?
>
This is how the wingnuts think. They won't read something because they
don't like it, but dammit, they'll argue anyway.
In the article itself, Jeffrey, I even SAID that we have the strongest
economy in the world. I just said that it's all based on bullshit.
Therefore, presenting me with data isn't a refutation.
milt....@gmail.com
> >> because it excludes food and energy costs, but DOES include consumer
> >> electronics?
>
> > In this thread? Didn't happen.
>
> Really? You aren't using the CPI for your numbers, Jeffy?
>
to comment on something they refuse to read because they won't like
what's in it.
And he wonders why we think he's stupid.
milt....@gmail.com
BTW, Jeffrey; look up the word "hedonics" for a clue as to how the
government manufactires inflation statistics. You see, if a car
doubles its horsepower and stays the same price, the government values
tha car at half price. If a laptop doubles its processor speed and the
size of its hard drive at the same price, for inflationary purposes,
the government figures it as having been reduced in price by half.
And the base CPI figure, as I pointed out, does not include energy or
housing.
And here's another question you should ask yourself. If inflation has
been under control for so long, then why is the Fed always "fighting"
it?
3655 Dead
You have to wonder when the last time was he bought groceries. The
overall price of food has damn near doubled since January 2000, which
would be a 10% inflation rate right there. Housing and energy costs
have skyrocketed.
If we don't have inflation, why is the dollar only worth 60% of what
it was four years ago on the international money markets? (I'm asking
Jeff; you already know the answer).
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Gee...when someone asks a question and its answered one would usually
assume that one is answering the question that was asked.
No Zepp, I did not delete any of Milt's comments. Is that any
clearer?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
I told you that at the outset Milt and I explained why. You stated
your premise...you used bogus numbers to support your stated premise.
Why should one even look at your conclusions when you can't support
your premise?
>Leave it to a wingnut
>to comment on something they refuse to read because they won't like
>what's in it.
I didn't comment on your conclusions Milt...I commented on your
premise.
>And he wonders why we think he's stupid.
No, I don't wonder at all.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Really? Maybe you can support the assertion with some data.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 2000 0.907
Jun 2007 1.193
Series Id: APU0000703111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Ground chuck, 100% beef, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 2000 1.903
Jun 2007 2.739
Series Id: APU0000706111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Chicken, fresh, whole, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 2000 1.059
Jan 2007 1.134
Series Id: APU0000708111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Eggs, grade A, large, per doz.
Jan 2000 0.975
Jun 2007 1.373
Series Id: APU0000711111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Apples, Red Delicious, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 2000 0.952
Jan 2007 1.130
The list goes on. The only data they have that's doubled is Navel
Oranges from 0.607 to 1.321.
I await your rebuttal.
>Housing and energy costs
>have skyrocketed.
>
>If we don't have inflation, why is the dollar only worth 60% of what
>it was four years ago on the international money markets? (I'm asking
>Jeff; you already know the answer).
Who said we don't have inflation?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Of course not...they don't support your premise...duh.
>I discussed the fact that
>entrepreneurship is largely dead, most people, corporations and even
>the government are in debt up to their eyeballs, and the Sherman Act
>is largely ignored. The result is an economy built on smoke and
>mirrors. It SEEMS strong, but it's all fake.
I will weight the basis of your conclusions on your expertise in these
matters: Zero.
>Now, given that the above is the simple premise of the article, please
>explain to us how regurgitating a few stats is relevant...
I see...facts don't matter to you...but then we've always known that
haven't we Milt.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
milt....@gmail.com
> your premise...you used bogus numbers to support your stated premise.
> Why should one even look at your conclusions when you can't support
> your premise?
Okay, that was NOT my stated premise.
Secondly, I didn't present numbers, you did. And you did so, despite
the entire piece is about looking past the bogus numbers (and all
government economic numbers are bogus) and look at reality.
I think pretty much anyone in their right mind would accept the fact
that the price of just about everything necessary for living have far
more than quadrupled in 25 years. (I haven't run the numbers, but I
think that's conservative, since many prices have multiplied by 10
times in 25 years. At a 6% inflation rate per year, the prices
wouldn't even triple. Yet you're trying to assert that the inflation
rate is well under that. At the 3% inflation rate claimed by your
numbers, it would take 23 years for prices to even double. At 6%, it
would take about 12 years to double. I'm going back in my mind, and
even checking the Internet, and it's difficult to find any
necessities, like housing, food and energy that haven't doubled in the
last 10 years.
Oh, that's right! Housing and energy aren't INCLUDED in the core CPI
figures!
I swear, wingnuts are the most gullible people in the world. Never
believe ANYTHING that ANY government tells you without verifying its
truth or falsity, especially when manipulating the numbers can make
them look better...
FYI, Clinton and Carter did just as much tinkering with the CPI as
Reagan and Bush I did.
> >Leave it to a wingnut
> >to comment on something they refuse to read because they won't like
> >what's in it.
>
> I didn't comment on your conclusionsMilt...I commented on your
> premise.
>
So far, you don't even indicate that you understand what it is. You
just misstated it again above.
> >And he wonders why we think he's stupid.
>
> No, I don't wonder at all.
>
Good, because it's not really much of a mystery...
milt....@gmail.com
> >>> because it excludes food and energy costs, but DOES include consumer
> >>> electronics?
>
> >> In this thread? Didn't happen.
>
> >Really? You aren't using the CPI for your numbers, Jeffy?
>
> Gee...when someone asks a question and its answered one would usually
> assume that one is answering the question that was asked.
>
> clearer?
>
> JSL
He still hasn't read the article he's commenting on, however...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Deny the facts Milt...its your only choice.
>>
>> I posted data that directly refuted the evidence you used to support
>> your premise.
>
>That wasn't my premise, you tool. How much clearer to I have to make
>it?
>
>Why do you think you can just ignore what I said, create some straw
>arguments based on something I didn't say, and then focus on that?
What you did say was that economy was in the duldrums for a period of
time and you how you came to that conclusion. The numbers you used to
come to that conclusion were wrong. You then used that conclusion as
the premise for your arguement that the economy is weak. Then you
gave a list of reasons as to why the economy is weak.
>You posted the same data I said is bullshit.
You say its bullshit but you've yet to demonstrate that it is
bullshit.
>The numbers the government posts are lies. They cherry pick whichever
>part of the economy makes them look good, and ignore all of the rest.
Then why don't you support that assertion with some real data?
>Can you think of anything besides electronics that hasn't damn near
>doubled in price in the last 10 years? Housing is double, fuel and
>energy are more than double;
They are?
From BLS
Series Id: APU000072621Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Electricity per 500 KWH
Jan 1997 49.245
Jun 2007 61.568
Series Id: APU000072601Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Utility (piped) gas - 40 therms
Jan 1997 32.904
Jun 2007 57.835
Series Id: APU000072611Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Utility (piped) gas - 100 therms
Jan 1997 72.440
Jun 2007 129.922
Fuel Oil and gas have doubled.
>groceries are up at least 40-50% in that
>time. College tuitions have doubled in that time.
You keep saying these things yet can't support them.
>You're positing that inflation has been less than 6% per year in that
>time, yet, it is impossible for the cost of living to double in 10
Maybe the cost of living hasn't doubled as you claim.
>years if the inflation rate is less than 6%. Impossible. In fact, that
>would indicate an average of 7%.
>IOW, my basic premise is that the entire economy's "success' is based
>on smoke and mirrors, and you present government data to "prove me
>wrong?"
You've made a claim yet can't support it. No suprise there.
>And you think you're smart?
>
>
>>
>> So, of course, you now tell us to ignore the stats yet you want us to
>> believe stats you pulled out of thin air to support your premise.
>>
>> >Therefore, your posting of stats is just plain stupid.
>>
>> Of course it is Milt...you can't have it any other way.
>>
>I didn't present stats. You did.
Of course not.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >He buys
>> >> >government numbers without actually looking at what the numbers
>> >> >represent. The inflation numbers which are always quoted, and have
>> >> >been since Bush 41 changed the components of the CPI, EXCLUDE housing
>> >> >and energy, but INCLUDE consumer electronics. Bet 43's glad of that,
>> >> >huh? In other words, the government is trying to make the figures look
>> >> >better than they are. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an accurate
>> >> >picture of the actual inflation rate. Another major flaw is using the
>> >> >base year of 1982, which a lot of people try to do. The use of 1982 is
>> >> >very arbitrary and very purposeful, and it served to skew the numbers
>> >> >in Reagan's favor at one time. Now, it's just pointless, except for
>> >> >the fact that it shaves a few points off the top CPI number...
>>
>> >> Then why don't you post some evidenceMilt?
>>
>> >> >This is why I suggested in the article that you haven't read, but
>> >> >continue to comment on nonetheless, to ignore the figures and go with
>> >> >your gut. I mean, for Chrissakes; families making $70,000 a year
>> >> >aren't doing any better than families that made $35,000 ten years ago,
>> >> >because most things have doubled in price in that time; you know, like
>> >> >housing and energy...
>>
>> >> You keep making such claims yet seem unable to back it up. No suprise
>> >> there.
>>
>> >You don't even know what claims I've made, Linder.
>>
>> You claimed some false things...but then that's par for the course.
>
>Like what? Prove them wrong.
I did. You claimed inflation was rarely under 6% since 1973.
>>
>> >You STILL haven't read the article.
>>
>> As I said beforeMilt...why should I read something based upon a
>> faulty premise?
>>
>
>This is how the wingnuts think. They won't read something because they
>don't like it, but dammit, they'll argue anyway.
>
>In the article itself, Jeffrey, I even SAID that we have the strongest
>economy in the world. I just said that it's all based on bullshit.
>Therefore, presenting me with data isn't a refutation.
You can claim anything you want Milt...just don't be suprised when
people ask you to support it with some evidence.
JSL
>
milt....@gmail.com
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/19/news/economy/bernanke/index.htm
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/06/15/cadbury-winnebago-stocks-markets-cx_jal_0615video2.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953641,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3678/is_200110/ai_n8973093
http://www.newsback.com/forums/news-5970-us-inflation-under-control-despite-energy-costs.html
http://www.kxmc.com/t/washington/34175.asp
The question is, who isn't saying it?
milt....@gmail.com
I don't have to. The CPI is bullshit. it was manipulated by Jimmy
Carter, Ronald Reagan (Paul Volcker), Bush 41 and Bill Clinton (Alan
Greenspan), to make it look as if inflation isn't as high as it
actually is.
The government has a vested interest in manipulating the inflation
figure for two reason. Actually, they have two of them. Social
Security is the single largest government program, and by keeping
inflation low, they also keep the rate of adjustment low. The other is
that a lower inflation rate has the effect of inflating the GDP
numbers.
Smoke and mirrors, Jeffrey...
Did you look up hedonics like I told you?
>
>
> >> I posted data that directly refuted the evidence you used to support
> >> your premise.
>
> >That wasn't my premise, you tool. How much clearer to I have to make
> >it?
>
> >Why do you think you can just ignore what I said, create some straw
> >arguments based on something I didn't say, and then focus on that?
>
> What you did say was that economy was in the duldrums for a period of
> time and you how you came to that conclusion.
Because real wages did NOT increase for the majority of Americans
between 1973 and 1996, you twit! I mean, I would consider that a
pretty crappy economy, when wages can't increase, even with deflated
inflation numbers.
> The numbers you used to
> come to that conclusion were wrong.
You idiot. I didn't USE numbers to come to that conclusion! You did,
to come to the OPPOSITE conclusion. I'd love for you to come up with
three economists not affiliated with the government (no crackpots!)
who will argue that the CPI numbers most-quoted are an accurate
reflection of real inflation.
> You then used that conclusion as
> the premise for your arguement that the economy is weak. Then you
> gave a list of reasons as to why the economy is weak.
No, Jeffrey. I said the NUMBERS were great. I said the NUMBERS say
we're just doing a bang-up job. I then said the numbers are bullshit.
they don't reflect reality.
Reality is, huge corporations have largely killed entrepreneurship,
unless your idea of entrepreneurship is placing tiny little classified
ads in newspapers or spamming in order to get people to click on your
site. Starting a small business now is a very limited activity; far
more limited than it used to be.
Reality is, whereas before 1973, most people who owned homes and paid
for them with one income were the norm, now, it's a dwindling
exception.
Reality is, Prices for almost everything anyone needs to buy have more
han doubled in ten years, despite the fact that the government keeps
publishing CPI figures indicating inflation rates of 3-4%. It's
IMPOSSIBLE for prices to double in ten years unless the average
inflation rate is at least 6.9%. Do the math.
>
> >You posted the same data I said is bullshit.
>
> You say its bullshit but you've yet to demonstrate that it is
> bullshit.
Yes I have. I told you to look up the word "hedonics." It's what the
government uses to get its inflation numbers, and it's pure crap.
Here's another example of how it works.
Say in one year, the average price of a pound of coffee is $3, but
half of all people buy Starbucks coffee, which is $5 per pound. So,
the government uses the Starbucks number. Got that? The next year.
there's a huge problem in South America; Juan Valdez is wiped out, and
suddenly, the price of coffee goes up. A pound of regular coffee
soars to $5, while the price of Starbucks goes to $9. Most people
switch to regular coffee, so the government uses the $5 figure, so the
inflation rate on coffee is actually 0%. Got that?
Okay, but it gets worse.
Say the next year, regular coffee stays at $5, but the size of a can
drops to 13 ounces. According to the inflation folks, the inflation
rate is STILL 0%.
And yes, Jeffrey, when compiling the CPI, they actaully DO analyze the
prices of individual items and then average them together. That is why
just about everything you can think of has doubled in price in the
last 10 years, but the government still claims 3-4% inflation year-to-
year. If prices double in 10 years, it's impossible to claim a 3%
annual inflation rate. it would have to be at least 7%.
>
> >The numbers the government posts are lies. They cherry pick whichever
> >part of the economy makes them look good, and ignore all of the rest.
>
> Then why don't you support that assertion with some real data?
I go to the store every week, Jeffrey. I pay rent, and I own a few
homes with a few partners that we're rehabbing and flipping. I pump
gas, and I pay my electric bill. Our electric bills here just
recovered from a stupid government scheme to hold down energy prices,
by capping them for 8 years. When the caps expired, the cost of
electricity rose by more than 70%. That's a little more than the 3-4%
inflation claimed during that time.
It's called skepticism, Jeffrey. When someone's telling me the
inflation rate is 3-4%, but prices are going up a lot more than that
in my experience, I don't just walk down the street whistling a happy
tune, blissfully believing everything the government tells me. You
apparently do. Good for you. Have a doggie biscuit and a pat on the
head.
>
> >Can you think of anything besides electronics that hasn't damn near
> >doubled in price in the last 10 years? Housing is double, fuel and
> >energy are more than double;
>
> They are?
You're just not getting this, are you? I'm saying the numbers are
bogus, so you just keep giving us more.
> From BLS
>
> Series Id: APU000072621Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Electricity per 500 KWH
> Jan 1997 49.245
> Jun 2007 61.568
>
> Series Id: APU000072601Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Utility (piped) gas - 40 therms
> Jan 1997 32.904
> Jun 2007 57.835
>
> Series Id: APU000072611Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Utility (piped) gas - 100 therms
> Jan 1997 72.440
> Jun 2007 129.922
>
> Fuel Oil and gas have doubled.
No, Jeffrey.
My uncle has an oil furnace. In 1998, the price was $1.09 per gallon.
last winter, the price was $2.89 one time and $3.06 the other.
My father uses propane for heating. His prices have tripled in the
last five years alone.
As for electricity, the wholesale price of electricity has tripled in
the last five years alone; the reason the increases haven't been seen
by the consumer is the significant over-regulation, as I cited above,
and significant government subsidies.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/21/667/
John Shelk, president of the Electrical Power Supply Association trade
group based in Washington, D.C., says all states have seen large rate
increases in the last decade, largely because of the increased price
of natural gas and building power plants. The average U.S. price for
natural gas used by the electric power sector tripled from $2.76 per
million Btus in 1997 to $8.21 per thousand cubic feet in 2005, a peak
year for natural gas prices, according to federal energy statistics.
Prices dropped slightly in 2006 but are projected to rise again over
the next two years.
Utility officials say natural gas prices, environmental regulations,
property taxes, the cost of building nuclear plants and other expenses
in states that deregulated had already driven prices higher than in
other states.
But years after many states deregulated, the rate gap between those
states and regulated states had widened even more, experts and
consumers advocates say, because consumers in deregulated states were
left paying market prices - even though in many cases no competitive
market existed.
"Now they're trying to come to grips with the reality that the market
isn't working as well as they thought it would," Ken Rose, a senior
fellow with the Institute of Public Utilities at Michigan State
University, says of decision-makers in deregulated states.
Shelk says consumers in states like Illinois are seeing "sticker
shock" because their rates were artificially low for years, and that
forced a large increase to get back to market prices when rate caps
were lifted.
"It's kind of like pulling the Band-Aid off," Shelk said. "I think you
can fault the design that said you can roll these rates back and
freeze them."
"It's so easy to focus only on the here and now ... and draw the wrong
conclusions, which is 'Oh, gee, we're going to be better off
regulating,' because we're not," Shelk said.
Shelk also contends that deregulation has been successful in states
like Texas because, despite price jumps there, the competition has
kept rates lower than they would have been under monopoly conditions,
and still has produced a more predictable market for utilities and
customers.
Exelon executive vice president Betsy Moler said rates in all states,
regardless of their regulatory structure, have soared about 34 percent
since 1996, mirroring fuel cost increases. That should overshadow
critics' blame of deregulation, she argues.
"It's really not about deregulation," Moler said. "It's all about the
cost of fuel."
Yet the last decade saw extended rate freezes in many states, and more
recent data shows a returning gap between regulated and deregulated
states once those freezes end.
------------------------------------
In other words, the ACTUAL price of electricity is much higher.
Also, don't you think it odd that electric companies are paying FOUR
TIMES as much for natural gas than they paid 10 years ago, while the
BLS is claiming prices have only doubled? Something's fishy somewhere,
don't you think?
My basic premise is that government economic figures are smoke and
mirrors. Yet more proof.
>
> >groceries are up at least 40-50% in that
> >time. College tuitions have doubled in that time.
>
> You keep saying these things yet can't support them.
Yeah, i can. Go to your grocery store, Jeffrey...
>
> >You're positing that inflation has been less than 6% per year in that
> >time, yet, it is impossible for the cost of living to double in 10
>
> Maybe the cost of living hasn't doubled as you claim.
The hell it hasn't.
>
> >years if the inflation rate is less than 6%. Impossible. In fact, that
> >would indicate an average of 7%.
> >IOW, my basic premise is that the entire economy's "success' is based
> >on smoke and mirrors, and you present government data to "prove me
> >wrong?"
>
> You've made a claim yet can't support it. No suprise there.
I've claimed that government figures are misleading, and asked you to
look up the word "hedonics," which is how the government determines
consumer prices for the index. That ALONE will prove their figures
bogus.
IOW, genius, I HAVE supported my premise. You just don't understand
any of this.
You've been working at OSU for at least 12-13 years that I know of,
Jeffrey. I'm sure you make a good salary, and it's probably increased
at least 30-40% since you started.
Sit there with a straight face and tell me that your salary buys you
far more now than it did when you started.
In that time, the Clinton and Bush governments have consistently
claimed an inflation rate of 3-4%. That means you should have lots
more buying power by now. Do you?
(I know what the Linder answer will be, but those of us in the reality-
based community know better..
> >And you think you're smart?
>
> >> So, of course, you now tell us to ignore the stats yet you want us to
> >> believe stats you pulled out of thin air to support your premise.
>
> >> >Therefore, your posting of stats is just plain stupid.
>
> >> Of course it isMilt...you can't have it any other way.
Yep. it's true. It has to be. The beginning and ending numbers don't
lie.
>
> >> >You STILL haven't read the article.
>
> >> As I said beforeMilt...why should I read something based upon a
> >> faulty premise?
>
> >This is how the wingnuts think. They won't read something because they
> >don't like it, but dammit, they'll argue anyway.
>
> >In the article itself, Jeffrey, I even SAID that we have the strongest
> >economy in the world. I just said that it's all based on bullshit.
> >Therefore, presenting me with data isn't a refutation.
>
> You can claim anything you wantMilt...just don't be suprised when
> people ask you to support it with some evidence.
>
I did.
How would you know I didn't, anyway? You admit you didn't read the
article.
Steve
Milt has a long record of writing pure nonsense, based upon nothing
but his emotions and faulty intuition... and yet he wonders why
nobody reads his nonsense anymore.... ....that's another element of
his disorder, (ie) decision making based entirely upon his gut
feelings.. and when the facts disagree with his gut feelings, the
facts must be wrong....
With Milt, it's not just a cliche to say that his "truth" is simply
whatever he decides it should be.... ...he simply cannot perceive
that others do not draw the same conclusions as he, and he's clueless
as to why others rely on logic and facts, which make absolutely no
sense to him because they disagree with his gut feelings....
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Yet you post no numbers to prove it. Nor do you post what incomes
have done in those last 25 years. So I went to the BLS to get the a
few items.
Guess what Milt? You're making shit up again.
Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 1982 0.537
Jan 2007 1.153
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series Id: APU0000703111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Ground chuck, 100% beef, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 1982 1.794
Jan 2007 2.630
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series Id: APU0000706111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Chicken, fresh, whole, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 1982 0.712
Jan 2007 1.033
Series Id: APU0000708111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Eggs, grade A, large, per doz.
Jan 1982 0.925
Jan 2007 1.549
>(I haven't run the numbers,
No kidding?
>but I
>think that's conservative, since many prices have multiplied by 10
>times in 25 years. At a 6% inflation rate per year,
The rate of inflation is an aggregate number Milt.
>the prices
>wouldn't even triple. Yet you're trying to assert that the inflation
>rate is well under that.
I'm not asserting Milt...I've posted data that shows it.
>At the 3% inflation rate claimed by your
>numbers, it would take 23 years for prices to even double. At 6%, it
>would take about 12 years to double. I'm going back in my mind, and
>even checking the Internet, and it's difficult to find any
>necessities, like housing, food and energy that haven't doubled in the
>last 10 years.
Now you're simply lying as I posed the numbers from the BLS.
>Oh, that's right! Housing and energy aren't INCLUDED in the core CPI
>figures!
And housing shouldn't be. Its a choice and its paid for differently
than other items. You don't take out a 30 year loan to buy a loaf a
bread.
Energy is a volatile commodity and its price changes are reflected in
the price of goods and services.
>I swear, wingnuts are the most gullible people in the world. Never
>believe ANYTHING that ANY government tells you without verifying its
>truth or falsity, especially when manipulating the numbers can make
>them look better...
Yet you post NO numbers.
>FYI, Clinton and Carter did just as much tinkering with the CPI as
>Reagan and Bush I did.
Was that to make you look non-partisan Milt?
>> >Leave it to a wingnut
>> >to comment on something they refuse to read because they won't like
>> >what's in it.
>>
>> I didn't comment on your conclusionsMilt...I commented on your
>> premise.
>>
>So far, you don't even indicate that you understand what it is. You
>just misstated it again above.
I know you're making shit up again.
>
>
>> >And he wonders why we think he's stupid.
>>
>> No, I don't wonder at all.
>>
>Good, because it's not really much of a mystery...
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
All of the above numbers are bullshit, and if you would bother to go
to the BLS page and read about their methodology, you would agree. The
government is honest about its dishonesty, after all.
The government uses hedonic regression, which is based on hedonic
demand theory, which I've asked you to look up, and you apparently
refuse.
You see, the government has a vested interest in keeping the inflation
rate low, because it keeps the cost of entitlement programs in check.
So, they engage in hedonics.
Your first example is an interesting one. Define "loaf of bread."
Here, we have "Schmidt's Blue Ribbon," which is the most popular name
brand, and there are the various store-brand breads. Ten years ago, a
loaf of Schmidt's ran $1.79, now it's $2.29 a loaf. Store brand
loaves, however, were roughly 50-55 cents a loaf ten years ago, and
now cost a dollar.
So, did the price double? or did it rise by roughly a third? According
to the government, it went up by a third, despite the fact that far
more people will buy the store brand. Not only that, but if the price
of Schmidt's goes up 20 cents, but they add 2 ounces to the size of
the loaf, they will read that as no price increase.
You mention several produce examples, Jeffrey, and all I can say is,
you can't possibly eat much fruits and veggies, because the prices
have been soaring in the last decade. The high price on tomatoes ten
years ago was $1.99; now, I struggle to find hothouse tomatoes for
that price in the middle of summer. As for fruits, there has been a
lot of dumping of central and South American produce on store shelves,
most of it of questionable quality. No, let me rephrase that; most of
it is shit. the good quality peaches, plums, grapes, etc, have more
than doubled in the last ten years, except for the occasional sale.
What hedonic regression does, is take the lowest priced apple they can
find and use that as a price indicator. Therefore, say that in 1997,
Georgia peaches sold for 79 cents a pound (made up number), and this
year, they sell for $1.69 a pound. But in the interim, there is an
influx of Venezuelan peaches selling for .99 a pound. According to the
CPI, peaches only increased $.20 per pound.
I live in the chicken capital of the world, but chicken prices have
more than doubled in ten years, except for the ever-less-infrequent
sales. And beef??? I don't know where they're getting ground chuck for
$2.73 a pound, but it's not anywhere on the east coast. Shit; even
frozen ground beef patties run more than $2.50 a pound, and that's
"regular" ground beef.
This is how hedonics works, Jeffrey. Say you have an average car,
built by Ford, that sells in year 1 for $10,000. The next year, they
add power windows, power locks, and a few horsepower to the engine,
and raise the price to $11,000. According to the gurus who figure the
CPI, that car didn't increase in price $1000. Instead, they will
assign a value to the extra stuff, and say it increased in price by
$100 instead. Never mind that it's not possible to get pay $10,000 to
get the car without all of that stuff; it makes them look better if
they pretend inflation isn't as bad as it is. Some estimates, which I
will get to in my follow up article, estimate that fudging the CPI
numbers has saved the government as much as 70% of the legally
mandated increases in Social Security payments.
IOW, Jeffrey, your trust in the government is the ultimate in
gullibility and naivete.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Ahh...ever the Don Quioxte
>
>The government has a vested interest in manipulating the inflation
>figure for two reason. Actually, they have two of them. Social
>Security is the single largest government program, and by keeping
>inflation low, they also keep the rate of adjustment low. The other is
>that a lower inflation rate has the effect of inflating the GDP
>numbers.
>
>Smoke and mirrors, Jeffrey...
>
>Did you look up hedonics like I told you?
I don't do your bidding Milt.
>> >> I posted data that directly refuted the evidence you used to support
>> >> your premise.
>>
>> >That wasn't my premise, you tool. How much clearer to I have to make
>> >it?
>>
>> >Why do you think you can just ignore what I said, create some straw
>> >arguments based on something I didn't say, and then focus on that?
>>
>> What you did say was that economy was in the duldrums for a period of
>> time and you how you came to that conclusion.
>
>Because real wages did NOT increase for the majority of Americans
>between 1973 and 1996, you twit!
That's because benefits have taken their place.
>I mean, I would consider that a
>pretty crappy economy, when wages can't increase, even with deflated
>inflation numbers.
>
>> The numbers you used to
>> come to that conclusion were wrong.
>
>You idiot. I didn't USE numbers to come to that conclusion!
Obviously. You made it up.
>You did,
>to come to the OPPOSITE conclusion.
Well gee...that's what facts will do sometimes.
>I'd love for you to come up with
>three economists not affiliated with the government (no crackpots!)
>who will argue that the CPI numbers most-quoted are an accurate
>reflection of real inflation.
Most think the CPI overstated inflation before the Boskin Commission
report.
>
>> You then used that conclusion as
>> the premise for your arguement that the economy is weak. Then you
>> gave a list of reasons as to why the economy is weak.
>
>No, Jeffrey. I said the NUMBERS were great. I said the NUMBERS say
>we're just doing a bang-up job. I then said the numbers are bullshit.
>they don't reflect reality.
Yet you can't demostrate that. Every time you try the numbers you use
are wrong.
>Reality is, huge corporations have largely killed entrepreneurship,
>unless your idea of entrepreneurship is placing tiny little classified
>ads in newspapers or spamming in order to get people to click on your
>site. Starting a small business now is a very limited activity; far
>more limited than it used to be.
It is? You're so full of shit.
-----
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/magazines/fsb/entrepreneurship.boom.fsb/
We are in the midst of the largest entrepreneurial surge this country
has ever seen. According to Small Business Administration projections,
nearly 672,000 new companies with employees were created in 2005. That
is the biggest business birthrate in U.S. history: 30,000 more
startups than in 2004, and 12% more than at the height of dot-com
hysteria in 1996.
And the trend shows no sign of abating. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
found that more businesses were created in the first quarter of 2006
than during the same period the previous year. Not only are more
Americans launching small businesses, but most others are dreaming
about it: Sixty-six percent of respondents in a 2006 Yahoo Small
Business and Harris Interactive survey said they wanted to start a
company someday; 37% of those said they hoped to do so within the next
five years.
This trend is of course flattering to established entrepreneurs: They
were small before it was beautiful. But what does it mean in dollars
and cents? A world full of new competitors - and new opportunities.
All these nascent businesses require services, technology, and
expertise - demands that have launched an echo boom of small
businesses seeking to serve other small businesses.
-----
>Reality is, whereas before 1973, most people who owned homes and paid
>for them with one income were the norm, now, it's a dwindling
>exception.
People are buying bigger and bigger houses Milt.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1493
New houses in the U.S. were 38 percent bigger in 2002 than in 1975,
averaging 210 square meters (2,265 square feet).
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29783.html
Then there are the homes themselves. New houses are much more likely
to have central air conditioning and garages. About 45 percent of
homes now have dishwashers, up from 26 percent two decades ago.
Clothes washers were in three-quarters of homes in 1990, up from less
than two-thirds in 1970. At the same time, households with dryers
jumped from 45 percent to almost 70 percent. The average number of
televisions in a household rose from 1.4 in 1970 to 2.1 in 1990.
Comparing 1970 and 1990, the typical U.S. family owned 4.5 times more
in audio and video equipment, 50 percent more in kitchen appliances,
and 30 percent more in furniture. For fun and games, the household has
twice as much gear for sports and hobbies.
>Reality is, Prices for almost everything anyone needs to buy have more
>han doubled in ten years,
No they haven't. I've posted the data already that show's you're
wrong.
>despite the fact that the government keeps
Its not a fact Milt. I've posted the facts for you...you simply
ignore them.
>publishing CPI figures indicating inflation rates of 3-4%. It's
>IMPOSSIBLE for prices to double in ten years unless the average
>inflation rate is at least 6.9%. Do the math.
Guess what...they haven't doubled despite your repeated assertions
that they have.
>>
>> >You posted the same data I said is bullshit.
>>
>> You say its bullshit but you've yet to demonstrate that it is
>> bullshit.
>
>Yes I have. I told you to look up the word "hedonics." It's what the
>government uses to get its inflation numbers, and it's pure crap.
I've posted numbers from the BLS of individual item Milt. A dozen
eggs in 1997 is still a dozen eggs in 2007.
>
>Here's another example of how it works.
>
>Say in one year, the average price of a pound of coffee is $3, but
>half of all people buy Starbucks coffee, which is $5 per pound. So,
>the government uses the Starbucks number. Got that? The next year.
>there's a huge problem in South America; Juan Valdez is wiped out, and
>suddenly, the price of coffee goes up. A pound of regular coffee
>soars to $5, while the price of Starbucks goes to $9. Most people
>switch to regular coffee, so the government uses the $5 figure, so the
>inflation rate on coffee is actually 0%. Got that?
Why should anyone believe your antecdotes Milt?
>
>Okay, but it gets worse.
>
>Say the next year, regular coffee stays at $5, but the size of a can
>drops to 13 ounces. According to the inflation folks, the inflation
>rate is STILL 0%.
No...The measure is based on a POUND of coffe.
Why must you lie?
From the BLS:
Series Id: APU0000717311Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Coffee, 100%, ground roast, all sizes, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 1997 3.300
Jan 2007 3.288
>And yes, Jeffrey, when compiling the CPI, they actaully DO analyze the
>prices of individual items and then average them together. That is why
>just about everything you can think of has doubled in price in the
>last 10 years,
But it hasn't. Go to the BLS and see for yourself Milt.
>but the government still claims 3-4% inflation year-to-
>year. If prices double in 10 years, it's impossible to claim a 3%
>annual inflation rate. it would have to be at least 7%.
Prices haven't doubled in 10 years. Get over it.
>> >The numbers the government posts are lies. They cherry pick whichever
>> >part of the economy makes them look good, and ignore all of the rest.
>>
>> Then why don't you support that assertion with some real data?
>
>I go to the store every week, Jeffrey. I pay rent, and I own a few
>homes with a few partners that we're rehabbing and flipping. I pump
>gas, and I pay my electric bill. Our electric bills here just
>recovered from a stupid government scheme to hold down energy prices,
>by capping them for 8 years. When the caps expired, the cost of
>electricity rose by more than 70%. That's a little more than the 3-4%
>inflation claimed during that time.
What happens to you doesn't happen to everyone Milt.
Series Id: APU000072621Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Electricity per 500 KWH
Jan 1997 49.245
Jan 2007 59.043
>It's called skepticism, Jeffrey. When someone's telling me the
>inflation rate is 3-4%, but prices are going up a lot more than that
>in my experience,
Your lone experience doesn't extrapolate to the entire country Milt.
When are you going to learn that?
>I don't just walk down the street whistling a happy
>tune, blissfully believing everything the government tells me. You
>apparently do. Good for you. Have a doggie biscuit and a pat on the
>head.
Mean while the average nationwide cost of 500 KWH has only gone up
about 20% in 10 years.
>>
>> >Can you think of anything besides electronics that hasn't damn near
>> >doubled in price in the last 10 years? Housing is double, fuel and
>> >energy are more than double;
>>
>> They are?
>
>You're just not getting this, are you? I'm saying the numbers are
>bogus, so you just keep giving us more.
Of course you say they are bogus because they prove that you're a fool
at best and a liar at worst.
>
>> From BLS
>>
>> Series Id: APU000072621Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Electricity per 500 KWH
>> Jan 1997 49.245
>> Jun 2007 61.568
>>
>> Series Id: APU000072601Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Utility (piped) gas - 40 therms
>> Jan 1997 32.904
>> Jun 2007 57.835
>>
>> Series Id: APU000072611Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Utility (piped) gas - 100 therms
>> Jan 1997 72.440
>> Jun 2007 129.922
>>
>> Fuel Oil and gas have doubled.
>
>No, Jeffrey.
>
>My uncle has an oil furnace. In 1998, the price was $1.09 per gallon.
>last winter, the price was $2.89 one time and $3.06 the other.
Sigh. You're such a fucking idiot its incomprehensible to you hasn't
happened to everyone.
Series Id: APU000072511Area: U.S. city averageItem: Fuel
oil #2 per gallon (3.785 liters)
Jan 1997 1.136
Jan 2007 2.368
>
>My father uses propane for heating. His prices have tripled in the
>last five years alone.
Sorry BLS doesn't track propane.
>As for electricity, the wholesale price of electricity has tripled in
>the last five years alone;
Really? Post the data Milt because the article you posted didn't.
Here is what it did say about the cost:
"Exelon executive vice president Betsy Moler said rates in all states,
regardless of their regulatory structure, have soared about 34 percent
since 1996, mirroring fuel cost increases. That should overshadow
critics' blame of deregulation, she argues."
That's 10 years and only 34%. Hardly "...tripled in the last five
years alone" as you claim.
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/21/667/
>
>John Shelk, president of the Electrical Power Supply Association trade
>group based in Washington, D.C., says all states have seen large rate
>increases in the last decade, largely because of the increased price
>of natural gas and building power plants. The average U.S. price for
>natural gas used by the electric power sector tripled from $2.76 per
>million Btus in 1997 to $8.21 per thousand cubic feet in 2005, a peak
>year for natural gas prices, according to federal energy statistics.
>Prices dropped slightly in 2006 but are projected to rise again over
>the next two years.
Not every power plant uses natural gas to generate electricity. There
goes that arguement.
No, not at all you simpleton.
>
>My basic premise is that government economic figures are smoke and
>mirrors. Yet more proof.
LOL. You're so fucking stupid
---
http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/industry_statistics
In 2005, the latest year for which data are available:
49.7 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal.
Nuclear energy produced 19.3 percent. Natural gas supplied 18.7
percent. Hydropower provided 6.5 percent of the supply. Fuel oil
provided 3.0 percent of the generation mix. Biomass produced 1.6
percent, while other renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar,
and wind, provided the remainder of the supply.
---
JSL
Steve
Milt suggests, apparently, that you should trust his gut feelings,
instead...
milt....@gmail.com
No numbers to prove it? Your wife must do all of the shopping.
>
> Guess whatMilt? You're making shit up again.
One more time, Jeffrey. Look up the word "hedonics" and then read the
methodology used to determine these numbers.
And then hie thee to a grocery store for a lesson in prices. ask
someone whose worked there for 25 years what prices are like now.
By the way, Jeffrey, I was in the Retail Clerks Union and worked in
grocery stores from 1974 through 1981. Bananas were 9 cents a pound
and went on sale for a nickel. A head of lettuce was 19 cents; if
there was a freeze in California, it might go up to 49 cents. Grapes
were 19-39 cents per pound. Tomatoes were between 19-49 cents a pound.
When avocados went to a quarter each, I thought there would be a riot.
Regular ground beef was 79-99 cents per pound, and could be gotten on
sale for 49 cents.
Seriously, as someone who has always done his own shopping, i can
assure you that the only way you could possibly attempt to claim that
prices aren't at LEAST 4 times higher than they were 25 years ago is
if you have never done your own shopping.
>
> Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> Jan 1982 0.537
> Jan 2007 1.153
Safeway, Tucson, Az - Safeway regular sandwich bread, .99; Wonder
Bread, $2,19;
Safeway, Baltimore, MD; safeway sandwich bread, .99; Schmidt's Blue
Ribbon, $2.29; Wonder Bread, $2.29
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Series Id: APU0000703111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Ground chuck, 100% beef, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> Jan 1982 1.794
> Jan 2007 2.630
>
Safeway, Tucson, Arizona - 93% lean ground beef (NOT CHUCK!) on sale
$1.99/lb. reg price, $3.99/lb
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Series Id: APU0000706111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Chicken, fresh, whole, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> Jan 1982 0.712
> Jan 2007 1.033
Safeway, Baltimore, MD Drumsticks and Thighs on sale, .95/lb, regular
price $1.89/lb. Whold chicken regular price $1.69/lb. (and the eastern
Shore of Maryland is one of the largest chicken-producing areas in the
country...)
>
> Series Id: APU0000708111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Eggs, grade A, large, per doz.
>
> Jan 1982 0.925
> Jan 2007 1.549
Safeway, baltimore, MD - Eggs, large Grade A, $1.49
In other words, I just showed that, except for eggs, none of the above
prices reflect reality.
Hedonics, jeffrey; look it up...
>
> >(I haven't run the numbers,
>
> No kidding?
>
> >but I
> >think that's conservative, since many prices have multiplied by 10
> >times in 25 years. At a 6% inflation rate per year,
>
> The rate of inflation is an aggregate numberMilt.
Yes it is, Jeffrey. Do the math.
>
> >the prices
> >wouldn't even triple. Yet you're trying to assert that the inflation
> >rate is well under that.
>
> I'm not assertingMilt...I've posted data that shows it.
You're posting data that doesn't reflect reality, AS STATED ON THE
VERY WEB SITE YOU GOT THIS FROM! Posting numbers without understanding
the methodology is beyond stupid. That's like posting a poll that says
that Dennis Kucinich is the number one choice of Democrats, without
reading the question that was asked, which was "Which male candidate
under 5 feet 8 inches tall is the best choice for president?"
You post numbers. Where did they come from? Note the qualifiers, as
well. "city averages"? Define that. How many people buy a whole
chicken, for example? Go to the grocery store; it's not many. At least
80% of the chicken section is parts, and you will be hard-pressed to
find any chicken parts for $1.03 per pound, except for the occasional
sale. And Ground Chuck for $2.63 per pound? Where? Just for the hell
of it, I checked Safeway's ad for Arizona, where beef is much cheaper
than here, and 93% lean ground beef (not chuck) was on sale for $1.99
per pound, save $2 per pound! Hmmm... that's a LOT more than $2.63 per
pound. Now, the CPI people don't actually use occasional sale prices
to create their bogus numbers, do they?
Well, do they?
You see, Jeffrey, when someone says the numbers you use are bogus, it
really doesn't help your case to produce more of the same numbers.
Find me three non-government-affiliated economists or economics
experts who will back up your claim that the CPI numbers used most
commonly are accurate.
>
> >At the 3% inflation rate claimed by your
> >numbers, it would take 23 years for prices to even double. At 6%, it
> >would take about 12 years to double. I'm going back in my mind, and
> >even checking the Internet, and it's difficult to find any
> >necessities, like housing, food and energy that haven't doubled in the
> >last 10 years.
>
> Now you're simply lying as I posed the numbers from the BLS.
Which are bogus. They're government fluff. Do you also believe the
federal budget deficits are actually "only" $250 billion Jeffrey?
>
> >Oh, that's right! Housing and energy aren't INCLUDED in the core CPI
> >figures!
>
> And housing shouldn't be. Its a choice and its paid for differently
> than other items. You don't take out a 30 year loan to buy a loaf a
> bread.
That's insane. First of all, a home purchase is the largest single
purchase a family makes, and it's considered part of your net worth.
But more than half of all people rent, Jeffrey. it's the largest
component of anyone's cost of living. To leave it out, when you're
using CPI numbers to index Social security benefits and such is the
height of irresponsibility.
>
> Energy is a volatile commodity and its price changes are reflected in
> the price of goods and services.
You don't understand what the CPI is, do you? it's supposed to gauge
the cost of living for most Americans. Now, I suppose you squat on
some land in Montana, build a Unabomber-style shack, live without
electricity, burn twigs for heat and cooking the varmints you killed,
and use the woods to relieve yourself, but that's not how most people
in the United States live. it's about gauging the increased cost of
goods and services in the United States, and it used to be relatively
accurate, until presidents beginning with Carter decided the numbers
were embarrassing, and they had to do something about it. So, they
started fudging.
Hedonics, Jeffrey. Look it up.
>
> >I swear, wingnuts are the most gullible people in the world. Never
> >believe ANYTHING that ANY government tells you without verifying its
> >truth or falsity, especially when manipulating the numbers can make
> >them look better...
>
> Yet you post NO numbers.
I just posted numbers from grocery store sales flyers. If a product is
ON SALE (with a club card in most cases) once in a while, you'll get
products for the prices posted by the BLS. But anyone who goes to a
grocery store every week will recognize that they don't publish
anything resembling the actual prices of things.
>
> >FYI, Clinton and Carter did just as much tinkering with the CPI as
> >Reagan and Bush I did.
>
> Was that to make you look non-partisanMilt?
No, it's called the truth, Jeffrey.
>
> >> >Leave it to a wingnut
> >> >to comment on something they refuse to read because they won't like
> >> >what's in it.
>
> >> I didn't comment on your conclusionsMilt...I commented on your
> >> premise.
>
> >So far, you don't even indicate that you understand what it is. You
> >just misstated it again above.
>
> I know you're making shit up again.
>
I am? Then prove your figures are correct. Show us that the actual
regular prices in the grocery stores approach the prices listed by the
BLS in any way shape or form. If you can find more than the store-
brand, basic loaf of air bread in a grocery store for anything
approaching $1.15, you're a lucky man, because it just doesn't
happen.
Seriously, when did you become so gullible as to believe anything the
government tells you without question?
Steve
Once again, Milt dodges the question of proving his gut feelings have
any validity... of course, he believes them... In Shook's mind, his
intuition always trumps any actual documentation.
Show us that the actual
>regular prices in the grocery stores approach the prices listed by the
>BLS in any way shape or form. If you can find more than the store-
>brand, basic loaf of air bread in a grocery store for anything
>approaching $1.15, you're a lucky man, because it just doesn't
>happen.
>
>Seriously, when did you become so gullible as to believe anything the
>government tells you without question?
>
>>
>> >> >And he wonders why we think he's stupid.
>>
>> >> No, I don't wonder at all.
>>
>> >Good, because it's not really much of a mystery...
>>
>> JSL
>
<LOL> More gut feelings from Shook... but at least it's
refreshing to see Milt own up to his grocery store clerk history
instead of his former bluster about hobnobbing with the rich and
famous...
3655 Dead
Oh, it's NUMBERS you want. Well, got just the thing:
I came across a website that had carefully sussed out the prices of
various commodities, using January 2000 as a base line and taking us
up to April 30th of this year. The editorial and table were provided
by Mark J. Lundeen who, while something of a Gold Bug, is meticulous
about his research.
So: the Consumer Price Index is up 22%, and the international value of
the dollar is down 40%. (The low CPI can be attributed, at least in
part, to the fact that consumers donÂ’t have much money to spend, and
when nobody can afford to buy, that keeps prices down. Unfortunately,
it kinda defeats the purpose of having an economy).
Lundeen lists the price changes of various other items. He lists items
that haven't kept up with the consumer price index, such as the Dow
Jones, Transportation stocks, NASDAQ, coffee and cotton. ItÂ’s a
relatively short list.
Beef, in the form of cattle, is up 34%. Live pork is up 36.1%. OJ is
up 74.3%. Corn is up 82.8%. Wheat has more than doubled, up 106.5%,
and cocoa is up 117.7%. If you’re wondering why your grocery bill has
jumped so much, that explains it in part.
Not surprisingly, consumer debt is up 75.5% over that same period, and
the table doesn’t measure the impact of the huge increase in interest
rates that have occurred as a result of deregulation. Tony Soprano
would be embarrassed to charge the type of vig the major credit card
companies demand, and those check-cashing places often hit 500% APR on
their loans. Nice work if you can get it. All it requires is unlimited
greed and the morals of a snake.
Housing has more than doubled in fake dollar value, although of course
it’s on its way back down from being nearly triple what it was in
2000. But in the wake of the housing bubble, millions are caught in
adjustable rate mortgages that have seen monthly payments double over
a period of months, causing many to lose their homes. At least three
million have lost their homes, another sort of stat often associated
with economic depression.
You’ve probably noticed the price of gasoline. It’s one thing to say
that oil has increased in cost by 163% since the turn of the century,
but gasoline has increased a staggering 234%. Someone’s getting rich,
and here’s a hint: it ain’t us. Fuel oil is up a modest 181% in the
same period, so it only costs double to heat your home, but no worries
because the bank foreclosed last week!
Metals and precious metals are often considered barometers of a
economic system. Going by that standard, weÂ’re in even worse trouble:
steel is up 282%, copper is up 309%, gold is up 133%, and silver is up
146%. If you are a gold bug, then you might consider the rate of
inflation to be only about 18% per year! Happy days are here again!
It’s one thing to say the cost of living has gone up only 22%, but
it’s a bit hard to swallow when nearly anything you are likely to buy
any time soon has increased by at least four times that, and sometimes
more than ten times that.
So next time some smarmy son of a bitch from the administration comes
on the news shows of our weak and bought-out media, and tells you how
good you’ve got it in the economic miracle of capitalism, write him,
and write the station he appeared on, and cc your congressional reps,
and tell him, “You fucking liar.”
And pass along the list from
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/lundeen050807.html
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Really? Why don't you post their methodology so that we can see how
their numbers are bullshit Milt?
>The
>government is honest about its dishonesty, after all.
>
>The government uses hedonic regression, which is based on hedonic
>demand theory, which I've asked you to look up, and you apparently
>refuse.
I don't need to look it up Milt.
>
>You see, the government has a vested interest in keeping the inflation
>rate low, because it keeps the cost of entitlement programs in check.
>So, they engage in hedonics.
>
>Your first example is an interesting one. Define "loaf of bread."
>Here, we have "Schmidt's Blue Ribbon," which is the most popular name
>brand, and there are the various store-brand breads. Ten years ago, a
>loaf of Schmidt's ran $1.79, now it's $2.29 a loaf. Store brand
>loaves, however, were roughly 50-55 cents a loaf ten years ago, and
>now cost a dollar.
>
>So, did the price double? or did it rise by roughly a third? According
>to the government, it went up by a third, despite the fact that far
>more people will buy the store brand. Not only that, but if the price
>of Schmidt's goes up 20 cents, but they add 2 ounces to the size of
>the loaf, they will read that as no price increase.
Sorry Milt. The base the price change per pound.
Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>You mention several produce examples, Jeffrey, and all I can say is,
>you can't possibly eat much fruits and veggies, because the prices
>have been soaring in the last decade. The high price on tomatoes ten
>years ago was $1.99; now, I struggle to find hothouse tomatoes for
>that price in the middle of summer.
Once again your local experience is not a reflection of what happens
across the country.
Series Id: APU0000712311Area: U.S. city averageItem:
Tomatoes, field grown, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Jan 1997 1.213
Jan 2007 1.621
>As for fruits, there has been a
>lot of dumping of central and South American produce on store shelves,
>most of it of questionable quality. No, let me rephrase that; most of
>it is shit. the good quality peaches, plums, grapes, etc, have more
>than doubled in the last ten years, except for the occasional sale.
>What hedonic regression does, is take the lowest priced apple they can
>find and use that as a price indicator. Therefore, say that in 1997,
>Georgia peaches sold for 79 cents a pound (made up number), and this
>year, they sell for $1.69 a pound. But in the interim, there is an
>influx of Venezuelan peaches selling for .99 a pound. According to the
>CPI, peaches only increased $.20 per pound.
No they don't.
Here is what they index
713312 Peaches, any variety, all sizes, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>I live in the chicken capital of the world, but chicken prices have
>more than doubled in ten years, except for the ever-less-infrequent
>sales.
Prove it.
From Giant Eagle in Frederick, Maryland
http://www.gianteagle.com/main/fs_ds.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1127355&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=1107223&bmUID=1186075414668
Boneless, skinless, chicken breast $1.99/lb
>And beef??? I don't know where they're getting ground chuck for
>$2.73 a pound, but it's not anywhere on the east coast. Shit; even
>frozen ground beef patties run more than $2.50 a pound, and that's
>"regular" ground beef.
From Sam's Club.
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=197489&pCatg=2465
Angus Burgers - 6 lb.
Pick Up: $13.88
Club #6650
That's $2.31/lb for frozen burgers.
You better learn how to shop.
>This is how hedonics works, Jeffrey. Say you have an average car,
>built by Ford, that sells in year 1 for $10,000. The next year, they
>add power windows, power locks, and a few horsepower to the engine,
>and raise the price to $11,000. According to the gurus who figure the
>CPI, that car didn't increase in price $1000. Instead, they will
>assign a value to the extra stuff, and say it increased in price by
>$100 instead. Never mind that it's not possible to get pay $10,000 to
>get the car without all of that stuff; it makes them look better if
>they pretend inflation isn't as bad as it is. Some estimates, which I
>will get to in my follow up article, estimate that fudging the CPI
>numbers has saved the government as much as 70% of the legally
>mandated increases in Social Security payments.
>
>IOW, Jeffrey, your trust in the government is the ultimate in
>gullibility and naivete.
And were supposed to trust you because you cant' find tomatoes at a
price you like?
star...@yahoo.com
> Ahh, another pissant revolutionary..
As I said in another thread, the real frustration that a lot of people
who have real solutions and want real change have is that they know
that even SAYING the solutions probably gets them jailed -- much less
even attempting implementation.
Mike
star...@yahoo.com
> Well, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far.
>
> You see, as powerful as they'd like to be, they still can't be
> powerful without our help.
I think they've done a good job proving that they can be powerful
without the rank and file. This is why they want to openly bankrupt
the entire mess -- when they are able to bankrupt the poor, they will
have all the essential power. At that point, they can do as they
please to who they please -- not only killing off those whom they've
probably always wanted done away with (read: the poor and the
dissenters), but also placing fear in the rest that they might be next
if they go down the same road.
> As for "this generation," well, I'm seeing some major stirrings, and
> the next generation is royally pissed, by and large, over the fact
> that they will be the first generation in US history to NOT do as well
> as their parents. I think the baby boom generation had better hold
> onto its hat, because retirement is not likely to be pretty, once our
> kids are paying our bills.
True, but will those kids be getting a choice -- you may have just
identified why they're doing what they're doing.
> Damn right wing is over for at least a generation. Unfortunately, the
> damage will be felt for some time...
You're presuming elections and Constitutional rule -- two precepts I
am not willing to figure as drop-dead assumptions.
Mike
milt....@gmail.com
> instead...
Nope.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well so now its 4x higher than 25 years ago. Well, I haven't claimed
that and I'm not going to bother to look but my-oh-my how the
goalposts change.
"...I haven't run the numbers, but I think that's conservative, since
many prices have multiplied by 10 times in 25 years. At a 6% inflation
rate per year,... " -- Milt Shook.
>>
>> Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>>
>> Jan 1982 0.537
>> Jan 2007 1.153
>
>Safeway, Tucson, Az - Safeway regular sandwich bread, .99; Wonder
>Bread, $2,19;
>
>Safeway, Baltimore, MD; safeway sandwich bread, .99; Schmidt's Blue
>Ribbon, $2.29; Wonder Bread, $2.29
That's Baltimore Milt and you've cherry picked two high priced brands.
I would wager that incomes in Baltimore are higher than the national
average.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Series Id: APU0000703111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Ground chuck, 100% beef, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>>
>> Jan 1982 1.794
>> Jan 2007 2.630
>>
>
>Safeway, Tucson, Arizona - 93% lean ground beef (NOT CHUCK!) on sale
>$1.99/lb. reg price, $3.99/lb
What do you think lean ground beef is Milt? Grocery store "Ground
Chuck" is typically 80-20. REAL ground chuck is like 90-95%
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Series Id: APU0000706111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Chicken, fresh, whole, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>>
>> Jan 1982 0.712
>> Jan 2007 1.033
>
>Safeway, Baltimore, MD Drumsticks and Thighs on sale, .95/lb, regular
>price $1.89/lb. Whold chicken regular price $1.69/lb. (and the eastern
>Shore of Maryland is one of the largest chicken-producing areas in the
>country...)
Why do you insist upon using local data to reflect what's happening
across the country Milt?
>>
>> Series Id: APU0000708111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Eggs, grade A, large, per doz.
>>
>> Jan 1982 0.925
>> Jan 2007 1.549
>
>Safeway, baltimore, MD - Eggs, large Grade A, $1.49
>
>In other words, I just showed that, except for eggs, none of the above
>prices reflect reality.
LOL....you're so full of shit Milt.
>
>Hedonics, jeffrey; look it up...
>>
>> >(I haven't run the numbers,
>>
>> No kidding?
>>
>> >but I
>> >think that's conservative, since many prices have multiplied by 10
>> >times in 25 years. At a 6% inflation rate per year,
>>
>> The rate of inflation is an aggregate numberMilt.
>
>Yes it is, Jeffrey. Do the math.
>>
>> >the prices
>> >wouldn't even triple. Yet you're trying to assert that the inflation
>> >rate is well under that.
>>
>> I'm not assertingMilt...I've posted data that shows it.
>
>You're posting data that doesn't reflect reality, AS STATED ON THE
>VERY WEB SITE YOU GOT THIS FROM! Posting numbers without understanding
>the methodology is beyond stupid. That's like posting a poll that says
>that Dennis Kucinich is the number one choice of Democrats, without
>reading the question that was asked, which was "Which male candidate
>under 5 feet 8 inches tall is the best choice for president?"
>
>You post numbers. Where did they come from? Note the qualifiers, as
>well. "city averages"? Define that. How many people buy a whole
>chicken, for example? Go to the grocery store; it's not many. At least
>80% of the chicken section is parts,
Prove it.
Here are the chicken items that BLS tracks:
706111 Chicken, fresh, whole, per lb. (453.6 gm)
706211 Chicken breast, bone-in, per lb. (453.6 gm)
706212 Chicken legs, bone-in, per lb. (453.6 gm)
> and you will be hard-pressed to
>find any chicken parts for $1.03 per pound,
Well then why don't you come up with some comparison of chicken parts
in 1997 v 2007 Milt 'cause here's the BLS data for Chicken Breast,
bone-in.
APU0000706211 1997 M01 2.028
APU0000706211 2007 M01 2.135
>xcept for the occasional
>sale. And Ground Chuck for $2.63 per pound? Where? Just for the hell
>of it, I checked Safeway's ad for Arizona, where beef is much cheaper
>than here, and 93% lean ground beef (not chuck) was on sale for $1.99
>per pound, save $2 per pound! Hmmm... that's a LOT more than $2.63 per
>pound.
A $1.99/lb is more than $2.63/lb? No wonder you think prices have
gone up.
>ow, the CPI people don't actually use occasional sale prices
>to create their bogus numbers, do they?
Yes, they do.
>
>Well, do they?
Yes, they do.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf
>
>You see, Jeffrey, when someone says the numbers you use are bogus, it
>really doesn't help your case to produce more of the same numbers.
When someone has been bitch slapped around as much as you have one
this one they usually have enough sense to bow out...even if not
gracefully.
>Find me three non-government-affiliated economists or economics
>experts who will back up your claim that the CPI numbers used most
>commonly are accurate.
No.
>> >At the 3% inflation rate claimed by your
>> >numbers, it would take 23 years for prices to even double. At 6%, it
>> >would take about 12 years to double. I'm going back in my mind, and
>> >even checking the Internet, and it's difficult to find any
>> >necessities, like housing, food and energy that haven't doubled in the
>> >last 10 years.
>>
>> Now you're simply lying as I posed the numbers from the BLS.
>
>Which are bogus.
You continue to claim as much but can't seem to post any hard evidence
can you?
>They're government fluff. Do you also believe the
>federal budget deficits are actually "only" $250 billion Jeffrey?
I know what they are talking about Milt. So it depends upon how they
define deficit.
>>
>> >Oh, that's right! Housing and energy aren't INCLUDED in the core CPI
>> >figures!
>>
>> And housing shouldn't be. Its a choice and its paid for differently
>> than other items. You don't take out a 30 year loan to buy a loaf a
>> bread.
>
>That's insane. First of all, a home purchase is the largest single
>purchase a family makes, and it's considered part of your net worth.
>But more than half of all people rent, Jeffrey. it's the largest
>component of anyone's cost of living.
Half of all people rent?
Good lord.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr207/q207def.html
Homeownership Rates. The proportion of households that are owners is
termed the homeownership rate. It is computed by dividing the number
of households that are owners by the total number of households (table
5 and 6).
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr207/q207tab5.html
Table 5. Homeownership Rates for the United States: 1965 to 2007
(in percent)
Year First Second Third Fourth
Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter
2007.... 68.4 68.2
You just keep sinking deeper and deeper into the hole your digging
aren't you Milt?
>To leave it out, when you're
>using CPI numbers to index Social security benefits and such is the
>height of irresponsibility.
If you say so. I would venture to say that most people on SS aren't
moving into bigger homes.
>>
>> Energy is a volatile commodity and its price changes are reflected in
>> the price of goods and services.
>
>You don't understand what the CPI is, do you? it's supposed to gauge
>the cost of living for most Americans. Now, I suppose you squat on
>some land in Montana, build a Unabomber-style shack, live without
>electricity, burn twigs for heat and cooking the varmints you killed,
>and use the woods to relieve yourself, but that's not how most people
>in the United States live. it's about gauging the increased cost of
>goods and services in the United States, and it used to be relatively
>accurate, until presidents beginning with Carter decided the numbers
>were embarrassing, and they had to do something about it. So, they
>started fudging.
>
>Hedonics, Jeffrey. Look it up.
Fact Milt...deal with them.
>> >I swear, wingnuts are the most gullible people in the world. Never
>> >believe ANYTHING that ANY government tells you without verifying its
>> >truth or falsity, especially when manipulating the numbers can make
>> >them look better...
>>
>> Yet you post NO numbers.
>
>I just posted numbers from grocery store sales flyers.
From one store, in one town, for one week. The BLS numbers reflect
what is happening across the country.
>If a product is
>ON SALE (with a club card in most cases) once in a while, you'll get
>products for the prices posted by the BLS. But anyone who goes to a
>grocery store every week will recognize that they don't publish
>anything resembling the actual prices of things.
Only idiots like you that is.
>>
>> >FYI, Clinton and Carter did just as much tinkering with the CPI as
>> >Reagan and Bush I did.
>>
>> Was that to make you look non-partisanMilt?
>
>No, it's called the truth, Jeffrey.
>>
>> >> >Leave it to a wingnut
>> >> >to comment on something they refuse to read because they won't like
>> >> >what's in it.
>>
>> >> I didn't comment on your conclusionsMilt...I commented on your
>> >> premise.
>>
>> >So far, you don't even indicate that you understand what it is. You
>> >just misstated it again above.
>>
>> I know you're making shit up again.
>>
>I am? Then prove your figures are correct. Show us that the actual
>regular prices in the grocery stores approach the prices listed by the
>BLS in any way shape or form.
Why? That's not what the BLS does you moron.
>If you can find more than the store-
>brand, basic loaf of air bread in a grocery store for anything
>approaching $1.15, you're a lucky man, because it just doesn't
>happen.
>
>Seriously, when did you become so gullible as to believe anything the
>government tells you without question?
I tire of this Milt.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:44:41 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>
> Oh, it's NUMBERS you want. Well, got just the thing:
>
> I came across a website that had carefully sussed out the prices of
> various commodities, using January 2000 as a base line and taking us
> up to April 30th of this year. The editorial and table were provided
> by Mark J. Lundeen who, while something of a Gold Bug, is meticulous
> about his research.
Yes he is. I am quoting him, and about 4-5 others quite extensively in
my follow-up column.
>
> So: the Consumer Price Index is up 22%, and the international value of
> the dollar is down 40%. (The low CPI can be attributed, at least in
> part, to the fact that consumers donÂ't have much money to spend, and
> when nobody can afford to buy, that keeps prices down. Unfortunately,
> it kinda defeats the purpose of having an economy).
>
> Lundeen lists the price changes of various other items. He lists items
> that haven't kept up with the consumer price index, such as the Dow
> Jones, Transportation stocks, NASDAQ, coffee and cotton. ItÂ's a
> relatively short list.
>
> Beef, in the form of cattle, is up 34%. Live pork is up 36.1%. OJ is
> up 74.3%. Corn is up 82.8%. Wheat has more than doubled, up 106.5%,
> and cocoa is up 117.7%. If you're wondering why your grocery bill has
> jumped so much, that explains it in part.
>
> Not surprisingly, consumer debt is up 75.5% over that same period, and
> the table doesn't measure the impact of the huge increase in interest
> rates that have occurred as a result of deregulation. Tony Soprano
> would be embarrassed to charge the type of vig the major credit card
> companies demand, and those check-cashing places often hit 500% APR on
> their loans. Nice work if you can get it. All it requires is unlimited
> greed and the morals of a snake.
Just as an aside, the CPI doesn't include the cost of credit or debt
service, which is a huge cost to the consumer, as well.
And you're right; payday loans should be regulated heavily. I keep
getting spam from one called "Christian Angels Payday Loans." Their
rate sheet says they'll take 15% per week. Wonder how Jesus would feel
about such Usury...
>
> Housing has more than doubled in fake dollar value, although of course
> it's on its way back down from being nearly triple what it was in
> 2000. But in the wake of the housing bubble, millions are caught in
> adjustable rate mortgages that have seen monthly payments double over
> a period of months, causing many to lose their homes. At least three
> million have lost their homes, another sort of stat often associated
> with economic depression.
There is another aspect of this, too, that is not considered, not even
by Lundeen, and that is the inventory of abandoned housing, especially
in inner cities, which are averaged into the mix, and the slumlords,
who charge outrageous rents for housing that is substandard, to put it
mildly. The REAL housing inflation is actually much higher than even
that measure.
>
> You've probably noticed the price of gasoline. It's one thing to say
> that oil has increased in cost by 163% since the turn of the century,
> but gasoline has increased a staggering 234%. Someone's getting rich,
> and here's a hint: it ain't us. Fuel oil is up a modest 181% in the
> same period, so it only costs double to heat your home, but no worries
> because the bank foreclosed last week!
Correction. 181% would be triple. A 100% increase would be double.
>
> Metals and precious metals are often considered barometers of a
> economic system. Going by that standard, weÂ're in even worse trouble:
> steel is up 282%, copper is up 309%, gold is up 133%, and silver is up
> 146%. If you are a gold bug, then you might consider the rate of
> inflation to be only about 18% per year! Happy days are here again!
>
> It's one thing to say the cost of living has gone up only 22%, but
> it's a bit hard to swallow when nearly anything you are likely to buy
> any time soon has increased by at least four times that, and sometimes
> more than ten times that.
>
> So next time some smarmy son of a bitch from the administration comes
> on the news shows of our weak and bought-out media, and tells you how
> good you've got it in the economic miracle of capitalism, write him,
> and write the station he appeared on, and cc your congressional reps,
> and tell him, "You fucking liar."
>
> And pass along the list fromhttp://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/lundeen050807.html
>
You have to laugh at these people who won't trust the government to
take care of the health care financing system, because they're
completely inept, but believe everything it says about the economy,
without question.
You can tell Jeffrey's wife does all of the shopping and pays all of
the bills...
Steve
...all the facts say Milt is wrong.... as usual...
Like, for instance, Milt's neighbors that post in support of Milt,
but using the same IP as Milt, himself....
Steve
<ROTFLMAO> Look here, you fruitcake, the basic "solution" you freaky
leftists have is to steal other people's property.... and in
America, you can shout it from the treetops without getting in any
trouble...
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 2, 9:44 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Many prices have increased by a factor of ten in 25 years. But over
all, I figure quadruped was more conservative. See the first line
after the snip.
>
>
>
> >> Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> >> Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> >> Jan 1982 0.537
> >> Jan 2007 1.153
>
> >Safeway, Tucson, Az - Safeway regular sandwich bread, .99; Wonder
> >Bread, $2,19;
>
> >Safeway, Baltimore, MD; safeway sandwich bread, .99; Schmidt's Blue
> >Ribbon, $2.29; Wonder Bread, $2.29
>
> That's BaltimoreMiltand you've cherry picked two high priced brands.
> I would wager that incomes in Baltimore are higher than the national
> average.
Um, Jeffrey? Wages have no direct correlation to prices.
But let's get to that statement above.
I didn't pick "high-priced brands' at all. I chose NAME brands. If you
want high-priced breads, I could easily go $4-5. I chose basic,
regular white bread prices. if we're trying to determine how much
consumer prices have gone up, why are you accusing ME of "cherry-
picking"? Go to your local grocery store and count the number of
loaves of bread at $1.15 or below. If you're really lucky, you'll find
two. ALL of the rest of them will be over $1.50 -- most of them over
$2.
BTW, I just checked the Kroger web site for Columbus, and their
cheapest bread -- Kroger Tender Twist -- is $1 ON SALE, and Wonder
Bread is $2.29.
They chose to index Safeway bread. Why not use sales figures and
determine an average price based on all of them, and the share of the
market each receives? Because that wouldn't look as good as choosing
whichever item makes the inflation rate look lower...
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Series Id: APU0000703111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> >> Ground chuck, 100% beef, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> >> Jan 1982 1.794
> >> Jan 2007 2.630
>
> >Safeway, Tucson, Arizona - 93% lean ground beef (NOT CHUCK!) on sale
> >$1.99/lb. reg price, $3.99/lb
>
> What do you think lean ground beef isMilt? Grocery store "Ground
> Chuck" is typically 80-20. REAL ground chuck is like 90-95%
If it's ground chuck, you dimwit, it'll say ground chuck. If you can
find ANY ground chuck that is 90-95% fat, good luck. Most of the time,
it's more like 80-85%. But it's also a very flavorful cut because of
the WAY it's marbled. In most cases, 93% lean ground beef is just
beef, and not a specific cut from either the front or the back, but
it's trimmed to make it leaner before grinding.
That said, if anyone is selling ground beef for $4 a pound, ground
chuck will be at least $4.50.
Dominick's (Safeway) in Chicago has Ground Chuck ON SALE for $3.29/lb,
Jeffrey. Kind of odd, isn't it? All that competition, and they're
still selling it ON SALE for .66 HIGHER than the BLS "average price"?
Winn Dixie, in Meridian, MS (very rural) has chuck STEAK on sale for
$2.99/lb, regular price $4.39. Think they'll grind it for you and only
charge you $2.63, because the government said that's what the price
was supposed to be?
>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Series Id: APU0000706111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> >> Chicken, fresh, whole, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> >> Jan 1982 0.712
> >> Jan 2007 1.033
>
> >Safeway, Baltimore, MD Drumsticks and Thighs on sale, .95/lb, regular
> >price $1.89/lb. Whole chicken regular price $1.69/lb. (and the eastern
> >Shore of Maryland is one of the largest chicken-producing areas in the
> >country...)
>
> Why do you insist upon using local data to reflect what's happening
> across the country Milt?
Okay, Jeffrey. You survey the country and find me a whole chicken that
sells for the regular price of $1.03. Just one. I've looked; I can't
find one. Kind of odd, since that's supposed to be the "average." The
cheapest chicken I can find anywhere is chicken leg quarters for .79
per pound. They come from farms in Mexico, for the most part, and they
are the fattiest chicken I have ever had, and they taste funny. And in
the last ten years, even they've gone from $.59 per pound to $.99 per
pound.
>
>
>
> >> Series Id: APU0000708111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> >> Eggs, grade A, large, per doz.
>
> >> Jan 1982 0.925
> >> Jan 2007 1.549
>
> >Safeway, baltimore, MD - Eggs, large Grade A, $1.49
>
> >In other words, I just showed that, except for eggs, none of the above
> >prices reflect reality.
>
> LOL....you're so full of shit Milt.
Really? Funny how I'm proving it, huh? Every single price except eggs
is far HIGHER in reality, than the BLS claims. And their starting
numbers also don't reflect reality.
> in 1997 v 2007Milt'cause here's the BLS data for Chicken Breast,
> bone-in.
>
> APU0000706211 1997 M01 2.028
> APU0000706211 2007 M01 2.135
Here's a perfect example of hedonics at work. When I first moved here
ten years ago, the regular price of chicken breasts both here and in
Tucson was about $1.59. On sale, I could get them for $.99/lb. There
was only one brand - Perdue, that was over $2 per pound.
NOW, bone-in chicken breasts generally run about $2.79/lb. regular
price, and only one store I know of has them on sale fairly often, for
$1.59/lb. Once more, I challenge you to find me ONE STORE in the
entire country that has a regular price on chicken breasts of
$2.13/.lb. It doesn't exist.
This is how hedonics works. You choose the highest price to start
with, and then compare the lowest price from them on. There is no way
the "average" price for chicken breasts for the entire year was $2.02
in 1997. But it's also not possible that the "average" regular price
for chicken breasts is $2.13 now. there are a lot of reasons, not the
least of which being the demand. The market for boneless breasts has
skyrocketed, and since the fast food joints have started switching
over to "all-white-meat" chicken for their wares, the demand for
breasts (and wings - wonder what the BLS sys about the price of those
-- when i was a kid, the butcher gave them away and we used them as
baitl now, they're routinely over $2/lb. In other words, it doesn't
make even the least bit of sense to anyone who shops every week, for
the government to claim that the price of bone-in chicken breasts has
only gone up 11 cents in ten years. please -- sell it somewhere
else...
>
> >xcept for the occasional
> >sale. And Ground Chuck for $2.63 per pound? Where? Just for the hell
> >of it, I checked Safeway's ad for Arizona, where beef is much cheaper
> >than here, and 93% lean ground beef (not chuck) was on sale for $1.99
> >per pound, save $2 per pound! Hmmm... that's a LOT more than $2.63 per
> >pound.
>
> A $1.99/lb is more than $2.63/lb? No wonder you think prices have
> gone up.
Jeffrey, the $1.99 was a SALE price. The regular price was $1.36
HIGHER than the BLS alleged average! They'll sell it to you this week
for that. Last week, they wouldn't have, and next week they won't.
>
> >now, the CPI people don't actually use occasional sale prices
> >to create their bogus numbers, do they?
>
> Yes, they do.
So, you admit the numbers are bogus. Thanks for sharing.
>
>
>
> >Well, do they?
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf
>
Read that starting at about page 40. It proves me right!
>
> >You see, Jeffrey, when someone says the numbers you use are bogus, it
> >really doesn't help your case to produce more of the same numbers.
>
> When someone has been bitch slapped around as much as you have one
> this one they usually have enough sense to bow out...even if not
> gracefully.
You and Canyon crack me up. Between the two of you, you comprise about
half a human brain, with 20 times the hubris.
I'm still waiting for some sort of proof that the BLS figures are
accurate, without you just regurgitating more BLS figures that I prove
to be BS. Except for eggs, of course.
BTW, you do know that eggs and milk are both price supported and
subsidized, which is why their prices are relatively constant, right?
>
> >Find me three non-government-affiliated economists or economics
> >experts who will back up your claim that the CPI numbers used most
> >commonly are accurate.
>
> No.
Who's kicked whose ass, Jeffrey?
That just certified your ass-whupping.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Post some Milt.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> >> Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>>
>> >> Jan 1982 0.537
>> >> Jan 2007 1.153
>>
>> >Safeway, Tucson, Az - Safeway regular sandwich bread, .99; Wonder
>> >Bread, $2,19;
>>
>> >Safeway, Baltimore, MD; safeway sandwich bread, .99; Schmidt's Blue
>> >Ribbon, $2.29; Wonder Bread, $2.29
>>
>> That's BaltimoreMiltand you've cherry picked two high priced brands.
>> I would wager that incomes in Baltimore are higher than the national
>> average.
>
>Um, Jeffrey? Wages have no direct correlation to prices.
Prices have a direct correlation to wages.
>But let's get to that statement above.
>
>I didn't pick "high-priced brands' at all. I chose NAME brands. If you
>want high-priced breads, I could easily go $4-5. I chose basic,
>regular white bread prices. if we're trying to determine how much
>consumer prices have gone up, why are you accusing ME of "cherry-
>picking"? Go to your local grocery store and count the number of
>loaves of bread at $1.15 or below. If you're really lucky, you'll find
>two. ALL of the rest of them will be over $1.50 -- most of them over
>$2.
>BTW, I just checked the Kroger web site for Columbus, and their
>cheapest bread -- Kroger Tender Twist -- is $1 ON SALE, and Wonder
>Bread is $2.29.
Kroger Tender Twist? Never heard of it.
>They chose to index Safeway bread. Why not use sales figures and
>determine an average price based on all of them, and the share of the
>market each receives?
They do you dickhead.
Only fools and impulse buyers pay regular price Milt.
http://www2.meijer.com/common/default6.aspx?sid=62
99¢ LB.
Save at least 70¢ LB.
Tyson or Meijer Whole Roaster
>Just one. I've looked; I can't
>find one. Kind of odd, since that's supposed to be the "average." The
>cheapest chicken I can find anywhere is chicken leg quarters for .79
>per pound. They come from farms in Mexico, for the most part, and they
>are the fattiest chicken I have ever had, and they taste funny. And in
>the last ten years, even they've gone from $.59 per pound to $.99 per
>pound.
< Yawn >
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Series Id: APU0000708111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> >> Eggs, grade A, large, per doz.
>>
>> >> Jan 1982 0.925
>> >> Jan 2007 1.549
>>
>> >Safeway, baltimore, MD - Eggs, large Grade A, $1.49
>>
>> >In other words, I just showed that, except for eggs, none of the above
>> >prices reflect reality.
>>
>> LOL....you're so full of shit Milt.
>
>Really? Funny how I'm proving it, huh? Every single price except eggs
>is far HIGHER in reality, than the BLS claims. And their starting
>numbers also don't reflect reality.
Assertion is not proof you tool.
Who said it did Milt. The BLS does not track "regular prices". They
track what people are paying. You said earlier that I should read the
methodology. I suggest you read it...I've posted the link for you
elsewhere.
You really are stupid aren't you?
Ignorance is curable Milt...Stupidity lasts a lifetime.
>> >now, the CPI people don't actually use occasional sale prices
>> >to create their bogus numbers, do they?
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>
>So, you admit the numbers are bogus. Thanks for sharing.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Well, do they?
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>>
>> http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf
>>
>
>Read that starting at about page 40. It proves me right!
LOL. No it doesn't you ass.
You're such a bad liar Milt.
>>
>> >You see, Jeffrey, when someone says the numbers you use are bogus, it
>> >really doesn't help your case to produce more of the same numbers.
>>
>> When someone has been bitch slapped around as much as you have one
>> this one they usually have enough sense to bow out...even if not
>> gracefully.
>
>You and Canyon crack me up. Between the two of you, you comprise about
>half a human brain, with 20 times the hubris.
>
>I'm still waiting for some sort of proof that the BLS figures are
>accurate, without you just regurgitating more BLS figures that I prove
>to be BS. Except for eggs, of course.
>
>BTW, you do know that eggs and milk are both price supported and
>subsidized, which is why their prices are relatively constant, right?
>>
>> >Find me three non-government-affiliated economists or economics
>> >experts who will back up your claim that the CPI numbers used most
>> >commonly are accurate.
>>
>> No.
>
>Who's kicked whose ass, Jeffrey?
>
>That just certified your ass-whupping.
>
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:44:41 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> Linder) wrote:
>> >milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>On Aug 1, 1:39 pm, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> >>>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> >On Aug 1, 11:00 am, 3647 Dead <zepp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>> >> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >>> >> > 3647 Dead <zepp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 31, 8:56 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder)=
> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 12:54 pm, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Lind=
>er) wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 9:06 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Lin=
>der) wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Fromhttp://www.pleasecutthecrap.comandhttp://www.milts=
>hook.com
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey YOU! Think this is a Great Economy? Are You HIGH?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> byMiltShook
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey you!
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I'm talking to you!
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> How do you think the economy's doing? If you think it's=
> going great,
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> raise your hands!
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Wow, that's a lot of hands=3DE2=3D80=3DA6 guess it's go=
>ing really well, then, huh=3D
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> ? I
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> guess, because the government tell you how great it is =
>every chance it
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> gets, well, it must be just great. I mean the numbers t=
>hey put out
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> every month indicate that the economy's moving right al=
>ong. I mean,
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> all of that growth! And unemployment's still kind of lo=
>w, right? And
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> hey -- according to the Consumer Price Index, inflation=
>'s really not
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> so bad, is it?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> But wait -- isn't this the same government continues to=
> tell you that
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots on 9/11? Aren't these=
> the same
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> people who told us that the war in Iraq would only cost=
> a few billion
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> dollars, take a month or two, and be entirely paid for =
>with Iraqi oil
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> money? Don't they tell us they don't torture anyone, wh=
>ile they're
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> torturing people? Didn't they assure us that they would=
> never spy on
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> us without a warrant, while they were in the midst of a=
> plan to spy on
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> us without a warrant?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but they're a bunch of greedheads, right? They lo=
>ve money! No
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> way they would lie to us about how well the economy's d=
>oing, right?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hell, yes they would.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Remember the economic doldrums we found ourselves in fr=
>om about 1973
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> until about the mid-1990s?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> Miltis such a useful idiot.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/economy/images/figure_5.gifht=
>tp://www.bea...
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> JSL
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> And Jeffrey is so irony deficient.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> The above charts don't refute anything I said in the arti=
>cle. It's
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> obvious you didn't even read it...
>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Other than the fact that we weren't experiencing an econom=
>ic doldrum
>> >>> >> >>>>>>> from 1973- to the mid 90's.
>> >>> >> >>>>>> Um... from 1973 through 1996, real wages never rose once and
>> >>> >> >>>>>> inflation, while more stable and lower than in the 1970s, h=
>as rarely
>> >>> >> >>>>>> been below 6% since, while the inflation rate for the 25 ye=
>ars before
>> >>> >> >>>>>> that was rarely above 2%.
>> >>> >> >>>>> Real wages never rose once? Only if you don't know what you=
>'re
>> >>> >> >>>>> looking at:
>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3523656.html
>> >>> >> >>>> I know what I'm looking at, and it's not spin from the web si=
>te
>> >>> >> >>>> above.
>> >>> >> >>>>> Inflation rarely below 6%?
>> >>> >> >>>> Yes. Rarely.
>> >>> >> >>> Why did you delete the data that directly refutes what you cla=
>imed
>> >>> >> >>>Milt?
>>
>> >>> >> >>> That's OK, I'll put it back for you.
>>
>> >>> >> >>> Year Avg Inflation
>> >>> >> >>> 1992 3.03%
>> >>> >> >>> 1991 4.25%
>> >>> >> >>> 1990 5.39%
>> >>> >> >>> 1989 4.83%
>> >>> >> >>> 1988 4.08%
>> >>> >> >>> 1987 3.66%
>> >>> >> >>> 1986 1.91%
>> >>> >> >>> 1985 3.55%
>> >>> >> >>> 1984 4.30%
>> >>> >> >>> 1983 3.22%
>> >>> >> >>> 1982 6.16%
>> >>> >> >>> 1981 10.35%
>> >>> >> >>> 1980 13.58%
>> >>> >> >>> 1979 11.22%
>> >>> >> >>> 1978 7.62%
>> >>> >> >>> 1977 6.50%
>> >>> >> >>> 1976 5.75%
>> >>> >> >>> 1975 9.20%
>> >>> >> >>> 1974 11.03%
>> >>> >> >>> 1973 6.16%
>>
>> >>> >> >>> Now of the 20 years of data I've posted for you only 9 have be=
>en above
>> >>> >> >>> 6% and only 7 over 6.5%.
>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalI=
>nflation...
>> >>> >> >>>> Come back when you've read the article and you get the basic =
>premise,
>> >>> >> >>>> because you're not even addressing what I wrote.
>> >>> >> >>> Yes I did. You made a claim, it was refuted.
>> >>> >> >> How come you deletedMilt'scomments about why the CPI was a crap=
> index
>> >>> >> >> because it excludes food and energy costs, but DOES include con=
>> part, to the fact that consumers don=C2't have much money to spend, and
>> when nobody can afford to buy, that keeps prices down. Unfortunately,
>> it kinda defeats the purpose of having an economy).
>>
>> Lundeen lists the price changes of various other items. He lists items
>> that haven't kept up with the consumer price index, such as the Dow
>> Jones, Transportation stocks, NASDAQ, coffee and cotton. It=C2's a
>> economic system. Going by that standard, we=C2're in even worse trouble:
>> steel is up 282%, copper is up 309%, gold is up 133%, and silver is up
>> 146%. If you are a gold bug, then you might consider the rate of
>> inflation to be only about 18% per year! Happy days are here again!
>>
>> It's one thing to say the cost of living has gone up only 22%, but
>> it's a bit hard to swallow when nearly anything you are likely to buy
>> any time soon has increased by at least four times that, and sometimes
>> more than ten times that.
>>
>> So next time some smarmy son of a bitch from the administration comes
>> on the news shows of our weak and bought-out media, and tells you how
>> good you've got it in the economic miracle of capitalism, write him,
>> and write the station he appeared on, and cc your congressional reps,
>> and tell him, "You fucking liar."
>>
>> And pass along the list fromhttp://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/lunde=
>en050807.html
>>
>You have to laugh at these people who won't trust the government to
>take care of the health care financing system, because they're
>completely inept, but believe everything it says about the economy,
>without question.
>
>You can tell Jeffrey's wife does all of the shopping and pays all of
>the bills...
In all those numbers Milt...is there proof that consumer prices have
gone up by a factor of 10 in the last 25 years as you have claimed?
Is there any evidence at all as to what consumer prices are?
Didn't think so.
JSL
>
milt....@gmail.com
> gone up by a factor of 10 in the last 25 years as you have claimed?
>
> Is there any evidence at all as to what consumer prices are?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> JSL
Considering i never said that, why would I prove it?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Good lord, you can't even quote yourself accurately:
"...I haven't run the numbers, but I think that's conservative, since
many prices have multiplied by 10 times in 25 years. At a 6% inflation
rate per year,... " -- Milt Shook.
You said many Milt. Name five.
Hell, name one.
JSL
3655 Dead
I'll look forward to reading that!
>>>
>>> So: the Consumer Price Index is up 22%, and the international value of
>>> the dollar is down 40%. (The low CPI can be attributed, at least in
>>> part, to the fact that consumers don=C2't have much money to spend, and
>>> when nobody can afford to buy, that keeps prices down. Unfortunately,
>>> it kinda defeats the purpose of having an economy).
>>>
>>> Lundeen lists the price changes of various other items. He lists items
>>> that haven't kept up with the consumer price index, such as the Dow
>>> Jones, Transportation stocks, NASDAQ, coffee and cotton. It=C2's a
>>> relatively short list.
>>>
>>> Beef, in the form of cattle, is up 34%. Live pork is up 36.1%. OJ is
>>> up 74.3%. Corn is up 82.8%. Wheat has more than doubled, up 106.5%,
>>> and cocoa is up 117.7%. If you're wondering why your grocery bill has
>>> jumped so much, that explains it in part.
>>>
>>> Not surprisingly, consumer debt is up 75.5% over that same period, and
>>> the table doesn't measure the impact of the huge increase in interest
>>> rates that have occurred as a result of deregulation. Tony Soprano
>>> would be embarrassed to charge the type of vig the major credit card
>>> companies demand, and those check-cashing places often hit 500% APR on
>>> their loans. Nice work if you can get it. All it requires is unlimited
>>> greed and the morals of a snake.
>>
>>Just as an aside, the CPI doesn't include the cost of credit or debt
>>service, which is a huge cost to the consumer, as well.
I remember when there was a statuatory limit of 18% APR on consumer
credit. The credit card companies weren't hurting back then, and they
are thriving now, buying up every Congressional rep they can.
>>
>>And you're right; payday loans should be regulated heavily. I keep
>>getting spam from one called "Christian Angels Payday Loans." Their
>>rate sheet says they'll take 15% per week. Wonder how Jesus would feel
>>about such Usury...
>>>
Per WEEK? So it would nearly double every month. Borrow a dollar,
and in a year, you would owe over $4,000.
Nice work if you can get it.
>>> Housing has more than doubled in fake dollar value, although of course
>>> it's on its way back down from being nearly triple what it was in
>>> 2000. But in the wake of the housing bubble, millions are caught in
>>> adjustable rate mortgages that have seen monthly payments double over
>>> a period of months, causing many to lose their homes. At least three
>>> million have lost their homes, another sort of stat often associated
>>> with economic depression.
>>
>>There is another aspect of this, too, that is not considered, not even
>>by Lundeen, and that is the inventory of abandoned housing, especially
>>in inner cities, which are averaged into the mix, and the slumlords,
>>who charge outrageous rents for housing that is substandard, to put it
>>mildly. The REAL housing inflation is actually much higher than even
>>that measure.
And of course, that hits the segment of society that the GOP keeps
telling us are not losing ground.
>>>
>>> You've probably noticed the price of gasoline. It's one thing to say
>>> that oil has increased in cost by 163% since the turn of the century,
>>> but gasoline has increased a staggering 234%. Someone's getting rich,
>>> and here's a hint: it ain't us. Fuel oil is up a modest 181% in the
>>> same period, so it only costs double to heat your home, but no worries
>>> because the bank foreclosed last week!
>>
>>Correction. 181% would be triple. A 100% increase would be double.
>>>
Agreed.
Typical Jeffy. He's going to ignore the fact that we've made a
complete hash of the claim that inflation isn't a problem, and fixate
on something you didn't even say.
How 'bout it, Jeffy? Can you admit inflation -- real inflation -- is
really much worse than what the government is claiming?
>
>
>>
milt....@gmail.com
You posted it. No need. Start reading at about page 41, Jeffrey.
>
> >The
> >government is honest about its dishonesty, after all.
>
> >The government uses hedonic regression, which is based on hedonic
> >demand theory, which I've asked you to look up, and you apparently
> >refuse.
>
> I don't need to look it up Milt.
Yes, you do, because it's a major component of how they come up with
their "average" prices.
>
>
>
> >You see, the government has a vested interest in keeping the inflation
> >rate low, because it keeps the cost of entitlement programs in check.
> >So, they engage in hedonics.
>
> >Your first example is an interesting one. Define "loaf of bread."
> >Here, we have "Schmidt's Blue Ribbon," which is the most popular name
> >brand, and there are the various store-brand breads. Ten years ago, a
> >loaf of Schmidt's ran $1.79, now it's $2.29 a loaf. Store brand
> >loaves, however, were roughly 50-55 cents a loaf ten years ago, and
> >now cost a dollar.
>
> >So, did the price double? or did it rise by roughly a third? According
> >to the government, it went up by a third, despite the fact that far
> >more people will buy the store brand. Not only that, but if the price
> >of Schmidt's goes up 20 cents, but they add 2 ounces to the size of
> >the loaf, they will read that as no price increase.
>
> SorryMilt. The base the price change per pound.
>
> Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
Right. I see that. Now, tell me how many loaves of bread you can find
at your local grocery store for $1.15 PER POUND or less. You'll find
two, maybe three at most.
>
> >You mention several produce examples, Jeffrey, and all I can say is,
> >you can't possibly eat much fruits and veggies, because the prices
> >have been soaring in the last decade. The high price on tomatoes ten
> >years ago was $1.99; now, I struggle to find hothouse tomatoes for
> >that price in the middle of summer.
>
> Once again your local experience is not a reflection of what happens
> across the country.
>
> Series Id: APU0000712311Area: U.S. city averageItem:
> Tomatoes, field grown, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> Jan 1997 1.213
> Jan 2007 1.621
Jeffrey, I can't get tomatoes for $1.62 in Florida, at the regular
price. This time of year, around here, tomatoes are extremely
plentiful, and yet, the only place I can buy tomatoes for less than
$1.69 a pound is directly form a farm stand. Which I do. I get some
really beautiful tomatoes, locally grown for $3 a box, which is
probably about 3 lbs. i get that for about 2-3 months a year. But at a
grocery store, there are NO tomatoes to speak for anything close to an
"average" $1.62.
>
> >As for fruits, there has been a
> >lot of dumping of central and South American produce on store shelves,
> >most of it of questionable quality. No, let me rephrase that; most of
> >it is shit. the good quality peaches, plums, grapes, etc, have more
> >than doubled in the last ten years, except for the occasional sale.
> >What hedonic regression does, is take the lowest priced apple they can
> >find and use that as a price indicator. Therefore, say that in 1997,
> >Georgia peaches sold for 79 cents a pound (made up number), and this
> >year, they sell for $1.69 a pound. But in the interim, there is an
> >influx of Venezuelan peaches selling for .99 a pound. According to the
> >CPI, peaches only increased $.20 per pound.
>
> No they don't.
>
> Here is what they index
>
> 713312 Peaches, any variety, all sizes, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
> >I live in the chicken capital of the world, but chicken prices have
> >more than doubled in ten years, except for the ever-less-infrequent
> >sales.
>
> Prove it.
>
> From Giant Eagle in Frederick, Marylandhttp://www.gianteagle.com/main/fs_ds.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=112735...
>
> Boneless, skinless, chicken breast $1.99/lb
Jeffrey, that's a special sale price. You know, those "ever more
infrequent sales" I just mentioned? It's for frozen breasts in a 3 lb.
bag. It says right in the ad that you save $5.07. For FROZEN breasts,
WINGS or tenderloins. That's $3.68 per pound. For frozen. Unfrozen,
expect the regular price to be at least $4.49-$4.99, at least for the
boneless skinless breasts or tenderloins.
> >And beef??? I don't know where they're getting ground chuck for
> >$2.73 a pound, but it's not anywhere on the east coast. Shit; even
> >frozen ground beef patties run more than $2.50 a pound, and that's
> >"regular" ground beef.
>
> From Sam's Club.
>
> http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=197489&pCatg...
> Angus Burgers - 6 lb.
> Pick Up: $13.88
> Club #6650
>
> That's $2.31/lb for frozen burgers.
> You better learn how to shop.\
I don't do business with Wal-Mart, and it would be profoundly stupid
for me to shop at such a place for me and my son.
That said, $2.31 for frozen regular ground beef patties pretty much
reinforces what I just said about frozen ground beef patties being
upwards of $2.50/lb. You are aware that Sam's Club is a warehouse
store, and that members get prices below other grocery stores, right?
>
> >This is how hedonics works, Jeffrey. Say you have an average car,
> >built by Ford, that sells in year 1 for $10,000. The next year, they
> >add power windows, power locks, and a few horsepower to the engine,
> >and raise the price to $11,000. According to the gurus who figure the
> >CPI, that car didn't increase in price $1000. Instead, they will
> >assign a value to the extra stuff, and say it increased in price by
> >$100 instead. Never mind that it's not possible to get pay $10,000 to
> >get the car without all of that stuff; it makes them look better if
> >they pretend inflation isn't as bad as it is. Some estimates, which I
> >will get to in my follow up article, estimate that fudging the CPI
> >numbers has saved the government as much as 70% of the legally
> >mandated increases in Social Security payments.
>
> >IOW, Jeffrey, your trust in the government is the ultimate in
> >gullibility and naivete.
>
> And were supposed to trust you because you cant' find tomatoes at a
> price you like?
During the summer, I go to the farm and get them for $3 a box. The
rest of the year, i pay $3 a pound for good ones. it's not me, it's
about "average." The "average" cost of tomatoes is NOT $1.62.
star...@yahoo.com
> <ROTFLMAO> Look here, you fruitcake, the basic "solution" you freaky
> leftists have is to steal other people's property.... and in
> America, you can shout it from the treetops without getting in any
> trouble...
Wasn't this country based on the theft of England's "property" to
begin with?
And, no, I'm not talking simply that. The whole process pretty much
needs to be smashed and rebuilt -- but NOT necessarily as a Communist
situation. It needs to be rebuilt as the Constitutional democracy it
once was -- but is no longer.
Mike
Steve
Just bought some at 0.89 a lb. Vine ripened... delicious
Steve
>On Aug 2, 2:41 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
>> <ROTFLMAO> Look here, you fruitcake, the basic "solution" you freaky
>> leftists have is to steal other people's property.... and in
>> America, you can shout it from the treetops without getting in any
>> trouble...
>
>Wasn't this country based on the theft of England's "property" to
>begin with?
<LOL> What a stretch....
star...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:12:03 -0700, starc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Aug 2, 2:41 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
> >> <ROTFLMAO> Look here, you fruitcake, the basic "solution" you freaky
> >> leftists have is to steal other people's property.... and in
> >> America, you can shout it from the treetops without getting in any
> >> trouble...
>
> >Wasn't this country based on the theft of England's "property" to
> >begin with?
>
> <LOL> What a stretch....
What stretch??
Mike (And let's not even get into what we did to the Indians on this
continent!!)
Steve
we???? <LOL> I SURE didn't steal anything from any indians. I'm
part indian. ...an nobody stole anything from me either...
Get this straight, no Indians I ever heard of actually laid claim to
any land as in ownership of property, prior to when they began to own
property as individuals as my ancestors did, nor was any part of the
USA ever the owned property of England.
Indian tribes claimed exclusive use of certain areas, but the concept
of ownership of any land was never even imagined.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
I have Milt. Too bad you can't understand simple english. Page 41
begins the discussion of error calculations/estimates...not
methodology.
>>
>> >The
>> >government is honest about its dishonesty, after all.
>>
>> >The government uses hedonic regression, which is based on hedonic
>> >demand theory, which I've asked you to look up, and you apparently
>> >refuse.
>>
>> I don't need to look it up Milt.
>
>Yes, you do, because it's a major component of how they come up with
>their "average" prices.
The report tells you how they come up with their prices.
>> >You see, the government has a vested interest in keeping the inflation
>> >rate low, because it keeps the cost of entitlement programs in check.
>> >So, they engage in hedonics.
>>
>> >Your first example is an interesting one. Define "loaf of bread."
>> >Here, we have "Schmidt's Blue Ribbon," which is the most popular name
>> >brand, and there are the various store-brand breads. Ten years ago, a
>> >loaf of Schmidt's ran $1.79, now it's $2.29 a loaf. Store brand
>> >loaves, however, were roughly 50-55 cents a loaf ten years ago, and
>> >now cost a dollar.
>>
>> >So, did the price double? or did it rise by roughly a third? According
>> >to the government, it went up by a third, despite the fact that far
>> >more people will buy the store brand. Not only that, but if the price
>> >of Schmidt's goes up 20 cents, but they add 2 ounces to the size of
>> >the loaf, they will read that as no price increase.
>>
>> SorryMilt. The base the price change per pound.
>>
>> Series Id: APU0000702111Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>
>Right. I see that. Now, tell me how many loaves of bread you can find
>at your local grocery store for $1.15 PER POUND or less. You'll find
>two, maybe three at most.
I usually make my own.
>> >You mention several produce examples, Jeffrey, and all I can say is,
>> >you can't possibly eat much fruits and veggies, because the prices
>> >have been soaring in the last decade. The high price on tomatoes ten
>> >years ago was $1.99; now, I struggle to find hothouse tomatoes for
>> >that price in the middle of summer.
>>
>> Once again your local experience is not a reflection of what happens
>> across the country.
>>
>> Series Id: APU0000712311Area: U.S. city averageItem:
>> Tomatoes, field grown, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>>
>> Jan 1997 1.213
>> Jan 2007 1.621
>
>Jeffrey, I can't get tomatoes for $1.62 in Florida, at the regular
>price.
There you go again. Hey Milt...stop buying things at "regular" price.
>This time of year, around here, tomatoes are extremely
>plentiful, and yet, the only place I can buy tomatoes for less than
>$1.69 a pound is directly form a farm stand. Which I do. I get some
>really beautiful tomatoes, locally grown for $3 a box, which is
>probably about 3 lbs. i get that for about 2-3 months a year. But at a
>grocery store, there are NO tomatoes to speak for anything close to an
>"average" $1.62.
You aren't the BLS.
>> >As for fruits, there has been a
>> >lot of dumping of central and South American produce on store shelves,
>> >most of it of questionable quality. No, let me rephrase that; most of
>> >it is shit. the good quality peaches, plums, grapes, etc, have more
>> >than doubled in the last ten years, except for the occasional sale.
>> >What hedonic regression does, is take the lowest priced apple they can
>> >find and use that as a price indicator. Therefore, say that in 1997,
>> >Georgia peaches sold for 79 cents a pound (made up number), and this
>> >year, they sell for $1.69 a pound. But in the interim, there is an
>> >influx of Venezuelan peaches selling for .99 a pound. According to the
>> >CPI, peaches only increased $.20 per pound.
>>
>> No they don't.
>>
>> Here is what they index
>>
>> 713312 Peaches, any variety, all sizes, per lb. (453.6 gm)
>>
>> >I live in the chicken capital of the world, but chicken prices have
>> >more than doubled in ten years, except for the ever-less-infrequent
>> >sales.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>> From Giant Eagle in Frederick, Marylandhttp://www.gianteagle.com/main/fs_ds.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=112735...
>>
>> Boneless, skinless, chicken breast $1.99/lb
>
>Jeffrey, that's a special sale price.
Which is usually available at one chain or another at various times.
>You know, those "ever more infrequent sales" I just mentioned?
What you "mentioned" carries little, if any weight Milt.
>It's for frozen breasts in a 3 lb.
>bag. It says right in the ad that you save $5.07. For FROZEN breasts,
>WINGS or tenderloins.
Almost ALL supermarket chicken is either Frozen or Fresh Frozen.
>That's $3.68 per pound. For frozen. Unfrozen,
>expect the regular price to be at least $4.49-$4.99, at least for the
>boneless skinless breasts or tenderloins.
>
>> >And beef??? I don't know where they're getting ground chuck for
>> >$2.73 a pound, but it's not anywhere on the east coast. Shit; even
>> >frozen ground beef patties run more than $2.50 a pound, and that's
>> >"regular" ground beef.
>>
>> From Sam's Club.
>>
>> http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=197489&pCatg...
>> Angus Burgers - 6 lb.
>> Pick Up: $13.88
>> Club #6650
>>
>> That's $2.31/lb for frozen burgers.
>
>> You better learn how to shop.\
>
>I don't do business with Wal-Mart, and it would be profoundly stupid
>for me to shop at such a place for me and my son.
Well then you've made a choice Milt. YOUR choice does do dictate what
inflation is.
>
>That said, $2.31 for frozen regular ground beef patties pretty much
>reinforces what I just said about frozen ground beef patties being
>upwards of $2.50/lb.
Except for the fact that it doesn't.
>You are aware that Sam's Club is a warehouse
>store, and that members get prices below other grocery stores, right?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends upon what the other chains
have on sale.
>>
>> >This is how hedonics works, Jeffrey. Say you have an average car,
>> >built by Ford, that sells in year 1 for $10,000. The next year, they
>> >add power windows, power locks, and a few horsepower to the engine,
>> >and raise the price to $11,000. According to the gurus who figure the
>> >CPI, that car didn't increase in price $1000. Instead, they will
>> >assign a value to the extra stuff, and say it increased in price by
>> >$100 instead. Never mind that it's not possible to get pay $10,000 to
>> >get the car without all of that stuff; it makes them look better if
>> >they pretend inflation isn't as bad as it is. Some estimates, which I
>> >will get to in my follow up article, estimate that fudging the CPI
>> >numbers has saved the government as much as 70% of the legally
>> >mandated increases in Social Security payments.
>>
>> >IOW, Jeffrey, your trust in the government is the ultimate in
>> >gullibility and naivete.
>>
>> And were supposed to trust you because you cant' find tomatoes at a
>> price you like?
>
>During the summer, I go to the farm and get them for $3 a box. The
>rest of the year, i pay $3 a pound for good ones. it's not me, it's
>about "average." The "average" cost of tomatoes is NOT $1.62.
To you it might not be....but then you aren't sampling around the
country on a weekly basis are you Milt?
>>
>> >> >Housing and energy costs
>> >> >have skyrocketed.
>>
>> >> >If we don't have inflation, why is the dollar only worth 60% of what
>> >> >it was four years ago on the international money markets? (I'm asking
>> >> >Jeff; you already know the answer).
>>
>> >> Who said we don't have inflation?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Such a liar you are Zepp. I've never said inflation isn't a problem.
I've addressed nearly everything Milt has claimed.
Milt has said many many things and I've demonstrated with hard numbers
and cites that he is wrong about:
--The inflation rate
--What the BLS uses to find prices
--Home ownership rates.
--What one can and can't find priced at
--Historical prices of item
Why must you feel it necessary to lie? Trying to make Milt feel
better?
>How 'bout it, Jeffy? Can you admit inflation -- real inflation -- is
>really much worse than what the government is claiming?
You've yet to show what the "real" inflation rate is Zepp. And
neither has Milt.
JSL
3670 Dead
Linder) wrote:
So basically, you are arguing with Milt because you agree with him.
I see.
>
>Milt has said many many things and I've demonstrated with hard numbers
>and cites that he is wrong about:
>
>--The inflation rate
He said the CPI gives an incomplete picture. He's right.
>--What the BLS uses to find prices
It uses a variety of yardsticks, some now corrupted by the
politicization of the department by the Putsch junta. Again, he is
right.
>--Home ownership rates.
Recently at record highs, due to the sub-prime lending bubble. Now
falling at a catastrophic rate.
>--What one can and can't find priced at
>--Historical prices of item
Quite a bit, if you bother to look beyond what the Cato Institute
spoon feeds you.
>
>Why must you feel it necessary to lie? Trying to make Milt feel
>better?
Jeffy, you got blown out of the water on this one. Give it up, run
along. Fight another day.
>
>>How 'bout it, Jeffy? Can you admit inflation -- real inflation -- is
>>really much worse than what the government is claiming?
>
>You've yet to show what the "real" inflation rate is Zepp. And
>neither has Milt.
>
>JSL
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Kurt Lochner
>
>"jeffy's snot blender" <linde...@osu.edu> sniveled at:
> >
> > 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"jeffy's snot blender" <linde...@osu.edu> whined/opined:
____>
> > > Typical Jeffy. He's going to ignore the fact that we've made a
> > > complete hash of the claim that inflation isn't a problem, and fixate
> > > on something you didn't even say.
> >
> >Such a liar you are Zepp. I've never said inflation isn't a problem.
> >I've addressed nearly everything Milt has claimed.
>
> So basically, you are arguing with Milt because you agree with him.
>
> I see.
in..
Examples follow..
> >Milt has said many many things and I've demonstrated with hard numbers
> >and cites that he is wrong about:
> >
> >--The inflation rate
>
> He said the CPI gives an incomplete picture. He's right.
And Jeffy's still so far in denial, he's hit the Suez..
> >--What the BLS uses to find prices
>
> It uses a variety of yardsticks, some now corrupted by the
> politicization of the department by the Putsch junta. Again,
> he is right.
>
> >--Home ownership rates.
>
> Recently at record highs, due to the sub-prime lending bubble.
> Now falling at a catastrophic rate.
>
> >--What one can and can't find priced at
> >--Historical prices of item
>
> Quite a bit, if you bother to look beyond what the Cato
> Institute spoon feeds you.
*>LOL!<* That was cold..
> >Why must you feel it necessary to lie? Trying to make Milt feel
> >better?
>
> Jeffy, you got blown out of the water on this one. Give it up,
> run along. Fight another day.
Jeffy's yet another example of "Is our children learning?"
--For various values of "is"..
Jeffrey Scott Linder
No you idiot. Really...must you be so transparent?
>>
>>Milt has said many many things and I've demonstrated with hard numbers
>>and cites that he is wrong about:
>>
>>--The inflation rate
>
>He said the CPI gives an incomplete picture. He's right.
His assertion is not backed up by ANY facts.
>>--What the BLS uses to find prices
>
>It uses a variety of yardsticks, some now corrupted by the
>politicization of the department by the Putsch junta. Again, he is
>right.
You repeat his assertion not backed by ANY facts.
>
>>--Home ownership rates.
>
>Recently at record highs, due to the sub-prime lending bubble. Now
>falling at a catastrophic rate.
So? He claimed half the people in this country rented as data to
support his house of cards. Once again, he was wrong.
>
>>--What one can and can't find priced at
>>--Historical prices of item
>
>Quite a bit, if you bother to look beyond what the Cato Institute
>spoon feeds you.
I posted BLS numbers and not the Cato Institute but then you either
didn't care to look or just chose to lie.
>>
>>Why must you feel it necessary to lie? Trying to make Milt feel
>>better?
>
>Jeffy, you got blown out of the water on this one. Give it up, run
>along. Fight another day.
Blown out of the water? Right.
>>
>>>How 'bout it, Jeffy? Can you admit inflation -- real inflation -- is
>>>really much worse than what the government is claiming?
>>
>>You've yet to show what the "real" inflation rate is Zepp. And
>>neither has Milt.
And you still haven't.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >Linder) wrote:
>
> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:44:41 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>
>
> >Typical Jeffy. He's going to ignore the fact that we've made a
> >complete hash of the claim that inflation isn't a problem, and fixate
> >on something you didn't even say.
>
> Such a liar you are Zepp. I've never said inflation isn't a problem.
> I've addressed nearly everythingMilthas claimed.
Jeffrey, are you kidding with this? If inflation was ACTUALLY 2-4% per
year, as the idiots are claiming, it would not be a problem.
Unfortunately, through fun with numbers, it's much higher than 2-4%.
The numbers are demonstrably WRONG, Jeffrey.
>
> Milthas said many many things and I've demonstrated with hard numbers
> and cites that he is wrong about:
>
> --The inflation rate
Really. You keep citing numbers from the BLS. You know, the numbers
which I have demonstrated are wrong. You can't GET those prices at a
goddamn grocery store from week to week. Occasionally, you can get
them that low on sale, but that's not an average. They also choose the
MOST expensive item as the starting item, and the least expensive item
when they're comparing. And they use hedonic regressive techniques for
coming up with their figures; a FACT that was demonstrated beginning
with page 41 of the methodology piece you yourself posted. Of course,
you refuse to look up the word "hedonics."
> --What the BLS uses to find prices
They use thin air, Jeffrey. Anyone who's been inside a grocery store
lately knows that the $100 basketful of groceries the BLS cites will
probably cost at least $140-150. Seriously... bone-in chicken breasts
for $1.31/lb on average? On what planet?
> --Home ownership rates.
First of all, most people don't actually own their home. They own the
mortgage(s) on that home. But even without conceding that point, the
number the government cites as a homeownership rate is ALSO bullshit,
because it doesn't take into account people who own more than one home
and rent the second one (the second one is counted as a purchased
single-family home, and not a rental); it includes rent-with-the-
option-to-buy deals as purchases; and it does not take into account
the HUGE number of people who have a mortgage whereby they aren't even
actually paying for their home. Shave about 10% off the number the
government cites as a "homeownership rate."
> --What one can and can't find priced at
> --Historical prices of item
Jeffrey, I go shopping at least once a week, and I eat as little
processed food as I can, although my son seems to like Hot Pockets...
yuck... When I moved here from Arizona, I was pleasantly surprised by
the reasonable prices on most produce. but they have steadily climbed,
and climbed high. Ears of corn that used to be 10 for $1 during the
summer now routinely run 4 for $1. Tomatoes could be gotten at the
grocery store for .59-.69/lb when I first got here, and rarely sold
for more than $1.49/lb, now routinely run $2-3/lb. This past week,
they had some on sale for $.99/lb, but that was the first time in over
a year that I'd seen them for less than $1.39. Every store around here
sold bananas for $.29/lb for the first 4-5 years I lived here; now,
they can't be had for less than $.49/lb. Lettuce was $1 per head, now
it's $1.59-$2 per head. And I travel a lot around the country, and
we're slightly higher here than other places, but not much. I was just
in Cleveland last month, and I didn't see anything cheaper there,
except corn.
>
> Why must you feel it necessary to lie? Trying to make Milt feel
> better?
Jeffrey, no one lies more than you. You have these preconceived
notions about things, and you spin "facts' to fit them. Then you lie
about things I said constantly. Like above. You claim you've never
said inflation wasn't a problem. That is an absolute lie. You're
gainsaying the fact that I'm telling you the inflation numbers are
fixed -- and they are -- and you're claiming they are just as the
gov't says. Government says inflation's not a problem.
>
> >How 'bout it, Jeffy? Can you admit inflation -- real inflation -- is
> >really much worse than what the government is claiming?
>
> You've yet to show what the "real" inflation rate is Zepp. And
> neither has Milt.
Why is that necessary, you turd? I'm content with showing you -- with
facts -- that the government is lying to us about inflation to make us
feel better.
You know what, idiot? Bush is at a 25% approval rating and the
Republican Party is done for a generation. It's NOT just because of
Iraq. They're lying about what things cost, they're lying about what
we're really paying in taxes, they lie about the size of the actual
deficit, and they are telling whoppers about the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate is actually about double the government's
number, and I will be proving that soon...
Seriously, given the massive corruption among republicans in
government, how stupid and gullible do you have to be to believe
anything they tell you without question?
steven...@yahoo.com
Seriously, given the massive amounts of bullshit Milt has posted over
the years......
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Aug 6, 8:53 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:34:22 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> >Linder) wrote:
>>
>> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:44:41 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>
><mercy snip>
>>
>> >Typical Jeffy. He's going to ignore the fact that we've made a
>> >complete hash of the claim that inflation isn't a problem, and fixate
>> >on something you didn't even say.
>>
>> Such a liar you are Zepp. I've never said inflation isn't a problem.
>> I've addressed nearly everythingMilthas claimed.
>
>Jeffrey, are you kidding with this? If inflation was ACTUALLY 2-4% per
>year, as the idiots are claiming, it would not be a problem.
>Unfortunately, through fun with numbers, it's much higher than 2-4%.
>The numbers are demonstrably WRONG, Jeffrey.
Then demonstrate it with more than the price you paid for tomatoes
last year and your gut feelings.
>>
>> Milthas said many many things and I've demonstrated with hard numbers
>> and cites that he is wrong about:
>>
>> --The inflation rate
>
>Really. You keep citing numbers from the BLS. You know, the numbers
>which I have demonstrated are wrong.
No you haven't.
>You can't GET those prices at a goddamn grocery store from week to week.
Yes, you can, because that's were the BLS gets them.
>Occasionally, you can get
>them that low on sale, but that's not an average. They also choose the
>MOST expensive item as the starting item, and the least expensive item
>when they're comparing.
No they don't.
>And they use hedonic regressive techniques for
>coming up with their figures; a FACT that was demonstrated beginning
>with page 41 of the methodology piece you yourself posted. Of course,
>you refuse to look up the word "hedonics."
Page 41 begins the discussion of error calculations.
>> --What the BLS uses to find prices
>
>They use thin air, Jeffrey. Anyone who's been inside a grocery store
>lately knows that the $100 basketful of groceries the BLS cites will
>probably cost at least $140-150. Seriously... bone-in chicken breasts
>for $1.31/lb on average? On what planet?
You can't even read what's been posted you dickhead.
That is not what I posted from the BLS for the price of bone-in
chicken breast. Here is what I posted:
706211 Chicken breast, bone-in, per lb. (453.6 gm)
APU0000706211 1997 M01 2.028
APU0000706211 2007 M01 2.135
Its no wonder why you're so screwed up.
>
>> --Home ownership rates.
>
>First of all, most people don't actually own their home. They own the
>mortgage(s) on that home.
Ahh...now we're into some sort of lame semantic argument.
>But even without conceding that point, the
>number the government cites as a homeownership rate is ALSO bullshit,
Of course is it why. Why? one might ask. Why...because Milt says so.
>because it doesn't take into account people who own more than one home
>and rent the second one (the second one is counted as a purchased
>single-family home, and not a rental); it includes rent-with-the-
>option-to-buy deals as purchases; and it does not take into account
>the HUGE number of people who have a mortgage whereby they aren't even
>actually paying for their home. Shave about 10% off the number the
>government cites as a "homeownership rate."
For sure Milt.
>> --What one can and can't find priced at
>> --Historical prices of item
>
>Jeffrey, I go shopping at least once a week, and I eat as little
>processed food as I can, although my son seems to like Hot Pockets...
>yuck... When I moved here from Arizona, I was pleasantly surprised by
>the reasonable prices on most produce. but they have steadily climbed,
>and climbed high. Ears of corn that used to be 10 for $1 during the
>summer now routinely run 4 for $1. Tomatoes could be gotten at the
>grocery store for .59-.69/lb when I first got here, and rarely sold
>for more than $1.49/lb, now routinely run $2-3/lb. This past week,
>they had some on sale for $.99/lb, but that was the first time in over
>a year that I'd seen them for less than $1.39. Every store around here
>sold bananas for $.29/lb for the first 4-5 years I lived here; now,
>they can't be had for less than $.49/lb. Lettuce was $1 per head, now
>it's $1.59-$2 per head. And I travel a lot around the country, and
>we're slightly higher here than other places, but not much. I was just
>in Cleveland last month, and I didn't see anything cheaper there,
>except corn.
Ah...Milt has expanded his entire sample to include a grocery store in
Cleveland.
>>
>> Why must you feel it necessary to lie? Trying to make Milt feel
>> better?
>
>Jeffrey, no one lies more than you. You have these preconceived
>notions about things, and you spin "facts' to fit them.
Now that's funny.
>Then you lie
>about things I said constantly. Like above. You claim you've never
>said inflation wasn't a problem. That is an absolute lie.
Then you should be able to cite where I said that.
>You're
>gainsaying the fact that I'm telling you the inflation numbers are
>fixed -- and they are --
As you continue to claim without any evidence.
>and you're claiming they are just as the
>gov't says. Government says inflation's not a problem.
>>
>> >How 'bout it, Jeffy? Can you admit inflation -- real inflation -- is
>> >really much worse than what the government is claiming?
>>
>> You've yet to show what the "real" inflation rate is Zepp. And
>> neither has Milt.
>
>Why is that necessary, you turd? I'm content with showing you -- with
>facts -- that the government is lying to us about inflation to make us
>feel better.
You haven't "shown" anything other than your ignorance.
>You know what, idiot? Bush is at a 25% approval rating and the
>Republican Party is done for a generation.
And that's relevant to this discussion....how, exactly?
>It's NOT just because of
>Iraq. They're lying about what things cost, they're lying about what
>we're really paying in taxes, they lie about the size of the actual
>deficit, and they are telling whoppers about the unemployment rate.
>The unemployment rate is actually about double the government's
>number, and I will be proving that soon...
Of course you will. What did you do, pass two bums on the street
today instead of the usual one?
>Seriously, given the massive corruption among republicans in
>government, how stupid and gullible do you have to be to believe
>anything they tell you without question?
So sayeth Milt for brains.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 6, 8:53 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> >> 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:34:22 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> >> >Linder) wrote:
>
> >> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:44:41 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>
> ><mercy snip>
>
> >> >Typical Jeffy. He's going to ignore the fact that we've made a
> >> >complete hash of the claim that inflation isn't a problem, and fixate
> >> >on something you didn't even say.
>
> >> Such a liar you are Zepp. I've never said inflation isn't a problem.
> >> I've addressed nearly everythingMilthas claimed.
>
> >Jeffrey, are you kidding with this? If inflation was ACTUALLY 2-4% per
> >year, as the idiots are claiming, it would not be a problem.
> >Unfortunately, through fun with numbers, it's much higher than 2-4%.
> >The numbers are demonstrably WRONG, Jeffrey.
>
> Then demonstrate it with more than the price you paid for tomatoes
> last year and your gut feelings.
>
were higher than the CPI claims now, and I used ads from different
parts of the country. Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
ago, but I know what I paid for things. Not everything, but I do
particularly remember that time, because when I moved from Arizona to
here, I remember the prices, because I had to scout the various
stores, to decide which one to shop at. That will be ten years ago
next January.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Aug 7, 9:24 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Aug 6, 8:53 am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> >> 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:34:22 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> >> >Linder) wrote:
>>
>> >> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, 3655 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:44:41 GMT, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>
>> ><mercy snip>
>>
>> >> >Typical Jeffy. He's going to ignore the fact that we've made a
>> >> >complete hash of the claim that inflation isn't a problem, and fixate
>> >> >on something you didn't even say.
>>
>> >> Such a liar you are Zepp. I've never said inflation isn't a problem.
>> >> I've addressed nearly everythingMilthas claimed.
>>
>> >Jeffrey, are you kidding with this? If inflation was ACTUALLY 2-4% per
>> >year, as the idiots are claiming, it would not be a problem.
>> >Unfortunately, through fun with numbers, it's much higher than 2-4%.
>> >The numbers are demonstrably WRONG, Jeffrey.
>>
>> Then demonstrate it with more than the price you paid for tomatoes
>> last year and your gut feelings.
>>
>I did. I demonstrated that all of the prices you posted, except eggs,
>were higher than the CPI claims now,
In YOUR area Milt.
>and I used ads from different parts of the country.
And I found ones that were lower Milt.
>Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
>ago, but I know what I paid for things.
Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
make it available to the public.
>Not everything, but I do
>particularly remember that time, because when I moved from Arizona to
>here, I remember the prices, because I had to scout the various
>stores, to decide which one to shop at. That will be ten years ago
>next January.
BFD
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
No, Jeffrey. Check again.
>
> >and I used ads from different parts of the country.
>
> And I found ones that were lowerMilt.
No. You found a couple of SALE PRICES that were lower. The one you
cited for boneless skinless chicken breasts for $1.99/lb said the
regular price was $3.99/lb.
>
> >Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
> >ago, but I know what I paid for things.
>
> Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
> make it available to the public.
Hedonics, Jeffrey. Learn about it.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
And you're just too damn ignorant to understand how the BLS determines
prices or you're just lying about what the BLS does so you don't look
like a fool. Guess what Milt? EITHER way makes you look like a fool.
>>
>> >Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
>> >ago, but I know what I paid for things.
>>
>> Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
>> make it available to the public.
>
>Hedonics, Jeffrey. Learn about it.
Reality Milt, accept it.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
>
Jeffrey, I'm the one who keeps telling you to look up "hedonics" and
"Hedonic regression," which is exactly how the BLS determines their
"averages."
YOU are the one who refuses to learn, and therefor, remains profoundly
stupid on the subject...
>
> >> >Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
> >> >ago, but I know what I paid for things.
>
> >> Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
> >> make it available to the public.
>
> >Hedonics, Jeffrey. Learn about it.
>
> RealityMilt, accept it.
>
Hedonics is reality, Jeffrey... BLS's consumer prices are NOT.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>> like a fool. Guess whatMilt? EITHER way makes you look like a fool.
>>
>
>Jeffrey, look up the terms "hedonics" and "hedonic regression," as
>i've asked you to do since the beginning. THAT is how the BLS comes up
>with their numbers, and it's BS.
No its not. They are actually pricing items.
>I'M the one who understand how they do it;
No you don't because you're convinced they only shop regular prices.
>you have indicated your
>refusal to look up hedonics, which is their main method for
>determining price averages.
I don't need to look up hedonics Milt.
>As for how they do it, though, it really doesn't MATTER. Their prices
>are WAY off, as anyone who's set foot in a grocery store would know.
>Bread does not AVERAGE $1.13/lb, no matter what their methods for
>claiming it does.
Well then you should be able to demonstrate that the average for June
07 for the price of a loaf of pan bread isn't $1.13/lb
>>
>> >> >Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
>> >> >ago, but I know what I paid for things.
>>
>> >> Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
>> >> make it available to the public.
>>
>> >Hedonics, Jeffrey. Learn about it.
>>
>> RealityMilt, accept it.
>>
>That IS reality, jeffrey. Hedonics.
Keep hiding there Milt.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Jeffrey, if you don't look up "hedonics," then you can't possibly know
how they do things, because they don't just take straight prices and
average them.
>
> >I'M the one who understand how they do it;
>
> No you don't because you're convinced they only shop regular prices.
No, Jeffrey. I'm convinced (because that's what they SAY) that they
take sale prices when they're convenient, and regular prices where
they're convenient. They also use different rationales for NOT raising
prices when they've actually increased.
Hedonics.
>
> >you have indicated your
> >refusal to look up hedonics, which is their main method for
> >determining price averages.
>
> I don't need to look up hedonicsMilt.
Then you certify your ignorance on how the BLS comes up with their
prices.
>
> >As for how they do it, though, it really doesn't MATTER. Their prices
> >are WAY off, as anyone who's set foot in a grocery store would know.
> >Bread does not AVERAGE $1.13/lb, no matter what their methods for
> >claiming it does.
>
> Well then you should be able to demonstrate that the average for June
> 07 for the price of a loaf of pan bread isn't $1.13/lb
>
How about the fact that, out of 20 different loaves of bread in any
grocery store, only TWO will be at that price today? How about the
fact that STORE BRAND air-filled white bread sells for $1 per loaf,
and you can't get a decent loaf of bread for less than $2. Might that
be a clue that the average isn't $1.13??
>
>
> >> >> >Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
> >> >> >ago, but I know what I paid for things.
>
> >> >> Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
> >> >> make it available to the public.
>
> >> >Hedonics, Jeffrey. Learn about it.
>
> >> RealityMilt, accept it.
>
> >That IS reality, jeffrey. Hedonics.
>
> Keep hiding thereMilt.
>
Now, that's ironic.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Buy a clue Milt.
>>
>> >I'M the one who understand how they do it;
>>
>> No you don't because you're convinced they only shop regular prices.
>
>No, Jeffrey. I'm convinced (because that's what they SAY) that they
>take sale prices when they're convenient, and regular prices where
>they're convenient. They also use different rationales for NOT raising
>prices when they've actually increased.
Sigh.
>Hedonics.
Keep hiding behind that Milt...no one can see you...really.
>> >you have indicated your
>> >refusal to look up hedonics, which is their main method for
>> >determining price averages.
>>
>> I don't need to look up hedonicsMilt.
>
>Then you certify your ignorance on how the BLS comes up with their
>prices.
Are you under the impression that you're the only one who knows what
hedonics is Milt?
>>
>> >As for how they do it, though, it really doesn't MATTER. Their prices
>> >are WAY off, as anyone who's set foot in a grocery store would know.
>> >Bread does not AVERAGE $1.13/lb, no matter what their methods for
>> >claiming it does.
>>
>> Well then you should be able to demonstrate that the average for June
>> 07 for the price of a loaf of pan bread isn't $1.13/lb
>>
>How about the fact that, out of 20 different loaves of bread in any
>grocery store, only TWO will be at that price today? How about the
>fact that STORE BRAND air-filled white bread sells for $1 per loaf,
>and you can't get a decent loaf of bread for less than $2. Might that
>be a clue that the average isn't $1.13??
Do you understand how that average is determined Milt? Its not the
price alone, its the average price of what people are buying. Really
Milt...its all in the methodolgy PDF you claim to have read.
>>
>>
>> >> >> >Sorry I don't keep newspaper ads from 10 years
>> >> >> >ago, but I know what I paid for things.
>>
>> >> >> Well, fortunately for us there are people who keep such data and they
>> >> >> make it available to the public.
>>
>> >> >Hedonics, Jeffrey. Learn about it.
>>
>> >> RealityMilt, accept it.
>>
>> >That IS reality, jeffrey. Hedonics.
>>
>> Keep hiding thereMilt.
>>
>Now, that's ironic.
Tell me Milt...why is it everytime your name is mentioned in a post
you remove the space? Are you trying to inhibit searches or
something?
Milt Milt Milt Milt Milt.
JSL