CNBC's Erin Burnett wants Americans eating poisoned food, absorbing lead to keep prices low
se...@winning.com
very appalling statements. In an interview with Chris Matthews on
MSNBC's Hardball Burnett claimed that playing with lead toys and
eating poison-tainted food is a good price to pay for paying cheaper
prices at Wal-Mart. Here are Burnett's exact quotes:
Blash
FrediFizzx
news:1187483148.0...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Sheesh, when I was a kid back in the '50's we used to chew on leaded
paint and suck up air with leaded gasoline vapors in it all the time and
I ain't get no drain blamage. LOL!
John Smith
Obviously a Bush conservative republican; fuck the people - profits come
first.....either here or in china.
Taylor
I see the Fox News has gotten to your brain. When paranoia (against
NBC News) sets in, it's time to call in a deprogrammer. :-) Good luck
with that.
Jim
our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
already starting to unravel.
That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened. Our
economy sucks. It's only through cooking the books that the government
has presented it otherwise. Yep no inflation, as long as you don't
include everything that has gone up dramatically in recent years in
how you calculate it.
All I know is I'm hard pressed to find anything made in the USA at any
store. Also living in southern California every time I go out I feel
like I'm in Mexico. This all a result of greed. The way they explain
why we need it this way sounds like the south justifying slavery in
order to maintain their way of life.
I see a bad moon rising...
Jim
Bob
news:JRNxi.914$4K6.177@trnddc02...
No worries...the newly elected Democrat Congress is going to clean it all
up....ooops
com...@webtv.net
were a dog or cat of course, and they executed the guy who was behind
that mess.
as for lead based paint on toys? i collect "action figures" and i have
really read up on this subject. it is 100 percent hysteria. touching
lead based painted toys has no efect on you. you kid would have to be
nuts and have to eat dozens of the toys,or meticulously peel off the
paint of dozens of them and then eat the paint, to even have a "chance"
of being affected by the lead. more hype than global warming on that
subject.
A Socialist is "just a Communist in a Free Country" !
com...@webtv.net
NBC....."TILT"
Georgie
CNBC sucks...nobody watches it anymore. It looks like they are
desperate for viewership.
Georgie
BTW...for a good commentary on that fiasco Alex Jones keeps run of all
the snafus and clusterf@#ks.
He's also reporting all the downturns in the American economy,
reporting on the housing crisis and currency:
http://www.infowars.com/listen - live stream
Karen Y Byrd
Yeah, but look at all the Boomers that have died already.
People in their 50s who shouldn't have died who
have... usually from cancer. Some of that, of course,
is because they smoked and did other stupid stuff
which has to do with personal responsibility. But some of those
deaths came as a result of what they were exposed to
years ago.
karl
"Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
> our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
> America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
> already starting to unravel.
>
> That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
> Our
> economy sucks. It's only through cooking the books that the government
> has presented it otherwise. Yep no inflation, as long as you don't
> include everything that has gone up dramatically in recent years in
> how you calculate it.
The [in]accuracy of the rest of your screed aside, the practice of
stripping out volatile food and energy prices to determine core inflation is
economically valid and is done independent of political antics.
> All I know is I'm hard pressed to find anything made in the USA at any
> store.
Try the food section. The US is a net exporter of agriproducts. You could
also try more ephemeral 'cultural' products like music/movies/TV shows.
It's called comparative advantage, look it up some time.
FDR
"karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fac6c1$eoc$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
>> our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
>> America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
>> already starting to unravel.
>>
>> That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
>
> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
>
>> Our
>> economy sucks. It's only through cooking the books that the government
>> has presented it otherwise. Yep no inflation, as long as you don't
>> include everything that has gone up dramatically in recent years in
>> how you calculate it.
>
> The [in]accuracy of the rest of your screed aside, the practice of
> stripping out volatile food and energy prices to determine core inflation
> is economically valid and is done independent of political antics.
Yeah, and so was all the economically valid ways of companies on the stock
exchange saying how they were doing so good, and that shortly going
bankrupt.
It's just a spin game. The reality is that you and I cannot neatly strip
out food and energy prices from our lives. We in reality do pay for food
and energy all the time and it directly affects our bottom line. Maybe some
elitists on wall street think it's ok but they don't seem to live the same
lives as the rest of the world.
>
>> All I know is I'm hard pressed to find anything made in the USA at any
>> store.
>
> Try the food section. The US is a net exporter of agriproducts. You could
> also try more ephemeral 'cultural' products like music/movies/TV shows.
>
> It's called comparative advantage, look it up some time.
Then why do we have ever increasing and record traded deficits? Try looking
that up sometime.
Brian Bernardini
"karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
> > our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
> > America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
> > already starting to unravel.
> >
> > That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
>
> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
Historic compared to what, the imaginary number you made up?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
karl
"FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46c9a915$0$31860$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fac6c1$eoc$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
>>> our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
>>> America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
>>> already starting to unravel.
>>>
>>> That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
>>
>> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
>>
>>> Our
>>> economy sucks. It's only through cooking the books that the government
>>> has presented it otherwise. Yep no inflation, as long as you don't
>>> include everything that has gone up dramatically in recent years in
>>> how you calculate it.
>>
>> The [in]accuracy of the rest of your screed aside, the practice of
>> stripping out volatile food and energy prices to determine core inflation
>> is economically valid and is done independent of political antics.
>
> Yeah, and so was all the economically valid ways of companies on the stock
> exchange saying how they were doing so good, and that shortly going
> bankrupt.
Actually, no it wasn't. In cases where it was not a case of outright
criminal fraud[Enron,Worldcom] it was exactly what Greenspan and others
called it: irrational exuberance.
> It's just a spin game. The reality is that you and I cannot neatly strip
> out food and energy prices from our lives.
No but the _reason_ for stripping those out is twofold: [1] they are
volatile, thus rise _and_ fall dramatically over the short term. Stripping
them out gives a better picture of the economy. [2] If they are trending up
significantly then that effect will translate into the a broader rise in
prices.
> We in reality do pay for food and energy all the time and it directly
> affects our bottom line. Maybe some elitists on wall street think it's ok
> but they don't seem to live the same lives as the rest of the world.
*shrug* Believe what you want - or take a basic economics course.
Economists - not Wall St 'elitists' strip out food and energy to analyze
core inflation for valid econometric reasons. They also measure consumer
prices - the CPI which does measure the cost of everything in a weighted
basket that a consumer would realistically buy. They also measure producer
prices: The Producer's Price Index to get a clear picture of production
inflation.
You can criticize big government and big business for all sorts of
nefarious deed if you wish. But unless you want to appear totally uniformed
you probably should avoid doing so on the basis of very old and
uncontroversial statistical methods as core inflation.
>>> All I know is I'm hard pressed to find anything made in the USA at any
>>> store.
>>
>> Try the food section. The US is a net exporter of agriproducts. You could
>> also try more ephemeral 'cultural' products like music/movies/TV shows.
>>
>> It's called comparative advantage, look it up some time.
>
> Then why do we have ever increasing and record traded deficits? Try
> looking that up sometime.
Because people are willing to buy US government paper. I'm not suggesting
the US trade deficit is not a serious problem. I was pointing out that trade
encompasses more than what 'Jim' was looking at.
karl
"Brian Bernardini" <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bbernarWOOOAHdini-D...@news-east.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <fac6c1$eoc$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
>> > our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
>> > America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
>> > already starting to unravel.
>> >
>> > That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
>>
>> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
>
> Historic compared to what, the imaginary number you made up?
Nope. The figures theUS Bureau of labour statistics makes up.
Unemployment is at it's lowest since the 2001 mini-recession, in the ~4.5%
range which is not too far from the full employment What is considered 'full
employment' is a bit elastic - not for more conspiracy theory whackadoo
reasons - but because determining at what point employment levels will
trigger inflation is an inexact science to say the least. But it usually
considered to be in the 3%-6% range.
As well excepting the 2000-ish low in unemployment it is still at the
lowest levels since 1971:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
Don S
> In article <fac6c1$eoc$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
>>>our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
>>>America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
>>>already starting to unravel.
>>>
>>>That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
>>
>> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
>
>
> Historic compared to what, the imaginary number you made up?
>
When I entered the work force some 45+ years ago the uninployment was
around 12%.
Brian Bernardini
"karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Brian Bernardini" <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bbernarWOOOAHdini-D...@news-east.newsfeeds.com...
> > In article <fac6c1$eoc$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> > "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> > What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
> >> > our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
> >> > America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
> >> > already starting to unravel.
> >> >
> >> > That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
> >>
> >> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
> >
> > Historic compared to what, the imaginary number you made up?
>
> Nope. The figures theUS Bureau of labour statistics makes up.
>
>
> Unemployment is at it's lowest since the 2001 mini-recession, in the ~4.5%
> range which is not too far from the full employment
So your definition of "historic" is "since Bush has been in office."
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they changed the way the
numbers are determined.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that average earnings have gone
down, and the supposed "job growth" is in job areas where people barely
make enough money to live above the poverty line. (Conveniently,
flipping burgers is now defined as "manufacturing.")
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that once a person's unemployment
runs out, they are dropped from the list and no longer counted as
"unemployed," even though they have no job.
According to a study by the New York Times (which you will no doubt
automatically dismiss as "liberal clap-trap"), the real number is more
like 13.8%.
If we used the method the Bush administration uses for calculating
unemployment, Clinton's numbers would be in the negatives.
FDR
Please do a little more research on how companies soin their qurterly
reports using different metrics.
"Well if you strip out the poor sales we had last quarter, you'll see that
our PE of 80 is really well justified"
>
>> It's just a spin game. The reality is that you and I cannot neatly strip
>> out food and energy prices from our lives.
>
> No but the _reason_ for stripping those out is twofold: [1] they are
> volatile, thus rise _and_ fall dramatically over the short term.
If it's volatile then you apply a moving average to it, you just don't cover
your eyes and ignore it.
Stripping
> them out gives a better picture of the economy. [2] If they are trending
> up significantly then that effect will translate into the a broader rise
> in prices.
What could be more core than oil to an economy that runs on oil and food?
>
>> We in reality do pay for food and energy all the time and it directly
>> affects our bottom line. Maybe some elitists on wall street think it's
>> ok but they don't seem to live the same lives as the rest of the world.
>
> *shrug* Believe what you want - or take a basic economics course.
I have and I don't agree with the way they are reported.
> Economists - not Wall St 'elitists' strip out food and energy to analyze
> core inflation for valid econometric reasons.
Berneke is an elitist. Look at his background.
omare...@aol.com
> Last week on Friday, August 12th, 2007, CNBC's Erin Burnett made some
> very appalling statements. In an interview with Chris Matthews on
> MSNBC's Hardball Burnett claimed that playing with lead toys and
> eating poison-tainted food is a good price to pay for paying cheaper
> prices at Wal-Mart.
She said nothing of the kind, liar. Better luck next time :)
Blash
omare...@aol.com at omare...@aol.com wrote on 8/20/07 3:38 PM:
Don't be so picky......what else would he have to write about???
com...@webtv.net
cook outs, sex, etc.etc. only radiation-radioactivity has ever been
proven to have caused cancer.this was proven a few years after the
atomic bomb attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki.
FDR
<omare...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187638694....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, se...@winning.com wrote:
>> Last week on Friday, August 12th, 2007, CNBC's Erin Burnett made some
>> very appalling statements. In an interview with Chris Matthews on
>> MSNBC's Hardball Burnett claimed that playing with lead toys and
>> eating poison-tainted food is a good price to pay for paying cheaper
>> prices at Wal-Mart.
>
> She said nothing of the kind, liar. Better luck next time :)
You said, as you sucked on a lead laden lollipo from China!
com...@webtv.net
newsgroup,
i KNOW it to be true. and you lose all credibility in your arguements
when you quote some nut who hate republicans who wrote unemployment is
over 13 percent.
karl
> In article <faccru$f09$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Brian Bernardini" <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:bbernarWOOOAHdini-D...@news-east.newsfeeds.com...
>> > In article <fac6c1$eoc$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>> > "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jim" <sv...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1187512826.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > What they can't take out of the country, they bring in workers from
>> >> > our neighbor to the south. What is good for the CEO's is good for
>> >> > America. Well I'm afraid that isn't going to last for long. It's
>> >> > already starting to unravel.
>> >> >
>> >> > That "giant sucking sound" that Mr. P referred to has happened.
>> >>
>> >> Ya, unemployment is soooo high... Oh wait it's at historic lows
>> >
>> > Historic compared to what, the imaginary number you made up?
>>
>> Nope. The figures theUS Bureau of labour statistics makes up.
>>
>>
>> Unemployment is at it's lowest since the 2001 mini-recession, in the
>> ~4.5%
>> range which is not too far from the full employment
>
> So your definition of "historic" is "since Bush has been in office."
No My definition is of 'historic'is 2nd lowest levels since the 1970's.
> You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they changed the way the
> numbers are determined.
Cite? The methodology has been changed over time. The last major redesign
was in 1994 IIRC. I don't dispute that but if you are claiming this
introduced some sort of bias the onus is on you to provide some sort of
evidence.
> You also seem to be ignoring the fact that average earnings have gone
> down
That is an entirely different issue. I willing to believe that their might
be some job quality bifurcation occurring. If you want to make that case,
then please do. But it wasn't what I was addressing.
> You also seem to be ignoring the fact that once a person's unemployment
> runs out, they are dropped from the list and no longer counted as
> "unemployed," even though they have no job.
*Laugh* You are obviously either being wilfully deceptive or are completely
ignorant of how the unemployment rate is measured.
Hint: It has nothing to do with unemployment insurance claims. Although that
is reported and calculated as a separate measure. The unemployment rate is
determined from the labour force survey - A very large and statistically
valid monthly survey.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> According to a study by the New York Times (which you will no doubt
> automatically dismiss as "liberal clap-trap"), the real number is more
> like 13.8%.
*laugh*
You have no idea how liberal I am. I bet I'd come out to the left of you on
many issues. However I don'tlet my leanings cause me to believe in fairy
tales about how people I don't like are responsible for every evil in the
world.
> If we used the method the Bush administration uses for calculating
> unemployment, Clinton's numbers would be in the negatives.
Errr. no. Bush deserves to be impeached for either sheer incompetence or
intentional malice in a number of areas but tampering with governmental
statistical data collection, methodology and analysis w.r.t. to things like
the unemployment rate is not one of them.
Blash
> karen, lead does not cause cancer. neither does smoke, red meat,beer,
> cook outs, sex, etc.etc. only radiation-radioactivity has ever been
> proven to have caused cancer.this was proven a few years after the
> atomic bomb attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki.
Anyone who died of cancer pre 1945 was psychosomatic......
karl
>
> "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:facbjg$abi$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> "FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46c9a915$0$31860$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> Yeah, and so was all the economically valid ways of companies on the
>>> stock exchange saying how they were doing so good, and that shortly
>>> going bankrupt.
>>
>> Actually, no it wasn't. In cases where it was not a case of outright
>> criminal fraud[Enron,Worldcom] it was exactly what Greenspan and others
>> called it: irrational exuberance.
>
> Please do a little more research on how companies soin their qurterly
> reports using different metrics.
>
> "Well if you strip out the poor sales we had last quarter, you'll see that
> our PE of 80 is really well justified"
Your point is that companies try to present their reports positively?
*shrug* I'm sure when you advertise to sell your car you say it 'runs great'
as well.
>>> It's just a spin game. The reality is that you and I cannot neatly
>>> strip out food and energy prices from our lives.
>>
>> No but the _reason_ for stripping those out is twofold: [1] they are
>> volatile, thus rise _and_ fall dramatically over the short term.
>
> If it's volatile then you apply a moving average to it, you just don't
> cover your eyes and ignore it.
Who said anything about ignoring it? moving averages have their uses and
their drawbacks. Neither of which has anything to do with why the concept of
core inflation is not a political machination.
> Stripping
>> them out gives a better picture of the economy. [2] If they are trending
>> up significantly then that effect will translate into the a broader rise
>> in prices.
>
> What could be more core than oil to an economy that runs on oil and food?
I repeat: then it would be reflected in a broader rise in prices. But if the
response is a substitution: a move to greater fuel efficiency, conservation,
changes in demand then the overall effect might be quite different from the
price moves of those two items.
I'm not suggesting those are unimportant and unconnected economic inputs.
I'm say that economist strip them out for some very valid economic reasons
that has nothing to do with politics.
You can believe in whatever whackadoo conspiracy theories you want but the
process is standard and unconnected to political bias.
Which of those econometric results some people choose to trumpet - Now that
has everything to do with a person's political biases - left and right.
>>> We in reality do pay for food and energy all the time and it directly
>>> affects our bottom line. Maybe some elitists on wall street think it's
>>> ok but they don't seem to live the same lives as the rest of the world.
>>
>> *shrug* Believe what you want - or take a basic economics course.
>
> I have and I don't agree with the way they are reported.
Your choice. But blaming Wall St for being responsible for the manner in
which economist look at core inflation makes about as much sense as blaming
Saddam for Sept 11 and invading on that basis.
>> Economists - not Wall St 'elitists' strip out food and energy to analyze
>> core inflation for valid econometric reasons.
>
> Berneke is an elitist. Look at his background.
Who? Bernanke? You think HE initiated this process of stripping out food and
energy to examine core inflation?? As some sort of nefarious elitist plot no
doubt? They've been doing it since before he was in grad school... 1975 or
so.
Whether he is elitist? I don't really care. But he is an academic who never
was involved Wall St.
FDR
>
> "FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46c9de68$0$6492$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "karl" <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:facbjg$abi$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>>
>>> "FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46c9a915$0$31860$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>>>> Yeah, and so was all the economically valid ways of companies on the
>>>> stock exchange saying how they were doing so good, and that shortly
>>>> going bankrupt.
>>>
>>> Actually, no it wasn't. In cases where it was not a case of outright
>>> criminal fraud[Enron,Worldcom] it was exactly what Greenspan and others
>>> called it: irrational exuberance.
>>
>> Please do a little more research on how companies soin their qurterly
>> reports using different metrics.
>>
>> "Well if you strip out the poor sales we had last quarter, you'll see
>> that our PE of 80 is really well justified"
>
> Your point is that companies try to present their reports positively?
> *shrug* I'm sure when you advertise to sell your car you say it 'runs
> great' as well.
And same goes for the economists. Oh yeah, gas just tripled, but there's no
inflation. The economy is great! What a bucnh of crap, but it's neatly
packaged as "economically valid and is done independent of political
antics." Uh huh.
>
>>>> It's just a spin game. The reality is that you and I cannot neatly
>>>> strip out food and energy prices from our lives.
>>>
>>> No but the _reason_ for stripping those out is twofold: [1] they are
>>> volatile, thus rise _and_ fall dramatically over the short term.
>>
>> If it's volatile then you apply a moving average to it, you just don't
>> cover your eyes and ignore it.
>
> Who said anything about ignoring it? moving averages have their uses and
> their drawbacks. Neither of which has anything to do with why the concept
> of core inflation is not a political machination.
The regular joe knows how much more they have to pay at the pump and what
poltics is behind it. All they have to do is watch Bush and the Prince of
Saudia Arabia hold hands and realize what a fuck job they are getting.
>
>> Stripping
>>> them out gives a better picture of the economy. [2] If they are
>>> trending up significantly then that effect will translate into the a
>>> broader rise in prices.
>>
>> What could be more core than oil to an economy that runs on oil and food?
>
> I repeat: then it would be reflected in a broader rise in prices.
It is, but not as exaggerated. However, ppl don't drive their cars to work
with the price of other products. They pay for it weekly at the gas
station. There is no interchangeable commodity right now for gas.
But if the
> response is a substitution: a move to greater fuel efficiency,
> conservation, changes in demand then the overall effect might be quite
> different from the price moves of those two items.
>
> I'm not suggesting those are unimportant and unconnected economic inputs.
> I'm say that economist strip them out for some very valid economic reasons
> that has nothing to do with politics.
Just because they do it doesn't make it particuarly valid in day to day
life.
>
> You can believe in whatever whackadoo conspiracy theories you want but the
> process is standard and unconnected to political bias.
The government tinkers with the way they report the economics of this
country. They tinkered with how unemployment is reported. Then they
tinkered with switching from reporting the GNP to the GDP as the metric for
health.
>
> Which of those econometric results some people choose to trumpet - Now
> that has everything to do with a person's political biases - left and
> right.
>
>
>>>> We in reality do pay for food and energy all the time and it directly
>>>> affects our bottom line. Maybe some elitists on wall street think it's
>>>> ok but they don't seem to live the same lives as the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> *shrug* Believe what you want - or take a basic economics course.
>>
>> I have and I don't agree with the way they are reported.
>
> Your choice. But blaming Wall St for being responsible for the manner in
> which economist look at core inflation makes about as much sense as
> blaming Saddam for Sept 11 and invading on that basis.
>
>>> Economists - not Wall St 'elitists' strip out food and energy to analyze
>>> core inflation for valid econometric reasons.
>>
>> Berneke is an elitist. Look at his background.
>
> Who? Bernanke? You think HE initiated this process of stripping out food
> and energy to examine core inflation??
Fact is that the average joe is not in charge. It's elitisits like Berneke,
and other economists with big degrees from big name universities driving big
name prestige cars that populate wall street.
As some sort of nefarious elitist plot no
> doubt? They've been doing it since before he was in grad school... 1975 or
> so.
>
> Whether he is elitist? I don't really care. But he is an academic who
> never was involved Wall St.
And you are about as likely to talk to him as pigs will fly.
karl
> Fact is that the average joe is not in charge. It's elitists like
> Berneke, and other economists with big degrees from big name universities
> driving big name prestige cars that populate wall street.
Believe whatever wackadoo conspiracy theories you wish. I'm sure I wont
convince you otherwise.
Blash
>> Fact is that the average joe is not in charge. It's elitists like
>> Berneke, and other economists with big degrees from big name universities
>> driving big name prestige cars that populate wall street.
Right On.....We need more high-school dropouts running Wall Street!!!
They could leave their skateboards in the NYSE lobby to help alleviate the
traffic situation......If they had rings, bolts and other useful items
puncturing various body parts, it's would be another big plus......
com...@webtv.net
bombs and testing occurred.
uranum and cobal rocks were used as jewelry .x-rays were being used. and
then there is "radon gas". radon gas is radiactive gas that escapes from
the basements of foundations of many homes. we had such a problem wih it
here in south bend , that the city was selling radon detector units and
giving them free to the poor. this is where lung cancer comes from.back
in the early 1900's, the cancer rate was up to 1 in 20 people catching
it. now it is up to 1 in 3 people catching it in their lifetime. the
rate has climbed as radioactive particles have been accumulating in the
environment.
Trailer Trash
foundations of many homes. we had such a problem wih it here in south
bend"
It all makes sense now.
<g>
lubow
--
Lubow
"Trailer Trash" <Olne...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11803-46C...@storefull-3355.bay.webtv.net...