Link for those who like to taunt low earners
Ray Gordon
See, I earn low for reasons that are a lot different than why others may
earn low: laws are broken against me in employment and business, and I work
to improve in the long run while also working at home and not having to
commute, while earning a high hourly rate part time.
However, the definition of "loser" that some here want to attach to my
lifestyle applies infinitely more to those who are in a true "poverty trap."
--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers
http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x
The Seduction Library Forum
Vince Runza
news:RGnvc.14672$bD4....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> http://aol.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm
>
> See, I earn low for reasons that are a lot different than why others may
> earn low: laws are broken against me in employment and business
You are SUCH a sissy. You have no problem breaking laws when it suits you.
Call it karma, GORK.
> and I work to improve in the long run
Keep working. You seem to be the same failure you were years ago...
> while also working at home and not having to
> commute, while earning a high hourly rate part time.
"While sponging off my mommy (even though I'm in my mid 30's) and typing
furiously on my computer."
> However, the definition of "loser" that some here want to attach to my
> lifestyle applies infinitely more to those who are in a true "poverty
trap."
You are in a true poverty trap - poverty thinking.
--
Vince
Senior Economist
also move interest rates as close to zero as possible. Lower interest
rates will increase temporary inflation, and the Philips-Fisher curve
tells us there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.
High inflation equals low unemployment (and vice versa). Low
unemployment equals increased production and supply, and higher supply
leads to lower prices - deflation. In real terms, inflation cannot
exist if we do not increase the money supply, so the only risk is that
people are borrowing today at the expense of tomorrow. However, if
people are borrowing, they are borrowing from the capital owners. A
capital owner who lends money to someone to spend is no different than
a capital owner who gives someone money to spend, or decides to spend
more money himself. Yet if no one bought or sold the goods which were
produced, nothing would drive the economy. Buying and spending drive
the economy. For instance government spending during World War II got
us out of the Great Depression. So a low interest rate will lead to
temporarily higher inflation and lower unemployment, increasing
production and supply, shifting the supply curve to the right, leaving
us at the same price level and a higher output level. In the
meantime, inflation will also make the debt cheaper to pay back.
Things are no different today than they ever were. From the time of
kings, land owners, and serfs, there has always been a discrepancy
between the capital owners and the non-owners. Raising the minimum
wage will help shrink this wealth discrepancy; while at the same time
increasing tax revenues, a far better solution than a "tax-cut."
Raising the minimum wage will also allow a poorer household to employ
two wage earners, for instance someone's wife could get a part time
job and actually supplement family income. More workers equals more
production and higher output for the entire economy! A higher wage
will create more of an incentive to work, and may also encourage
hoodlums in ghettos to get jobs, cutting down the cost society spends
on crime.
El Kabong
> See, I earn low for reasons that are a lot different than why others may
> earn low: laws are broken against me in employment and business, and I
work
> to improve in the long run while also working at home and not having to
> commute, while earning a high hourly rate part time.
The net result is, you still earn less than minimum wage.
>
> However, the definition of "loser" that some here want to attach to my
> lifestyle applies infinitely more to those who are in a true "poverty
trap."
>
Your record is clear....
KaBoong
Alex
at econom...@lycos.com wrote on 6/2/04 2:56 PM:
> Lower interest
> rates will increase temporary inflation, and the Philips-Fisher curve
> tells us there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.
> High inflation equals low unemployment (and vice versa).
How does this model explain the "stagflation" of the 1970s, when both
inflation and unemployment rose together?
EditorialStaff
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:58:25 GMT
> From: "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com>
> Message-ID: <RGnvc.14672$bD4....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.236.47.148
> Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
3. You may NOT use the Service as follows:
(d) to bombard individuals or newsgroups with uninvited
communications, data or information, or other similar
activities, including but not limited to "spamming",
"flaming" or denial or distributed denial of service
attacks;
(g) to post information on newsgroups which is not in the
topic area or charter (e.g. off-topic posting) of the
newsgroup;
(n) to generate excessive amounts (as determined by Verizon
in its sole discretion) of Internet traffic, or to disrupt
net user groups or email use by others;
(r) to use the Service or the Internet in a manner intended
to threaten, harass, intimidate;
Usenet Policy and Posting Restrictions: Usenet comprises a
system of bulletin boards called newsgroups. Usenet access
is provided to Internet access customers of Verizon through
the Verizon network. Verizon Usenet may not be accessed via
any other network. You may open no more than five simultaneous
connections to newsgroups at any one time. You may not rapidly
open and close or create connections for users other than
yourself (our Subscriber). Verizon will carry newsgroups at
their sole discretion. Requests to add a newsgroup, from any
source, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and added at
Verizon's sole discretion. You must familiarize yourself with
the subjects and established guidelines and restrictions of
any newsgroup in which you participate and we reserve the right,
in our sole discretion, to terminate your Service in the event
you violate newsgroup guidelines or restrictions.
Reported to: ab...@verizon.net
--
The Editorial Staff
-----
A quote from "Ray Gordon"
"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit
the following website: http://members.tripod.com/~rayfaq.html)*
This site contains many lies about me, but as a defender of
free speech I fully support its right to exist."
-Message-ID: <6ertau$76b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
*The original RayFAQ was removed from the internet as a
result of dozens of complaints from Gordon Roy Parker.
Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Ray Gordon
> > rates will increase temporary inflation, and the Philips-Fisher curve
> > tells us there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.
> > High inflation equals low unemployment (and vice versa).
>
> How does this model explain the "stagflation" of the 1970s, when both
> inflation and unemployment rose together?
The inflation was oil-induced, which meant the money was not circulating
within the US economy.
Fuel cell technology has as its greatest promise the abilty to transfer all
related jobs from the Middle East to here, and you'd think with our soldiers
dying over there, we'd get to it.
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 6/2/04 4:39 PM:
>>> Lower interest
>>> rates will increase temporary inflation, and the Philips-Fisher curve
>>> tells us there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.
>>> High inflation equals low unemployment (and vice versa).
>>
>> How does this model explain the "stagflation" of the 1970s, when both
>> inflation and unemployment rose together?
>
> The inflation was oil-induced, which meant the money was not circulating
> within the US economy.
So, in other words, the above model DOESN'T explain it.
Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Fuel cell technology has as its greatest promise the abilty to transfer all
> related jobs from the Middle East to here, and you'd think with our soldiers
> dying over there, we'd get to it.
>
Actually, its biggest benefit is taking our money out of the hands of those
who wish us ill.
Alternative fuel should come under the budgets of National Security and
Defense as well as Energy.
Bryen193
>> Fuel cell technology has as its greatest promise the abilty to transfer all
>> related jobs from the Middle East to here, and you'd think with our
>soldiers
>> dying over there, we'd get to it.
>>
>Actually, its biggest benefit is taking our money out of the hands of those
>who wish us ill.
>
>Alternative fuel should come under the budgets of National Security and
>Defense as well as Energy.
It won't, as long as the foxes are guarding the henhouse...
"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
James King
brye...@aol.com (Bryen193) wrote:
> Alex akau...@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com
> >> Fuel cell technology has as its greatest promise the abilty to transfer all
> >> related jobs from the Middle East to here, and you'd think with our
> >> soldiers dying over there, we'd get to it.
> >Actually, its biggest benefit is taking our money out of the hands of those
> >who wish us ill.
> >Alternative fuel should come under the budgets of National Security and
> >Defense as well as Energy.
> It won't, as long as the foxes are guarding the henhouse...
It will take a real genuine fuel shortage for any action to begin. Our
nation is one that generally keeps the status quo (regardless of
consequences) until something drastic happens, and then we attempt to
patch the problem up. Sometimes we solve the problem.
But for all practical purposes, as long as I can put gas at will in my
car, there isn't a real fuel shortage. There might be one looming, but
there isn't one currently.
My guess is that the most immediate change given a true gasoline
shortage would be the conversion of cars to run on pure ethanol.
The closest thing we have as prior experience is when the U.S. ran out
of anthracite coal in the late 1940's. It was easy to retrofit homes
that were heated with anthracite to be heated with oil or natural gas. I
suspect that we would find a imperfect but usable substitute, like
ethanol, in the event of a shortage.
Diverting our food supply to create energy might not be wise, but I
suspect this is what our government would do. It seems that auto
manufacturers would be able to retrofit cars fairly easily given the
choice between retrofitting to run on an alternate fuel or ceasing to be
as a company.
The problem with hydrogen has always been the safety of its storage.
Given the number of auto accidents, I wouldn't want an accident to
happen to my hydrogen-filled fuel cell. I've seen footage of the
Hindenberg enough times to know I don't want to experience it.
James King
Bryen193
>It will take a real genuine fuel shortage for any action to begin. Our
>nation is one that generally keeps the status quo (regardless of
>consequences) until something drastic happens, and then we attempt to
>patch the problem up. Sometimes we solve the problem.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we consider the events of 9/11 to be
"something drastic", despite the lip service. John Kerry was one of the very
few national voices to come out in the direct aftermath and tie Middle Eastern
oil dependency directly to that event, when everybody else just wanted to talk
"let's roll" and "wanted dead or alive". Sadly upon pouring over his campaign
website now three years later, It doesn't really contain much of a plan in that
area, just the usual platitudes. Seems that even after 9/11, our political
"leaders" still consider alternative fuels and the large, possibly painful
changeover of infrastructure to be a topic too hot to touch in an election
year.
Anyway, sorry for the off topic...
Ray Gordon
> >nation is one that generally keeps the status quo (regardless of
> >consequences) until something drastic happens, and then we attempt to
> >patch the problem up. Sometimes we solve the problem.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we consider the events of 9/11 to be
> "something drastic", despite the lip service.
Most New Yorkers, while stunned by the actual event, were aware of the
terrorism threats since the early 1980s. Some of the worst "terrorists" in
NYC are visiting UN diplomats who have immunity from criminal prosecution.
The heavy Irish population in NYC also raised awareness through its
perpetual protests regarding the IRA.
>John Kerry was one of the very
> few national voices to come out in the direct aftermath and tie Middle
Eastern
> oil dependency directly to that event, when everybody else just wanted to
talk
> "let's roll" and "wanted dead or alive".
Those strategies worked very well against Japan and Germany.
>Sadly upon pouring over his campaign
> website now three years later, It doesn't really contain much of a plan in
that
> area, just the usual platitudes. Seems that even after 9/11, our
political
> "leaders" still consider alternative fuels and the large, possibly painful
> changeover of infrastructure to be a topic too hot to touch in an election
> year.
Too complex for the short-attention-span voter, who needs the time that
comes with unemployment to ponder the issue.
> Anyway, sorry for the off topic...
Odd that we all agree on such controversial positions in areas unrelated to
seduction.
Vince Runza
> Given the number of auto accidents, I wouldn't want an accident to
> happen to my hydrogen-filled fuel cell. I've seen footage of the
> Hindenberg enough times to know I don't want to experience it.
A common misunderstanding of what burned in the Hindenberg crash has led to
a perception that hydrogen burns fiercely. It was the rubber envelope,
combined with the hydrogen gas and air, that burned so quickly. I've burned
hydrogen gas, produced by electrolytic separation. Unless you add pure
oxygen, it really isn't as ferocious as one might guess.
> James King
N.B. Solid state hydrogen (combined with a metal alloy) appears promising.
Along with compact storage, it obviates the dangers of gas under pressure.
Stay tuned...
--
Vince
P.S. Sorry for the OT comments, but appearances are deceiving; like the
danger of getting into a debate with GORK over OT crap in the first place.
JJT
>Most New Yorkers, while stunned by the actual event
YOU, hate monger, have no valid comment on 9/11 except:
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"Now you know what it's like to see your horrors mocked the way mine
have been. That's not mental illness, that's a political message,
apparently delivered quite brilliantly."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Their own
evil is what prevented me from being among the dead, and which added the
"Unknown Office Whore" to their numbers because god forbid some loser
executive would have to hire a man.Those corporations could have hired
me, put me to work in that building, let me live in NYC, and experience
all of the fun that's going on up there now."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001