|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse. [/ QUOTE ] Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3? [/ QUOTE ] I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating? "Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!" [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal. However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves. Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses." We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending. The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply. It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me. He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE. [/ QUOTE ] Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct". [/ QUOTE ] Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic? I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time. [/ QUOTE ] how interesting note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something. [/ QUOTE ] WHOOOPSIE... care to respond to that one borodog? or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions: 1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that? and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that? thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Barron [/ QUOTE ] And? What is it like in your head dude? Because on the outside IT'S [censored] CRAZY. What do you think this shows? Uh, duh, I already said that I thought the important statistic was M3. When will you admit it isn't even about M3, but rather the fact that you are an insulting a-hole that can't admit he's an insulting a-hole? [/ QUOTE ] Come on you guys...I hate seeing you like this! http://momcentral.typepad.com/photos...s_fighting.jpg |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse. [/ QUOTE ] Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3? [/ QUOTE ] I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating? "Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!" [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal. However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves. Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses." We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending. The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply. It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me. He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE. [/ QUOTE ] Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct". [/ QUOTE ] Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic? I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time. [/ QUOTE ] how interesting note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something. [/ QUOTE ] WHOOOPSIE... care to respond to that one borodog? or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions: 1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that? and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that? thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Barron [/ QUOTE ] And? What is it like in your head dude? Because on the outside IT'S [censored] CRAZY. What do you think this shows? Uh, duh, I already said that I thought the important statistic was M3. When will you admit it isn't even about M3, but rather the fact that you are an insulting a-hole that can't admit he's an insulting a-hole? [/ QUOTE ] i admitted i'm an insulting a-hole, when will you admit that i've already admitted in the first post in this thread i was an insulting a-hole bent on thrashing you for a bit? it isn't about that though, it is about your posts on M3 now. that is why i made this post in the first place. you held over people's head (at least in my mind which you said was batsh*t crazy so we might need some 3rd party verification here) in a condescending manner the M3 issue. you did it as if you understood it. did you really think you understood M3 when you made those remarks? do you understand M3 now? you claimed (directly or otherwise) that there was some conspiracy behind the cessation of the publication of M3. do you still think that? if not, can you admit you were wrong in using the references in those 3 posts andathar quoted from you? Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
pwned imo I really like barron's tactics. Come out on the offensive, make up a story that makes someone look batshit insane, spew it, get some apparatchiks praising your contributions, then disappear. The target then has to spend a crapload of time proving his innocence, building a long post, refuting the slanderous points. The result is so long that nobody will read it and everyone just assumes this is more evidence that the victim is in fact nuts. Beautiful technique. [/ QUOTE ] pvn, i really like your tactics. posting in a 3rd party manner that implies that i knew from the first post that i would take the line you mentioned solely for the purpose of getting the outcome you attributed to that strategy. beautiful technique. Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse. [/ QUOTE ] Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3? [/ QUOTE ] I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating? "Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!" [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal. However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves. Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses." We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending. The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply. It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me. He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE. [/ QUOTE ] Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct". [/ QUOTE ] Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic? I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time. [/ QUOTE ] how interesting note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something. [/ QUOTE ] WHOOOPSIE... care to respond to that one borodog? or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions: 1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that? and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that? thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Barron [/ QUOTE ] And? What is it like in your head dude? Because on the outside IT'S [censored] CRAZY. What do you think this shows? Uh, duh, I already said that I thought the important statistic was M3. When will you admit it isn't even about M3, but rather the fact that you are an insulting a-hole that can't admit he's an insulting a-hole? [/ QUOTE ] Come on you guys...I hate seeing you like this! http://momcentral.typepad.com/photos...s_fighting.jpg [/ QUOTE ] now son, just remember that both your mother and i love you and it's not your fault. Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse. [/ QUOTE ] Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3? [/ QUOTE ] I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating? "Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!" [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal. However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves. Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses." We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending. The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply. It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me. He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE. [/ QUOTE ] Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct". [/ QUOTE ] Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic? I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time. [/ QUOTE ] how interesting note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something. [/ QUOTE ] WHOOOPSIE... care to respond to that one borodog? or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions: 1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that? and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that? thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Barron [/ QUOTE ] And? What is it like in your head dude? Because on the outside IT'S [censored] CRAZY. What do you think this shows? Uh, duh, I already said that I thought the important statistic was M3. When will you admit it isn't even about M3, but rather the fact that you are an insulting a-hole that can't admit he's an insulting a-hole? [/ QUOTE ] i admitted i'm an insulting a-hole, when will you admit that i've already admitted in the first post in this thread i was an insulting a-hole bent on thrashing you for a bit? it isn't about that though, it is about your posts on M3 now. [/ QUOTE ] No, it isn't. It's about you being Mayor of Crazytown. [ QUOTE ] that is why i made this post in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] No, you started this thread to try and distract from the fact that you were insulting and wrong, and when corrected, got condescending and wrong and attempted to change the subject to something completely irrelevent. Alas for you, I'm not interested in letting you get away with it. [ QUOTE ] you held over people's head (at least in my mind which you said was batsh*t crazy so we might need some 3rd party verification here) in a condescending manner the M3 issue. [/ QUOTE ] You are the [censored] king of kookville dude. "held over people's head"??? THE POINT WAS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PRINT MONEY TO EXPAND THE [censored] MONEY SUPPLY. M2, M3, WHO GIVES A [censored]. [ QUOTE ] you did it as if you understood it. did you really think you understood M3 when you made those remarks? do you understand M3 now? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. And if I wasn't having so much fun demonstrating for everyone that it isn't about M2 or M3 or Mi6 I would make you look really silly about it. That should REALLY drive you nuts. [ QUOTE ] you claimed (directly or otherwise) that there was some conspiracy behind the cessation of the publication of M3. do you still think that? [/ QUOTE ] Do you still beat your wife? I scoffed at the idea that the reason they stopped publishing it is cost. No more, no less. Oh, but I forget! The government would never have any motives that aren't pure as the driven snow. No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2. [ QUOTE ] if not, can you admit you were wrong in using the references in those 3 posts andathar quoted from you? [/ QUOTE ] No. Nyah nyah nyah boo boo. |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
This thread rules. Barron, can you post in politics more often? You are totally insane and would liven things up a bit.
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] pwned imo I really like barron's tactics. Come out on the offensive, make up a story that makes someone look batshit insane, spew it, get some apparatchiks praising your contributions, then disappear. The target then has to spend a crapload of time proving his innocence, building a long post, refuting the slanderous points. The result is so long that nobody will read it and everyone just assumes this is more evidence that the victim is in fact nuts. Beautiful technique. [/ QUOTE ] pvn, i really like your tactics. posting in a 3rd party manner that implies that i knew from the first post that i would take the line you mentioned solely for the purpose of getting the outcome you attributed to that strategy. beautiful technique. Barron [/ QUOTE ] 2/10 |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
Voted mayor. He seems like more of a mayor than a king.
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
CLIFF NOTES:
1)Words words words, rant, rant, rant, MX, MQ, Blibbity, blabbity, fidoucheiary stuffz. 2)Decifer: Boro, you're a BUUHOLE! 3)Boro: Haha! You're a word twisting BUUHOLE 4)pvn: Boro's BUUHOLE smells better 5)Decifer: nannay nanny poo poo I already said I'm a BUUHOLE! Is that about right? |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
CLIFF NOTES: 1)Words words words, rant, rant, rant, MX, MQ, Blibbity, blabbity, fidoucheiary stuffz. 2)Decifer: Boro, you're a BUUHOLE! 3)Boro: Haha! You're a word twisting BUUHOLE 4)pvn: Boro's BUUHOLE smells better 5)Decifer: nannay nanny poo poo I already said I'm a BUUHOLE! 6)Bring out the LOLCATS Is that about right? [/ QUOTE ] FMP |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
I am pretty confident that I am now and have in fact been for awhile the not only mayor of crazy town, but the sole owner and proprietor of everything therein.
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
I scoffed at the idea that the reason they stopped publishing it is cost. No more, no less. Oh, but I forget! The government would never have any motives that aren't pure as the driven snow. No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2. [/ QUOTE ] Boro I don't think you can both at the same time say "No more, no less." and "No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2." I have yet to see something that the M3 numbers are more accurate then the m2 numbers. You have stated that the M3 number is the important one, and the only reason that you have given is that it's looks worse. Nor have you made a statement regarding the cost to the fed to acquire M3 versus extra knowledge that can gleamed above M2. I'll grant you motive that the fed might not want to publish numbers that make them look bad, but is there any other reason then a MO, that this is a conspiracy? My reading comprehension does kinda suck so if you could point out where I'm wrong, i'd appreciate it. edit to add, the companies I've work for in the past had absolutely no qualm about publishing less correct numbers that made them look better then the more correct numbers that made them look worse. Is this the case with the fed regarding M2, and M3. |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty confident that I am now and have in fact been for awhile the not only mayor of crazy town, but the sole owner and proprietor of everything therein. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmmmm. I'm pretty sure I was appointed Minister of Defence of Crazytown some time ago. Praps, it's time we met. HI, Mr Mayor, nice to meet you, I'm The MOD. |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
Now I am afraid to comment in any of their threads.
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel
<font color="green">DcifrThs </font> is now permanently lodged in my mind as "that insane M3/Borodog rant guy."
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
Deleted
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] <font color="green">DcifrThs </font> is now permanently lodged in my mind as "that insane M3/Borodog rant guy." [/ QUOTE ] Deleted [/ QUOTE ] [ ] Lots of smileys [x] Lots of LOLs [x] Attack on Borodog |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] <font color="green">DcifrThs </font> is now permanently lodged in my mind as "that insane M3/Borodog rant guy." [/ QUOTE ] Deleted [/ QUOTE ] [ ] Lots of smileys [x] Lots of LOLs [x] Attack on Borodog [ ] America bashing [ ] Christian bashing [ ] content [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
I was considering the M3, but got the SC430. All the other yogis are jealous, but I tell 'em when you're Dharma Magazines 5 time Yogin of the Year (96-99, 03), you can get a red convertible Lexy, too. Then I peel out and say "Vipassana Biatches!".
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
This reminds me of the thread a while back where I made a comment about Saturn moon rockets, then in a later post used pictures of two titan rockets, and RedBean went on for six pages about how I obviously couldn't tell the difference between a Saturn and a Titan. http://forums.snapstream.com/public_...b/rolleyes.gif
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
Who knew that M3 had the potential to unlock such furious passions...
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
Boro has once said the Gov't expenditures "are such a smalll portion of GDP" in reference to a comment on how Gov't debt purchased by foreign nations (China) skews our GDP number. However, from what I've learned, even if the savings rate is as high as 25%, gov't expenditures through these conduits (foreign holdings of national debt) effect the GDP, and subsequent "GDP growth", by a multiple of 4 through the GE Multiplier. Please comment if you think I'm misinformed.
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of the thread a while back where I made a comment about Saturn moon rockets, then in a later post used pictures of two titan rockets, and RedBean went on for six pages about how I obviously couldn't tell the difference between a Saturn and a Titan. [/ QUOTE ] I was amazed it took you six pages of bullheaded evasiveness before acknowledging you were wrong. Good times. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
Deleted [/ QUOTE ] http://icanhascheezburger.files.word...moderator1.jpg This thread needs more lolcats. |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This reminds me of the thread a while back where I made a comment about Saturn moon rockets, then in a later post used pictures of two titan rockets, and RedBean went on for six pages about how I obviously couldn't tell the difference between a Saturn and a Titan. [/ QUOTE ] I was amazed it took you six pages of bullheaded evasiveness before acknowledging you were wrong. Good times. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't. Nice try, though. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
excellent tactics borodog.
call me crazy all you want. i am not letting you get away with this. i will also no longer quote the entire exchange. i made it very clear why i chimed in in the other thread in the first place. i've gotten PMs saying basically that "i used to think boro was really right all the time" and that "the manner in which he[boro] debates is insulting and geared towards winning." so let's see why i chimed in... i thought the OP in the last thread was being brainwashed without understanding an important point. you have a great impact on people and i think you use that (possibly unknowingly) to convert followers (more likely knowingly). but your followers then come in and ask questions with your words where it is clear that the actual sound bites are drivel even if they have logical meaning behind them...it may not be your fault. it may simply be that you are brainwashed too. i've had great exchanges recently with people like zygote who 100% agree with your conclusions, but don't come accross as badly as you do. correcting the drivel, i.e. showing that the order of operations is not that the fed just prints money (b/c as you correctly, but oddly, pointed out)but that money is released through open market operations...which THEN lowers interest rate (the goal...in your words, the cart...or the horse...i forget which one intent is supposed to be)...which THEN cetaris parabis lowers the value of the dollar relative to its trading partners. but the pure lowering of interest rates does not have an effect on the US dollar if its partners do the same thing by the same amount....or if its partners are doing it by more. it isn't an absolute that lowering interest rates lowers the value of the dollar (which is what the OP in the last thread seemed to believe), just because it is true most of the time. in fact, we recently saw an episode (smoetime in this past week, can't remember the day) where US interest rates (bond yields) fell and the dollar strengthened!!! it doesn't help anyone to say "the fed is printing money and devaluing the dollar" other than your own clan or people you are trying to convert. it would be far better if you actually explained things the way they are so that those people don't get a distorted idea of the order of operations. it wouldn't sound as good but it would be more useful in the long run so that your convertees could intelligently argue their points. the way i handled that objection was obviously crazy because you drive me batsh*t crazy. so keep at it, but lets deal with the next issue please...thanks. next issue: i started THIS thread not to destract from "being insulting and wrong" but to actually be insulting and right and it turns out that in this case i am both. you can't change the fact that you have used numerous times in the past the cessation of the printing of M3 as ammunition saying that "they just stopped doing it because it looks worse." well, if you took 3 seconds to look up what was actually contained in M3 you'd see there are things that are distortive, informationwise as the use of repos has exponentially increased, without increasing the value of the indicator.... ...or maybe you did look up M3 and saw it contained things that you didn't understand or know the extent of (repos) and just assumed it was a govt conspiracy anyways. now you want to say "well it doesn't matter M2, M3, who gives a sh*t," but you can't. why? simply because you've used the not publishing of M3, like i just said, as evidence against the fed. NOTE: please reread that before continuing. i'm not delving into a fed interest rate debate here. i'm simply saying that evidence you've used in the past is that it is fishy that the fed chose to stop publication of M3. Ron Paul has used the same in his speaches, but none of the opposition understood what could have been the real reason. notice that ron paul DIDNT say that when ben bernanke was the one being questioned because he would have gotten it shoved down his throat while he DID delve into almost every other major issue he had while he had his time at the M&B committee testimony. [ QUOTE ] I scoffed at the idea that the reason they stopped publishing it is cost [/ QUOTE ] ok, so you scoffed that they stopped the publication b/c of cost. but why? what was your alternative hypothesis? you didn't possibly consider the reason they stopped publishing it is a combination of usefulness (repos distorting it) and cost...like they (the fed) said. [ QUOTE ] No more, no less. Oh, but I forget! The government would never have any motives that aren't pure as the driven snow. No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2. [/ QUOTE ] well, a poster below me said it so i'll just quote his reply: [ QUOTE ] Boro I don't think you can both at the same time say "No more, no less." and "No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2." I have yet to see something that the M3 numbers are more accurate then the m2 numbers. You have stated that the M3 number is the important one, and the only reason that you have given is that it's looks worse. Nor have you made a statement regarding the cost to the fed to acquire M3 versus extra knowledge that can gleamed above M2. I'll grant you motive that the fed might not want to publish numbers that make them look bad, but is there any other reason then a MO, that this is a conspiracy? [/ QUOTE ] so boro, call me crazy, keep belittling me and getting backing, it doesn't matter. the fact that you won't "let me get away with it" will only back you into a acorner until you will have to admit you are wrong...which is what i want. you might even say something like "OK FINE, scoffing at the cost was a means i used to sell people on the conspiracy to stop printing it" or some other quick one liner to now discount this discussion without actually admitting being wrong. that won't fly and we'll keep at it until you have admitting your incorrectness here. if that makes me crazy, so be it. but all the crazy insults, therapy cats, or other belittling words (no matter how funny...because therapy cat was not a 9/10, it was 10/10) won't distract from the goal i set out here of insulting you (may or may not be accomplished, but either way i'll concentrate more on the next goal) and to prove you wrong. Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
it isn't an absolute that lowering interest rates lowers the value of the dollar (which is what the OP in the last thread seemed to believe), just because it is true most of the time. [/ QUOTE ] It isn't an absolute that AA will beat 67, but it is an absolute that getting your chips in with 67 vs. AA is -EV. [ QUOTE ] it doesn't help anyone to say "the fed is printing money and devaluing the dollar" other than your own clan or people you are trying to convert. it would be far better if you actually explained things the way they are so that those people don't get a distorted idea of the order of operations. it wouldn't sound as good but it would be more useful in the long run so that your convertees could intelligently argue their points. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure 2X + 3X = 5X. If you for some reason (perhaps you make a career out of such things) want to spend an endless amount of energy arguing why it equals 5.2X, you shouldn't trick yourself into thinking there need be a complicated counter-argument. Quite simply, the fed is printing money and devaluing the dollar. In other news, I'm glad to see this thread is alive and well. |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
REVISED CLIFF NOTES:
1)Words words words, rant, rant, rant, MX, MQ, Blibbity, blabbity, fidoucheiary stuffz. 2)Decifer: Boro, you're a BUUHOLE! 3)Boro: Haha! You're a word twisting BUUHOLE 4)pvn: Boro's BUUHOLE smells better 5)Decifer: nannay nanny poo poo I already said I'm a BUUHOLE! 6)Bring out the LOLCATS 7)More words words words words, MZ,M42X, planet smartron 5 8)Decipher: I may be a BUUHOLE but I'm a RIGHT BUUHOLE! |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] it isn't an absolute that lowering interest rates lowers the value of the dollar (which is what the OP in the last thread seemed to believe), just because it is true most of the time. [/ QUOTE ] It isn't an absolute that AA will beat 67, but it is an absolute that getting your chips in with 67 vs. AA is -EV. [ QUOTE ] it doesn't help anyone to say "the fed is printing money and devaluing the dollar" other than your own clan or people you are trying to convert. it would be far better if you actually explained things the way they are so that those people don't get a distorted idea of the order of operations. it wouldn't sound as good but it would be more useful in the long run so that your convertees could intelligently argue their points. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure 2X + 3X = 5X. If you for some reason (perhaps you make a career out of such things) want to spend an endless amount of energy arguing why it equals 5.2X, you shouldn't trick yourself into thinking there need be a complicated counter-argument. In other news, I'm glad to see this thread is alive and well. [/ QUOTE ] i think you see the issue i have here though. that issue is that when you say things like "the fed devalues the dollar by printing money" it comes accross as a literal relationship. those who don't understand econ (many who read and have been converted) take it as such a literal relationship. to you it is splitting hairs, possibly b/c you understand it. and yes, of course 76 will be sad to get it all in vs. AA preflop and is -EV for the 76 guy. but both players understand simply WHY!! there doesn't seem to be that understanding of why by the followers here since the OP in the BFI thread stated things the way he did. Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
This thread needs more lolcats. [/ QUOTE ] http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/781/fightop9.jpg |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
"the fed devalues the dollar by printing money" it comes accross as a literal relationship. [/ QUOTE ] what is not literal about that relationship? there is obviously more to learn if one wants a more detailed understanding of inflation but i see nothing inherently wrong with that statement. Care to shed some light? |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "the fed devalues the dollar by printing money" it comes accross as a literal relationship. [/ QUOTE ] what is not literal about that relationship? there is obviously more to learn if one wants a more detailed understanding of inflation but i see nothing inherently wrong with that statement. Care to shed some light? [/ QUOTE ] because if the trading partners lower interest rates by the same amount the dollar is fine. it implies that every time the IRs are lowered, the dollar falls. this isn't a "literal" i.e. 100% relationship but those who read a statement like that might think it is. that is all i was correcting in the initial (bfi) thread. if two people who both understood it said it of course it is fine. i just want to make it clearer to those who don't fully understand the drivers. espeically since currency is probably one of the harder things to truly understand (i had a tough time w/ it so possibly others would too). Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
and yes, of course 76 will be sad to get it all in vs. AA preflop and is -EV for the 76 guy. but both players understand simply WHY!! there doesn't seem to be that understanding of why by the followers here [/ QUOTE ] Both players understand why because in the case of poker odds there isn't a sophisticated social and political mechanism that selects for incomplete information. If people came up with elaborate justifications to explain why getting it in with the 76 is a good idea, the people who insist it isn't don't also need elaborate justifications in order for their reasoning to be perfectly sound. |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] and yes, of course 76 will be sad to get it all in vs. AA preflop and is -EV for the 76 guy. but both players understand simply WHY!! there doesn't seem to be that understanding of why by the followers here [/ QUOTE ] Both players understand why because in the case of poker odds there isn't a sophisticated social and political mechanism that selects for incomplete information. If people came up with elaborate justifications to explain why getting it in with the 76 is a good idea, the people who insist it isn't don't also need elaborate justifications in order for their reasoning to be perfectly sound. [/ QUOTE ] there is no possible justification to knowingly calling 76 vs. AA if your goal is to maximize EV and you know AA is held. on the other hand, there are circumstances that can exist where the "printing of money by the fed" doesn't devalue the dollar. Barron |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
it implies that every time the IRs are lowered, the dollar falls. this isn't a "literal" i.e. 100% relationship but those who read a statement like that might think it is. [/ QUOTE ] The statement was regarding fed intervenion, not free market trading. When the fed intervenes and issues reserves out of air, this has a negative impact on the value of the dollar. Same is true for fed monetizing the debt. When fed prints money, without backing, dollar goes down just like if any other counterfitter prints money. [ QUOTE ] if two people who both understood it said it of course it is fine. i just want to make it clearer to those who don't fully understand the drivers. espeically since currency is probably one of the harder things to truly understand (i had a tough time w/ it so possibly others would too). [/ QUOTE ] I support making things clearer [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
This thread makes me happy [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ QUOTE ]
on the other hand, there are circumstances that can exist where the "printing of money by the fed" doesn't devalue the dollar. [/ QUOTE ] These circumstances are all shortsighted. It's delaying greater future good in the name of patching an immediate problem. It's like saying there are instances where preemptively attacking people makes us safer. In some sense, with the right spin, sure. But the simple point is that the long-term consequence will always outweigh it, no matter how elaborately you try to justify things. You're trying to create value out of thin air. That probably comes off as nothing more than a Ron Paul talking point to you, but really, that's what you're doing. How can that possibly have any long-term EV?? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.