|
|
|
|
#1
11-16-2007, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
11-16-2007, 04:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#3
11-16-2007, 04:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ 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. |
|
#4
11-16-2007, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ 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 |
|
#5
11-16-2007, 04:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ 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? |
|
#6
11-16-2007, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! 
|
|
#7
11-16-2007, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
11-16-2007, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ 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 ] Alright, that's it..... For meddling with powers in the universe that are beyond your comprehension and embodied by a green name, I emplore the gods that an instant permaban be brought forth upon you..... |
|
#9
11-16-2007, 04:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
[ 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 ] And? |
|
#10
11-16-2007, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive
I will never understand [censored] like this, internet grudges are almost as retarded as real life grudges. How can two people as intelligent as you two get this crazy over something so insignificant?
cliffs notes: "Yo dawg! you stepped on my PUMA's! You betta recognize sucka" "Dawg, those ain't even PUMA's! Theys ADIDAS foo!" "You sayin I ain't wearin shoes Yo?!!" "I's SAYIN, YO MOMMAS AN UGLY HO!" "AWWWWWW SHITT Ima gon get my GAT and shoot yo in yo grill!" |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
