sppartenburg ron paul forum underway

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
where do i get the EVOL bumper stickers?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can get em here

but im not so sure i like em. either way thanks for the suport

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where do i get the EVOL bumper stickers?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can get em here


but im not so sure i like em. either way thanks for the suport

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, im not sure either now- very hippie-esque aren't they? I see lots of people sitting around smoking dope wearing these shirts.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where do i get the EVOL bumper stickers?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can get em here


but im not so sure i like em. either way thanks for the suport

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, im not sure either now- very hippie-esque aren't they? I see lots of people sitting around smoking dope wearing these shirts.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah thats waht i was thinking. And since everyone already seems to think I am supporting "RuPaul" [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone plz photoshop a good RP O RLY pic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoy.

[Borodog]

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.

[mosdef]

[ 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".

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, you tell me. You are asserting that the change was made to mask "real" inflation. Your only back up for this is an a priori assumption that governments always act in an underhanded way. Of course, when you start with this assumption then interpret a government action from that point of view, then (surprise!) you conclude that they're acting in an underhanded way. I am asking if you've actually critically analyzed the old CPI methodology, the new CPI methodology, and the government's explanations for the change. If you have, I'd love to hear your explanation on how the change in methodology is a sham and that you have a better way to measure "real" inflation. Do you have facts and analysis or just assertions?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, you tell me. You are asserting that the change was made to mask "real" inflation. Your only back up for this is an a priori assumption that governments always act in an underhanded way. Of course, when you start with this assumption then interpret a government action from that point of view, then (surprise!) you conclude that they're acting in an underhanded way. I am asking if you've actually critically analyzed the old CPI methodology, the new CPI methodology, and the government's explanations for the change. If you have, I'd love to hear your explanation on how the change in methodology is a sham and that you have a better way to measure "real" inflation. Do you have facts and analysis or just assertions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Politiicians utilize demaguery all the time, Ron Paul isn't immune from that tactic. The onus is on the Paul supporters IMO to show how inflation should be measured.

I will say that traders that I've communicated with claim that the government understates inflation due to COLA adjustments built into government handout programs. My understanding is that core CPI is not the primary tool that the Fed uses to gauge inflation. What does the long steady decline of the U.S. $ over the last 6 to 7 years say about the true rate of inflation?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, you tell me. You are asserting that the change was made to mask "real" inflation. Your only back up for this is an a priori assumption that governments always act in an underhanded way. Of course, when you start with this assumption then interpret a government action from that point of view, then (surprise!) you conclude that they're acting in an underhanded way. I am asking if you've actually critically analyzed the old CPI methodology, the new CPI methodology, and the government's explanations for the change. If you have, I'd love to hear your explanation on how the change in methodology is a sham and that you have a better way to measure "real" inflation. Do you have facts and analysis or just assertions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Politiicians utilize demaguery all the time, Ron Paul isn't immune from that tactic. The onus is on the Paul supporters IMO to show how inflation should be measured.

I will say that traders that I've communicated with claim that the government understates inflation due to COLA adjustments built into government handout programs. My understanding is that core CPI is not the primary tool that the Fed uses to gauge inflation. What does the long steady decline of the U.S. $ over the last 6 to 7 years say about the true rate of inflation?

[/ QUOTE ]


Inflation is simply when the supply of a currency increases beyond its given demand of the time.

A measurement of these facts is whats necessary to understand the given rate of inflation over a given time.

There is no feasible quantity of money calculation. CPI is a late indicator and only shows inflation once the consequences of credit dissemenation has occured/occuring.

The depecriating currency is surely a sign of inflation because the demand for the currency is not at par with what the fed dictates themselves as creditworth for.