[Rich Toscano]

[quote=sdduuuude]Whoever you are, please stop. Rich isn’t going to ban the actual markmax33 just because you add a period to the end of a username and post this stuff.[/quote]

Yes, good point… but I did ban him because after I posted this (the second time I’d made this request):

I’m going to ask you — once again — to not post these dedicated Ron Paul cheerleading threads. Yes, there is an off-topic section of the forum, but you are abusing it by aggressively spamming it with repetitive “advocacy” threads (as opposed to actual discussion) that nobody seems to be interested in.

…he couldn’t even make it a full day before posting another RP boosterism thread (thinly disguised as a procedural rathole about what delegates can do).

So, no more markmax, and hopefully no more need for markrnax and all his other derivatives…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=zk][quote=Rich Toscano]markmax33 (the real one):

I’m going to ask you — once again — to not post these dedicated Ron Paul cheerleading threads. Yes, there is an off-topic section of the forum, but you are abusing it by aggressively spamming it with repetitive “advocacy” threads (as opposed to actual discussion) that nobody seems to be interested in.[/quote]

markmax, you’re a clown.[/quote]

Wow, couldn’t even make it 24 hours… bye now.

[Rich Toscano]

Over here:

http://piggington.com/ron_paul_wins_alaska_and_washington_state_several_state_gops_cha

I posted this:

markmax33 (the real one):
I’m going to ask you — once again — to not post these dedicated Ron Paul cheerleading threads. Yes, there is an off-topic section of the forum, but you are abusing it by aggressively spamming it with repetitive “advocacy” threads (as opposed to actual discussion) that nobody seems to be interested in.

PS – Wow, whomever you agree with in above-mentioned debate, Krugman is an unbelievably arrogant d-bag.

[Rich Toscano]

markmax33 (the real one):

I’m going to ask you — once again — to not post these dedicated Ron Paul cheerleading threads. Yes, there is an off-topic section of the forum, but you are abusing it by aggressively spamming it with repetitive “advocacy” threads (as opposed to actual discussion) that nobody seems to be interested in.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=sdduuuude]Just because luck plays a role doesn’t mean that government manipulation, whether or not it changes the role of, is justified.[/quote]

Perhaps. That’s a good debate to have, though, don’t you think? But it’s a different debate than you’d have with someone who thinks luck doesn’t play a huge role in these things.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
The challenge when adopting these ideas to government policy is to eliminate the imbalances that are due to “luck” without removing the incentives that drive success. [/quote]

Exactly what I was thinking as I read the article…

I suppose it would be a nice first step if everyone would acknowledge that luck DOES play a role, and we could figure it out from there…

[Rich Toscano]

Actually I think the MIT methodology is very sound. It’s a little different than CPI as it doesn’t include services (at least it didn’t) but it’s a good gauge of what’s going on.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=bubba99]shadowstats.com has some interesting articles on inflation and the risk of hyper-inflation. You can view the basic charts and papers without a subscription. Shadowstats is showing inflation averaging over 6%/year for the last 5 years (calculated with the formula used up until 1990) Much closer to what most of us see in real world prices.

The section “Primers on Government Economic Reports” lets you drive down to CPI for an analysis of what is really happening and why it is so different than headline CPI.[/quote]

Unfortunately Shadow Stats’ data is pretty much nonsensical… that was discussed here (and by pri in this thread above):

http://piggington.com/interesting_site

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=jstoesz]I saw an inflation calculation out of Stanford or Harvard not to long ago that used amazon prices or some such thing to determine inflation. Does anyone know what I am talking about? It obviously did not jive with the gov stats, but nothing seems to in my reading. Government stats always land on the conservative side, by design I suppose. Hasn’t the inflation formula changed a couple dozen times since Nixon killed the last vestiges of the gold standard?[/quote]

You are probably thinking of this: http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/

Seems they haven’t updated it since Jan. Looks like maybe they are switching over to a pay model or something?

[Rich Toscano]

That’s just silly SDR… don’t you know that we are at the brink of a deflationary spiral?

BG, I believe you are misunderstanding the point of the post. SDR’s point is that prices of staples and the like have risen substantially. The fact that you use coupons, buy dented cans, etc, to reduce your shopping bill from what it otherwise would have been is not actually germane to the topic of whether prices of staples are rising in general.

By the way, we are (or at least recently were) BELOW the Fed’s newly stated official inflation target of 2%. This is because the Fed is targeting the core PCE deflator, which last I checked (this might have been Jan or so) was at 1.7% or thereabouts. (This is to say nothing of the fact that they’ve acknowledged that they will allow inflation to get higher than target in periods of high unemployment).

So however high the inflation is that you are observing, SDR, Bernanke thinks it’s not high enough.

[Rich Toscano]

A big benefit of this is that you get to pick your neighbors, at least on one side. And your neighbors have an incentive to get along with you.

[Rich Toscano]

Exactly right ocr… and of course this conversation wouldn’t be complete without a callback to this classic from November 2006:

http://www.iaconoresearch.com/BlogImages/08-04-17c_GreatTime.png

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=svelte]What in the living hell is going on in that picture on the wall in the living room?[/quote]

I saw that too. I thought there was sodomy laws in this state!

Love the blue carpet! saracasm…

I am with SDDuuuude on the love-hate of CV. Not fond of cookie cutter myself but I am one of those low key ppl that is more interested in the school districts than anything else. Otherwise it would be UC for me…

CE[/quote]

That’s “fine art,” you pervs. 😉

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/artwork/265

Agree on the listening to traffic at night. Cold air (or whatever) seems to make it a lot louder; that’s what I was alluding to with my “different atmospheric conditions” thing (maybe I just should have said at night?).

[Rich Toscano]

Brian said he heard or read it somewhere, that’s the “article” I was referring to. (Since I described it as “horrible” I wanted to give a nod to the fact that Brian was repeating someone else’s theory, not offering it up as his own).

Anyway the historical record is pretty clear that rising oil prices (and thus gas prices) are bad for the near-term economic growth. There may well be longer term benefits from a move to more efficiendy as pri_dk describes, but that’s not what Brian was talking about.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Thanks, Clairemont, for being so close to everything.[/quote]

Haha, I think I’ve filled my (10 gallon) gas tank once since moving here… quite a shock coming from Cardiff.

[quote=briansd1]
I just read that $5 gas can help the economy by spurring purchases of new full efficient cars.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, that’s a horrible theory… perhaps one area of the economy will be spurred in the way the article suggests, but that is offset many times over by the overall reduction in discretionary income that is caused by an increase in gas prices. (It would be different if the oil were produced domestically, but it ain’t).

[Author]

Posts