It's way too obvious that these crooks will cherry-pick any and all information. Of course, the stenographers fail to challenge any of thier absurd distortions. Poll after poll indicates that WE THE PEOPLE don' t see such a rosy outlook for this economy. Just last week, the secretary of energy said that high gas prices are a "sign of Bush's strong economy". AAAArrrrgghghghg!
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Anonymous said...
Undeniable liberal,
I agree with you. And yet, this entry on qrswave's blog ALSO cherry picks important economic data.
The fact remains - and this is undeniable - that wage increases are directly related to price increases. That is a very obvious fact.
The higher the wages, the more income people have, the higher prices for goods will be. We are talking Econ 101 here.
That DOESN'T mean that it is a good idea to pay CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars while starving the average worker. But it DOES mean that the nation does have to be wary about big increases in the wages of workers, because when that happens, the price of goods also increases - which tends to cancel out the effect of the wage increase.
If you want to make the lives of workers better, you need to give less to those on top and distribute the economic pie more evenly. But saying such inanities as "they hate us for our wages" is both stupid and nonproductive.
I want to add something else. When you say "money lenders" in a way that demonizes ANYONE who lends money - it frankly makes no sense. Let me demonstrate how your economic "theories" are easily debunked in Econ 101.
Your theories are dependent upon an earth that is stagnant. In other words, you assume that somehow the earth cannot expand to create more. However, in fact the opposite has been proven true. There have been more productive farming techniques, and massive advances in the fields of science and technology. The way we live today is vastly different than even a generation ago. Therefore, naturally, $20 a generation ago will not be worth the same amount today - as there is more "stuff" today, there also is more MONEY to PAY for the stuff - this is NATURAL inflation. Hence, interest is needed to induce a lender to lend money merely to cover NATURAL INFLATION. This does not even take into account the risk involved with lending money.
If usury were abolished, we would be thrown back into the stone age. It is that simple. There is not one nation on earth that actually has abandoned interest. NOT ONE. There is even interest that goes by a different name in "Islamic banking." AND THIS IS FOR GOOD REASON!
Throughout history, when interest was banned by law, it was still charged by loan sharks. Thus, banning interest only resulted in HIGHER interests being charged by loan sharks. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the availability of capital (through loans at interest) and the Industrial Revolution.
If we followed your illogical and backwards view of economics, we would be thrown back into the stone age.
NONE of this means that there cannot be laws which forbid EXCESSIVE interest, or UNFAIR interest, or PREDATORY interest. NONE of this means that we should not have liberal bankruptcy laws.
But your economics "plan" really is a plan to throw the world back into the stone age.
I am sorry I had to give you a lesson in Econ 101, but this blog is spreading disinfo without such a lesson.
"The fact remains - and this is undeniable - that wage increases are directly related to price increases. That is a very obvious fact."
What's the matter, can't read?
They said workers were working LONGER HOURS, which means they were not paid more to do the SAME THING, but to be MORE PRODUCTIVE. Absolutely no justification to raise prices. Econo 101.
"interest is needed to induce a lender to lend money merely to cover NATURAL INFLATION."
THAT is a FARCE. Interest by definition is inflationary as its value is derived from the dollar to which it attaches. If I borrow 100 dollars from you today at 10% it's as if I am only getting $90 of value. Ten more dollars need to be printed and circulated into the economy in order to pay that "interest.' Simple Math.
"When you say "money lenders" in a way that demonizes ANYONE who lends money - it frankly makes no sense."
It makes PERFECT SENSE. You just don't want to admit it. You can't make money lending to someone who doesn't NEED it. ERGO, you must first MANUFACTURE NEED with your little banking buddies with the help of the government, of course.
ONLY THEN can you proceed to make "A PROFIT" off the misery of a captive audience. Common Sense.
"If usury were abolished, we would be thrown back into the stone age."
You make a million years of assumptions in one assertion but have the gall to complain about my logic. Amazing.
You're not out to refute with logic and reason. You aim to discredit using a flurry of adjectives and unsubstantiated assertions. It's transparent and wasteful at a time when people have little to spare.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Anonymous said...
qrswave,
You did not answer the central point which I said.
There is natural inflation. The world is more productive now than it was in the past. Without taking into account interest, $20 would be worth LESS now than it was twenty years ago.
At its base, interest is justified to take into account the fact that there is natural inflation.
Let me make this clear for you, someone who clearly is blind to the world of economics. If I borrow $20 now and pay $20 in twenty years - and interest is BANNED - then the $20 will be worth LESS in twenty years. By that point in time, there will have been all sorts of advances in productivity, and either more money will enter circulation to pay for it, OR, the same dollars today are worth more in twenty years to pay for this. So, without charging any interest, the person who gets money leant to them gets a huge windfall. Only a family member or a friend who want to loan to such a person, and hence, the availability of capital vastly diminishes. Hence, the ability to fund important projects which benefits mankind greatly diminishes. It is clear LOGIC.
You also disregarded what I had to say about loan sharks and the fact that interest exists in every single country on earth.
As far as the workers go - of course the deserve to earn their fair share of the pie. I never denied that. I even stated CEOs should earn less. But the notion that wage increases do not also correspond with price increases is a complete fallacy.
Please take a course in Econ 101 before continuing your path of illogic and disinfo.
I don't know if you noticed this, but BLS is re-indexing the Economic Cost Index. This is partly due to the change to the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) from the SIC (Standard Industry Classification). But rather than the several years of ECI history thats been available, only the most recent two years will be retained.
I dunno if I'm just being conspiratorial minded, but it seems like many of the traditional statistical measures of inflation of either no longer reported (i.e. M3), or they are being altered. It could be coincidence, though. But it is odd that these things should happen so close together.
NOTHING in our political economy happens by chance.
Monday, May 08, 2006
[Image]Either this Administration is on drugs, or they think WE Are. The Bush administration said yesterday that wages were reaching a “tipping point,” after official figures showed average US earnings rising at the fastest pace in almost five years.
Wages were up by 3.8 per cent over the year to April, despite unexpectedly slow employment growth of just 138,000. Economists had been expecting an increase of 200,000.
The US Treasury said rising wages and an increase in hours worked suggested that the economy remained in a “sweet spot.”
With inflation expected to be about 3.4 per cent in April, wages seem to be outpacing rises in the cost of living for the first time since early 2004.There are a few minor details worth noting as they hover above us in their tin can. They're LYING. Just last week Reuters reported that the "[Employment Cost Index] rose 0.6 percent in the first quarter [THE SLOWEST PACE IN SEVEN YEARS], down from a 0.8 percent rise in the fourth quarter and well short of the 0.9 percent gain that had been forecast.” Employment growth of 138,000 is not even enough to keep up with population growth - 150,000 new jobs a month are needed. Fewer jobs means those employed have to work MORE hours to get the job done. If they work MORE hours, they'll make more money - but not because their “wage increased” - because they WORKED HARDER. Moreover, that increase is meaningless for the tens of thousands who remain unemployed. Wages increased 3.8% in the WHOLE first quarter, while inflation is expected to be 3.4% in April ALONE. Even if they're comparing the same time interval, they're not talking about the same INFLATION index as their index does not include food and energy prices, among other essentials. There is simply NO WAY that wages are “outpacing” inflation. They're floating in a tin can - FAR above the world. Planet Earth is BLUE and there's NOTHING they can do.
But, they'll never admit it (because the media will never force them to). Instead they congratulate themselves on this spectacular “achievement” and ask Congress to extend tax cuts to the rich as a prize.[Treasury secretary, John Snow] said the tax cuts enacted in [Bush's] first term had been at the centre of this achievement and urged Congress to extend the lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends, due to expire at the end of 2008.
The rise in wages leaves the Federal Reserve with a delicate balancing act, catching the central bank between slowing employment growth and the potential inflationary dangers posed by rising costs to companies.Given those two choices, the Fed of course always chooses to enrich moneylenders, who tenderize people so they can be easier targets for companies to exploit. [The Fed is] expected to raise rates for the 16th consecutive time to 5 per cent at its meeting on May 10.Nevermind the fact that the dollars workers are paid in depreciated immediately on news that their “wages increased,” and that companies that supposedly “need protecting” engaged in self-help by decreasing employee benefits.US stocks and bonds rallied on the data and the dollar fell more than half a cent to a new year-low against the euro at $1.2765.
Although wages have started to rise more briskly, the cost to companies of employee benefits appears to be coming under control. This may contain the need for companies to increase prices.These are all MINOR details - for people on Earth to deal with.
In short, it's time to take your protein pills and put your helmets on.
We're in for a rough landing.
--------------- Why Believe Your Lying Eyes They hate us for our WAGES LIAR, LIAR, economy on FIRE
6 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formIt's way too obvious that these crooks will cherry-pick any and all information. Of course, the stenographers fail to challenge any of thier absurd distortions. Poll after poll indicates that WE THE PEOPLE don' t see such a rosy outlook for this economy. Just last week, the secretary of energy said that high gas prices are a "sign of Bush's strong economy". AAAArrrrgghghghg!
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Undeniable liberal,
I agree with you. And yet, this entry on qrswave's blog ALSO cherry picks important economic data.
The fact remains - and this is undeniable - that wage increases are directly related to price increases. That is a very obvious fact.
The higher the wages, the more income people have, the higher prices for goods will be. We are talking Econ 101 here.
That DOESN'T mean that it is a good idea to pay CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars while starving the average worker. But it DOES mean that the nation does have to be wary about big increases in the wages of workers, because when that happens, the price of goods also increases - which tends to cancel out the effect of the wage increase.
If you want to make the lives of workers better, you need to give less to those on top and distribute the economic pie more evenly. But saying such inanities as "they hate us for our wages" is both stupid and nonproductive.
I want to add something else. When you say "money lenders" in a way that demonizes ANYONE who lends money - it frankly makes no sense. Let me demonstrate how your economic "theories" are easily debunked in Econ 101.
Your theories are dependent upon an earth that is stagnant. In other words, you assume that somehow the earth cannot expand to create more. However, in fact the opposite has been proven true. There have been more productive farming techniques, and massive advances in the fields of science and technology. The way we live today is vastly different than even a generation ago. Therefore, naturally, $20 a generation ago will not be worth the same amount today - as there is more "stuff" today, there also is more MONEY to PAY for the stuff - this is NATURAL inflation. Hence, interest is needed to induce a lender to lend money merely to cover NATURAL INFLATION. This does not even take into account the risk involved with lending money.
If usury were abolished, we would be thrown back into the stone age. It is that simple. There is not one nation on earth that actually has abandoned interest. NOT ONE. There is even interest that goes by a different name in "Islamic banking." AND THIS IS FOR GOOD REASON!
Throughout history, when interest was banned by law, it was still charged by loan sharks. Thus, banning interest only resulted in HIGHER interests being charged by loan sharks. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the availability of capital (through loans at interest) and the Industrial Revolution.
If we followed your illogical and backwards view of economics, we would be thrown back into the stone age.
NONE of this means that there cannot be laws which forbid EXCESSIVE interest, or UNFAIR interest, or PREDATORY interest. NONE of this means that we should not have liberal bankruptcy laws.
But your economics "plan" really is a plan to throw the world back into the stone age.
I am sorry I had to give you a lesson in Econ 101, but this blog is spreading disinfo without such a lesson.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
You want Econo 101 "Anon"?
"The fact remains - and this is undeniable - that wage increases are directly related to price increases. That is a very obvious fact."
What's the matter, can't read?
They said workers were working LONGER HOURS, which means they were not paid more to do the SAME THING, but to be MORE PRODUCTIVE. Absolutely no justification to raise prices. Econo 101.
"interest is needed to induce a lender to lend money merely to cover NATURAL INFLATION."
THAT is a FARCE. Interest by definition is inflationary as its value is derived from the dollar to which it attaches. If I borrow 100 dollars from you today at 10% it's as if I am only getting $90 of value. Ten more dollars need to be printed and circulated into the economy in order to pay that "interest.' Simple Math.
"When you say "money lenders" in a way that demonizes ANYONE who lends money - it frankly makes no sense."
It makes PERFECT SENSE. You just don't want to admit it. You can't make money lending to someone who doesn't NEED it. ERGO, you must first MANUFACTURE NEED with your little banking buddies with the help of the government, of course.
ONLY THEN can you proceed to make "A PROFIT" off the misery of a captive audience. Common Sense.
"If usury were abolished, we would be thrown back into the stone age."
You make a million years of assumptions in one assertion but have the gall to complain about my logic. Amazing.
You're not out to refute with logic and reason. You aim to discredit using a flurry of adjectives and unsubstantiated assertions. It's transparent and wasteful at a time when people have little to spare.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
qrswave,
You did not answer the central point which I said.
There is natural inflation. The world is more productive now than it was in the past. Without taking into account interest, $20 would be worth LESS now than it was twenty years ago.
At its base, interest is justified to take into account the fact that there is natural inflation.
Let me make this clear for you, someone who clearly is blind to the world of economics. If I borrow $20 now and pay $20 in twenty years - and interest is BANNED - then the $20 will be worth LESS in twenty years. By that point in time, there will have been all sorts of advances in productivity, and either more money will enter circulation to pay for it, OR, the same dollars today are worth more in twenty years to pay for this. So, without charging any interest, the person who gets money leant to them gets a huge windfall. Only a family member or a friend who want to loan to such a person, and hence, the availability of capital vastly diminishes. Hence, the ability to fund important projects which benefits mankind greatly diminishes. It is clear LOGIC.
You also disregarded what I had to say about loan sharks and the fact that interest exists in every single country on earth.
As far as the workers go - of course the deserve to earn their fair share of the pie. I never denied that. I even stated CEOs should earn less. But the notion that wage increases do not also correspond with price increases is a complete fallacy.
Please take a course in Econ 101 before continuing your path of illogic and disinfo.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
I don't know if you noticed this, but BLS is re-indexing the Economic Cost Index. This is partly due to the change to the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) from the SIC (Standard Industry Classification). But rather than the several years of ECI history thats been available, only the most recent two years will be retained.
I dunno if I'm just being conspiratorial minded, but it seems like many of the traditional statistical measures of inflation of either no longer reported (i.e. M3), or they are being altered. It could be coincidence, though. But it is odd that these things should happen so close together.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Jeff,
NOTHING in our political economy happens by chance.
Monday, May 08, 2006