patrick.net

LOL...

AlexS says

How does graph look, say in late 90s, when Bubba was bombing Sudanese aspirin factory to take Monica off front pages?

AlexS says

2. What if one day I become old, or sick, and can't work? If my money kept their purchasing power, I would be ok. But because you devalued the purchasing power of my money through your printing press, I am forced to scramble, eat Alpo, depend on social INsecurity

For a risk free store of the purchasing power of earned dollars, again, see TIPS.

AlexS says

Here are two questions to Fedster-Banksters, and their stenographer david1:
1. Even if I am healthy and make good money - is it right to steal from me? For money-counterfeting is precisely that - theft.

Using the dollar as a store of value is foolish. If you use your earned dollars and buy TIPS, no value is lost through inflation. That you fail to realize with a growing population and growing economy, currency devaluation MUST occur is not theft. Is it theft when you lose value in a car as it depreciates, though you knew this would happen?

Put down the Ron Paul crack pipe and put your money where your mouth is. Short treasuries if you think inflation is impending. Increase your already overweighted portfolio even more into gold (that your portfolio is overweighted in gold is nearly certain).

You have no response to the parts of my argument that contain empirical data. What say you on the fact that the economy has growth at over 20 times the rate of the devaluation of the dollar? You have no response to the TIPS argument. You have no empirical evidence of your own.

Its all a secret illuminati banking cartel working in the shadows stealing everyone's money. Yeah, that's it.

One other interesting thought: In the face of 95% devaluation of the dollar since 1913, I challenge you to find ONE actual specific example of this (and this only) causing someone hardship. ONE. In order for it to have caused hardship, someone would have had to both purchase only depreciating assets AND store their dollars in a competely interest free instrument. Like holding 1914 dollars(reserve notes) themselves in their mattress, in their rented place of residence, while purchasing nothing else with their earned 1914 dollars that would have any value today.

Except if they did have a mattress full of 1914 reserve notes, they would have collectable value. Like these below:

http://www.oldcurrencyvalues.com/largesize.html

Hmm..$1 notes worth at least $25 today....95% devaluation is 20 times...you made out BETTER if you held the paper notes given collectable value. HA.

So if order to see hardship from the devaluation of dollars since 1913, someone would have needed to exchange their 1914 notes for 1915 notes, and 1915 for 1916, and so on, in every year. While living in a rented space. And not working. And not buying any income producing assets. Or any other assets that maintain real value.

Yeah. Find ONE example of inflation causing someone hardship.

I want to add a general comment about people like david1, and other government-socialist propagandists. They hate savers, and they hate old people and retiries. They want for work slaves to work until they can't, and then they want people to die.

Some of this is shown in Fedster-Banksters policy of constantly inflating. Some of this is shown in British health care system - where people over 60 don't get the same level of service as 50 year olds, and 50 year olds don't get the same level as 30 year old.

Another words, if you are young, they'll give you health care, but as you grow older and have less working years ahead of you, level of healthcare diminishes.

Obamacare's death panels is the same concept. Socialism is two things, Slavery while you can work, and Death once you can't.

Arbeit macht frei !

xrpb11a says

Most modern forums have advanced search capabilities built in.

Really? Why? Everyone prefers google. Could you please show me an example.

Not trying to be cute here, I really want to see what one of these modern forums looks like.

AlexS says

You are either a lowly paid Fedster propagandist, or lowly paid college graduate who paid tens of thousands to study Fedster baloney, or Fedster's "useful idiot" - in the immortal words of comrade Lenin

Ah, the ad hominem attack. Helping inferior intelligence feel better about his arguments since 1913.

AlexS says

but visit elderly in this country, pensionieres in Russia, Argentina, Zimbabwe.

The elderly in this country who are struggling fall into one of two camps:
1. They never had the income to save anything, so they have nothing.
2. Their company pension was robbed by a Mitt Romney type Wall street "Financing."

Neither of which have anything to do with inflation. By the way, they take out quite a bit more in nominal SS payments than they put in due to inflation. What I am saying is, infaltion or no inflation, they are in the same boat - relying on SS and struggling.

Hardships in the other countries you mention are not due to inflation, they are due to REGIME or GOVERNMENT COLLAPSE.

AlexS says

Now let's compare his investments to david1 and TIPS... Ok ok, I'll stop laughing now

TIPS is nothing more than a store of value, what you so desparately want gold to be. It is a risk free investment and the return is similarly minimal. Go ahead and use gold as a sotre of value if you want...when it is below $1000 an ounce you won't feel so good about it anymore.

AlexS says

Government does hedonic tricks with "consumer basket" by switching and changing, and announcing the "inflation rate" they made up. Fedsters doubled the supply of money yet the "inflation rate" is only 2%.

There it is, right on queue. Austrians, so predictable.

this forum has a bare bones search feature....

Google is definitely preferable....( THANKS ROOEMOORE THANKS THANKS THANKS)

but most of the civilized world resides in places with searchs like this:
https://www.vbulletin.com/search.php

I guess if everyone makes a mass contribution to Patrick.net, Patrick will upgrade!

marcus says

xrpb11a says

Most modern forums have advanced search capabilities built in.

Really? Why? Everyone prefers google. Could you please show me an example.

Not trying to be cute here, I really want to see what one of these modern forums looks like.

david1 says

There it is, right on queue. Austrians, so predictable.

You can't deny that consumer basket is manipulated. Hamburger, anyone?

AlexS says

Obamacare's death panels is the same concept. Socialism is two things, Slavery while you can work, and Death once you can't.

Arbeit macht frei !

Someone's been to a Sarah Palin rally!

xrpb11a says

but most of the civilized world resides in places with searchs like this:
https://www.vbulletin.com/search.php

Oh, you meant for searching the forum. There really isn't a justification for that at present (in my opinion). I don't know much about it, but I assume that if PAtrick went that route, he would not write the code from scratch, but would be changing to a bigger bulkier behemoth of a canned forum program, and would have to redo a lot of the programming he's done here.

I don't think it's a needed feature. There have been a few times when I was looking for something when such a search would have been helpful, but I can see why it wouldn't be high on Patricks list of things to add, at least not now.

lenar says

You can't deny that consumer basket is manipulated. Hamburger, anyone?

Are you implying the oft-incorrect criticism that the CPI will substitute hamburger for steak if the price of steak rises? This is untrue. Substitutions do not occur across product classes - that is, the CPI will substitute flank steak for filet mignon if filet mignon rises in price to fast but wont go to hamburger. It will switch between grades of ground beef, if neccesary, however.

It should also be noted that if the price of flank steak rises faster than prices of filet mignon, the CPI will substitute filet mignon even though it is higher in price. Substitutions go both ways, you know.

All you need to know about shadow stats and the falseness of those calculations can be seen around 2008/9. Shadow stats reports inflation to be around 2% that year. Meanwhile, oil fell from $140 to $40, housing crashed 10%+, automobiles had the cash for clunkers program, the stock market lost half its value, corn/soybean/wheat/ prices collapsed, etc. All of that and we STILL had positive change in prices? Yeah right.

david1 says

Ah, the ad hominem attack

1. then explain your unquestionable support for the fedster-bankster counterfiters.

2. It's hard to save being between rock and a hard place -
from one end you are squizzed by income, payroll, state, local, sales, property, and other gazillions of taxes and "user fees",
and on the other hand you are squizzed by the Fedster-Bankster inflation tax - which robs you thereafter.

To "Wall street financing" add their Fedster-Bankster buddies.
I already touched on the subject how people, just to stay affloat, are forced to Wall Street casinos. And don't limit it to Mittens, don't forget your goldman sachs buddies - the corzines, blankfields, geitners, paulsons, rubins, etc. It's one team. It's one group. And guess what - we are not IN IT.

Also, not everyone is a CEO of the company - deal with it. But after Fedster-Banksters took complete reign, especially in early 70s when Nixon broke the dollar Gold link - the living standards of Americans became stagnant.
Today's family with two workers has less to show for then family in 70s with only husband working.
Thanks Fedster Banksters!

Hardship in other countries are due to inflation, followed by hyper-inflation. And hyper inflation leads to Government collapse.
So, the only mission of Fedsters right now is to inflate, but not to hyper-inflate.
You see, hyper-inflation causes the complete loss of control, which will result in Fedster-Bankster suicide. I am looking forward to it!

But the root cause is always the same - Government, Socialism, and Socialist money printers.

3. For the last time, and last time only, plz sell your TIPS horsesh1t elsewhere - noone is buying.
I'll take my chances with gold over anything with a government promise.

4. Fedsters are on the record to substitute inferior quality products, or remove products that went up in price from their
consumer "basket". Say... why is gasoline excluded? Why is food excluded?

Where is the Beef?

Go to Costco - steak that used to cost $20 for 3 cuts, is now $45. All in a matter of 2 years.
For examples I can go on and on. In early 2000s You could leave a grocery store with a full basket for $100. Today bring $300.

But hey, we are lucky, because we are still "working"...

AlexS says

1. then explain your unquestionable support for the fedster-bankster counterfiters.

I don't support them. I am merely pointing out to you that your premise that inflation is caused by increasing the money supply is false. Increasing the money supply by the central bank is not the only known cause of nightmares in children, either.
AlexS says

2. It's hard to save being between rock and a hard place -
from one end you are squizzed by income, payroll, state, local, sales, property, and other gazillions of taxes and "user fees",
and on the other hand you are squizzed by the Fedster-Bankster inflation tax - which robs you thereafter.

No its hard to save when you don't make any Money. Rich guys have no problem saving and they pay all of those things you list too...plus are affected by inflation too. They save because they make MONEY. Nothing to do with inflation.
AlexS says

Hardship in other countries are due to inflation, followed by hyper-inflation. And hyper inflation leads to Government collapse.

Read up on that and get back to me. In Zimbabwe, the Mugabe government redistributed land to its associates, the export economy collapsed, then there was hyperinflation. In that order. Effective government-caused market collapse, then hyperinflation.

AlexS says

4. Fedsters are on the record to substitute inferior quality products, or remove products that went up in price from their
consumer "basket". Say... why is gasoline excluded? Why is food excluded

It isn't excluded from CPI. There are other CPI indexes which do exclude food and energy, but not the CPI that SS payments are indexed to.

david1 says

This is untrue.

You must be kidding. Either that, or you grossly misunderstand nature of CPI.
In layman's terms: CPI reflects buying habits. More popular items carry more weight; less popular - less weight.

Hamburgers are getting more popular. It also gets popular to move in with parents (or children, depending on your age), drive low–cost cars and drive them less, possibly due to loss of employment. Cheaper appliances become fashionable. People just spontaneously change their habits, consumer basket is doing great.

By the way, did you know that electronic devices - the once that traditionally go down in price due to technology advancements - are also included these days?

AlexS says

For examples I can go on and on. In early 2000s You could leave a grocery store with a full basket for $100. Today bring $300.

So obvious you are pulling this out of your ass, even SGS doesn't claim this.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

It looks like SGS inflation is between 4-8% from 2002 forward. Lets use an average of 6%, then your $100 is more like $180 today. Nowhere close to $300. How much has your salary increased since 2002?

Come on bro, link something. Do some data analysis, something. Stop speaking in generalities and hyperbole.

Read something besides what "Campaign for Liberty" sends to your email everyday.

lenar says

You must be kidding. Either that, or you grossly misunderstand nature of CPI.

No I understand the CPI. I thought the hamburgers comment was the oft-incorrect crticism of substituting hamburgers for steak.

The rest of what you said is true - though it is not a contradiction from what I said.

The CPI is not a constant utility measure.

Get back to explaining how a measure of consumer spending is manipulated again...

david1 says

Get back to explaining how a measure of consumer spending is manipulated again...

I did. I'll repeat.
More popular items carry more weight; less popular - less weight. Lower-cost items become more popular. CPI misinterprets tanking quality of life for low inflation.

In fact, the hamburger comment was very appropriate.

I don't know how to explain it any simpler.

P.S. I should rephrase that. CPI interpreters mislabel tanking quality of life and call it low inflation

lenar says

CPI misinterprets tanking quality of life for low inflation.

Tanking quality of life? Ok.

1. Houses larger, with better more efficient appliances. (housing, energy)
2. Cars more feature laden, with better economy and reliability. (transportation, energy)
3. Technology? Iphone vs. IBM AT. (Other)
4. Life Expectancy constantly consistently increasing. (Health Care)
5. I recently flew cross country for $180. This is what, like $90 in 1995 dollars? I don't think I flew for that then...in fact I remember paying the same of more for most of my flights then.(transportation)
6. Clothing cheaper, and higher quality.

My '70 mustang 302 conv. gets about 8 mpg. If I drove that thing to work everyday I would certainly be spending more on gas than I do now...

And by the way, driving cars less or moving in with parents or children would not affect prices.

lenar says

P.S. I should rephrase that. CPI interpreters mislabel tanking quality of life and call it low inflation

Agreed.

Basically the CPI interpreters are handed down a task - to produce a certain precent of inflation, and off to work they go....

All this is a typical socialist exercise of fudging numbers.

Substitution, reassign weights and ranks, adding, subtracting and so forth.

Let's say housing goes down - due to market supply/demand. So, they would re-add housing, or rank it heavier. But the fact that the replacement costs of housing actually went up - they wouldn't reflect in CPI index.

They wouldn't reflect the cost of lumber, brick, granite, stone, copper wiring, plumbing, etc. These costs always go up. Cost of insurance also constantly go up, because the replacement costs are up.

OF course the cost of government user fees - passport costs, licensing, tolls - that constantly go up, and doubled or tripled in last few years (especially the toll roads) - are also never included.

> david1

I could dissect most of your examples and explain why it's either not true, or balanced out by double incomes, or marginal. It's irrelevant for the case in point.

As far as the case in point, I repeat: the nature of CPI - to use shopping habits as a single variable in calculation of inflation - provides bonanza of opportunities for misinterpretations and manipulations.

I can afford to not look at my grocery bill. My wife says that it grew a lot in last few years. I trust her.

david1 says

1. Houses larger, with better more efficient appliances. (housing, energy)...

Here you are confusing the productivity and efficiency gains with inflation. Basically there are two forces - the market forces to drive down prices, and government force/ inflation - to drive the prices up.

Yes, computers get cheaper, thanks to apples and dells, they would be even cheaper if not for government money printing.

Now, the car industry is not quiet able to fully negate the government force - cars are getting more expensive. The technology "improvements" nowadays are mostly to comply with government mandates, specific ways government wants you to crash test the car, where to put airbags, etc. Whether this is what customers want is questionable at best. Example - by 2014 every car will require a backup camera - does your Fiat 500 or Smart really, really need a backup camera?

All other examples you provided (iphones, flights, life expectancy) are again, due to market forces.

Southwest found an efficient way to spend more time in Air (now every airline is copying them), and BOeing's Dreamliner eats less fuel than 737. But we are not seeing the savings (price deflation) - again, due to inflation. So, the consumers are not seeing the productivity gains through lower prices, while banksters are enriched.

Imagine if it wasn't for market, wasn't for Apple, Southwest, WalMart, Boeing, Hyundai, where would the prices be today?

david1 - this is exactly why the inflation is the measurement of money supply. Prices are the symptoms of inflation and market productivity gains - two forces working in the opposite direction.

The market force works to help the consumer, to lower prices, to enrich lives. The Fedster-Bankster forces works to harm the consumer, increase prices, and steal and improvish the consumer.

But because Fedster-Banksters are in control of money supply, they have all the wealth to pay people to spread misinformation and Bankster propaganda (people like david1), they have all the power to guide school and university courses to teach how Fedsters are good people who have people's interests in heart (ha-ha-ha).

That's why majority of people coming out of universities are brainwashed and zombified to spit out Fedster-Bankster propaganda about how printing money is supposetly good.

Fortunately many college students nowadays have discovered Ron Paul. Fedster days are NUMBERED.

david1 says

So obvious you are pulling this out of your ass, even SGS doesn't claim this.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

It looks like SGS inflation is between 4-8% from 2002 forward. Lets use an average of 6%, then your $100 is more like $180 today. Nowhere close to $300. How much has your salary increased since 2002?

Come on bro, link something. Do some data analysis, something. Stop speaking in generalities and hyperbole.

SGS is showing the symptoms (prices going up), while I am looking at the desease (Fedster Banksters counterfiting).
The truth is, in the recession-depression economy, prices should be going down.

The fact that they go up nevertheless tells me that inflation is much much higher than 4-6%.

Also, dollar has been given a little break - by European crisis. People are dumping euros in favor of many things, some of them are dollar and treasury. Once this temporary effects subdues, the dollar will be toast.

But david1, continue looking at symptoms, and you will always be few steps behind...

Help, I'm surrounded by strawmen!

I'm not arguing that inflation doesn't exist. I have argued that money supply does not affect inflation due to liquidity traps.

Then I argue that the CPI is not manipulated. The argument was made for the CPI Interpreters mistaking tanking quality of life for low inflation.

I mock tanking quality of life. Period. Lenar, your dissection of my examples will continue to be based on your false premise, so go for it, or not. Whatever. That you say you could but do not shows laziness. Why would it be manipulated globally? The CPI follows global model for tracking prices...wouldn't there be some government doing it differently?

Bottom line, in order for the models in which I believe the world macroeconomy to function do not require a massive global bankster lead conspiracy of money supply manipulation coupled with manipulation of the inflation measures. These models have decades of empirical data backing them with few empirical contradictions.

In order for the models that Austrians believe to hold, all of this global data must be manipulated.

Which is more likely?

david1 says

'm not arguing that inflation doesn't exist. I have argued that money supply does not affect inflation due to liquidity traps.

david1, you are Keynesian. So you obviously don't know that the definition of Inflation - the classic definition of inflation - before Keynes produced fairy tale nonsense convinient for the governments - is "the supply of money".

2. By CPI I am referencing the US Bureau of Labor and Statistic - not some global or other government entities. If you want to go there, fine, but for now let's stick to the US CPI. For if you do - it's very easy to show that socialist bureaus always behave the same - they are handed down the inflation target, and produce, align, make up, and twist data to arrive to that target.

3. Banksters are a global lead conspiracy. If you recall, there were few clans represented in 1910s at that meeting in Jeckyl island - and these few families controlled about 25% of World Wealth - the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Kuhns, the Rotschields...

They agreed, then hired a Harvard professor to write the Federal Reserve Act, then shoved it through Congress when most of Congressmen were on vacation.

4.
david1 says

Bottom line, in order for the models in which I believe the world macroeconomy to function do not require a massive global bankster lead conspiracy of money supply manipulation coupled with manipulation of the inflation measures. These models have decades of empirical data backing them with few empirical contradictions.

I read this gibberish several times and still don't know which "empiricical data" that is supposedly backing something with few "empirical" contradictions.

I think you are pumping hot air.

> david1
You are emotionally invested, I understand.

To mock successfully, however, you also need wit. You may be falling short in that department.

Tell me again about your $180 cross-country flight. What airline, what origin/destination? one way or both ways? How many stops? What was the total, with taxes and fees? Did you get fed in flight? Was the food free, or did you have to pay for it? Where you comfortable, enough leg room? How long in advance did you have to come to the airport? How was your experience with TSA? Did you pay for luggage?

I remember air travel in 1995. In my experience it was significantly (!) cheaper, relative to salaries and all factors considered. Not to mention infinitely more convenient, particularly short distances.

david1 says

That you say you could but do not shows laziness.

It shows benefit of the doubt. At first, I'd try to avoid making obvious remarks.

Before I part with the benefit of the doubt in your regard. Here is a simple common sense riddle: what factors may influence preferred shopping habits for a consumer and, consequently, affect price of his basket?

lenar says

Before I part with the benefit of the doubt in your regard. Here is a simple common sense riddle: what factors may influence preferred shopping habits for a consumer and, consequently, affect price of his basket?

You haven't answered any of my questions, I refuse to answer yours.

Why would it be manipulated? Why does everyone track inflation with a similar model? How is it manipulated?

AlexS says

I read this gibberish several times and still don't know which "empiricical data" that is supposedly backing something with few "empirical" contradictions.

I think you are pumping hot air.

Philips Curve.

Chart of Money Supply vs. Inflation. Where is the historical correlation?

rootvg says

The Obama administration is over. For it not to be, everything we know about Political Science and modern American politics would have to go out the window. That just doesn't happen.

Huh?

david1 says

lenar says

Before I part with the benefit of the doubt in your regard. Here is a simple common sense riddle: what factors may influence preferred shopping habits for a consumer and, consequently, affect price of his basket?

You haven't answered any of my questions, I refuse to answer yours.

Actually, I did. You either pretend to not understand, or my condolences to your loved ones.
Of course you refuse.

david1 says

Chart of Money Supply vs. Inflation. Where is the historical correlation?

person a: CPI is a poor measure of inflation. It's based on shopping patterns; those change due to economical conditions. It contradicts experience of an average person who switch from steaks to hamburgers. It also contradicts Money Supply charts.
person b: There is no correlation between chart of Money Supply and inflation.
person a: inflation as defined how?
person b: By CPI, of course!

david1, you are the person b in this conversation.

And it's Phillips Curve. And Phillips Curve tracks relationship between unemployment and inflation, not money supply (at least not directly).

Isn't everyone laughing at Phillips Curve - ever since we had both high unemployment and high inflation in Carter years?

To return to the thesis of the thread, some quotes from Barry Goldwater:

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
(in a 1994 Washington Post essay)
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
"A woman has a right to an abortion."

I could get behind a Goldwater conservative. However these days any GOPer saying these things would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

Vicente says

I could get behind a Goldwater conservative

And he was a nutter.

This is how it has really gone...
Argument A:
lenar says

person a: CPI is a poor measure of inflation. It's based on shopping patterns; those change due to economical conditions. It contradicts experience of an average person who switch from steaks to hamburgers. It also contradicts Money Supply charts.

Person B: I reject your theses. Hamburgers are not substituted for steaks. They are different. Flank steak may be substituted for filet Mignon if Filet Mignon rises in price to quickly. If flank steak rises faster than Filet Mignon, Filet will be substituted for flank steak. Substitution goes both ways.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm

Person A: (to himself: I have no explanation for this, so I will issue an ad hominem attack. But, I will make it a thinly veiled "witty" ad hominem attack so it wont be so obvious that I have no argument). To person B: I am showing restraint. You may lack wit. My condolences to your family.

Argument B: (Similar content but different argument course)

lenar says

person b: There is no correlation between chart of Money Supply and inflation.

Person A: this is in response to AlexS who asked for empirical data verifying the macroeconomic model I support. He also asked for an empirical contradiction, which I gave as the Phillips Curve.

Post Keynesians have no problem with Stagflation, as they show that it was caused by Supply fluctuations independent of demand. Stagflation of the 70s was caused by Nixon's price controls and OPEC price controls. Wait, where did I see price controls as another explanation for inflation???? Oh yeah, I said it in my first response to AlexS in this thread: what causes inflation - artificial price controls and demand fluctuations, not money supply.

Considering your breakdown of the conversation only included person a and person b, but there was clearly a person C in the conversation (AlexS) this little breakdown is a joke. Its how you operate, it seems.

Ad Hominem, Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ignore Question, Straw Man, Ad Hominem.

Nice argument style. Are you going to respond to your premise being rejected or not? I have provided a link explaining the contradiction to your hamburger argument. What is your support? Will you respond? Probably not. Based on the pattern above, I expect an Ad hominem, followed by a straw man and finally ignoring the question.

You can't read.

I've said that relationship steaks vs. hamburgers in CPI changed over years in favor of hamburgers. I never said anything about rules of substitution in defining CPI. Those are two orthogonal concepts - popular/unpopular products and their respective weights vs. similar products that may be substituted.

You never addressed this observation. Instead, you chose to attack my imaginary critique of rules of substitution. That critique - it's not real, it's in your head.

Either you can't read, or you shouldn't be talking about straw man.

In either case, I respectfully decline your invitation to join your hallucination.

lenar says

You can't read.

And the winner is: Ad Hominem!

I did address the observation: I granted that the CPI is not a measure of constant utility. Then I asked how this relationship change has Manipulated the CPI. Then I asked why it would be manipulated globally. You declined to address these questions.

Who can't read? Why and how are clearly addressed. I gave examples of questioning your premise of tanking quality of life. You threatened to answer but did not. The relationship has changed with computers and smartphones too, is that a decrease in the quality of life? Families have two cars now, it that a decrease? What about central HVAC? Is that a decrease? Long distance telephone? Email? Facebook? I could go on....

And by the way, I would love to see the relative change in ground beef purchased compared to steaks over the past 30 years or so. If that is your argument back it up with data. I have my doubts...Americans generally seek more utility than their parents: more cars, more vacations, larger houses, 300 channels, etc. I have my doubts they would accept less utility when it comes to beef...

To summarize: 1. I addressed your relationship change with doubt; 2. I gave examples of this doubt pointing to several areas where it appears quality of life has increased (the relationship has changed in a manner that indicates improved quality of life); 3. I Asked you for a clarification or perhaps data showing the "tanking quality of life" and 4. I refrained from following you in your ad hominem attack style as you wanted, frustrating you to the point where your only choice was to continue with the ad hominem attacks hoping I would go away.

I'm not going away.

You haven't talked about my momma yet so I guess that's still in the bag. I'll set it up for you - she is about 5'7" 160 lbs.

david1 says

To summarize: 1. I addressed your relationship change with doubt;

david1 says

You haven't talked about my momma yet so I guess that's still in the bag. I'll set it up for you - she is about 5'7" 160 lbs.

First you talk about my relationship changes. Then about your momma. Thanks for the honors, but this is too close for my comfort - I'm happily involved.

FYI. Your understanding of oh-so-frequently-used-term Ad Hominem approximates your understanding of inflation.

FYI. Statement above is not an example of Ad Hominem.