patrick.net

david1 says

Here is what you are saying algebraically:

Let A be aggregate real consumption (earnings you said), f(x) is the non-linear birth/death function, G is GDP deflator, and S is the sampled data.

So you are saying A = sum(S * G * f(x)), aggregate nominal consuption is then C = A/G.
By substitution, You can get the same Aggregate Nominal Consumption estimation by omitting G altogether, C = S * f(x).

What the heck is "x"? The non-linear birth/death function is

f(dS/dt, G) ! where "d" denotes a differential or delta if dealing with discrete time series, t is time.
S is multi-dimensional data sampling, G is essentially a function of dP / dt, where P is price level

i.e. birth/death (of business) is a non-linear function of adjusted income growth in the sampled data as well as the deflator/inflation rate. Different parts of sample also have different weights.

BTW, in the earlier post you introduced G in the middle of discussion using D as deflator. I know Keynesians are enamored with their 5th grade math. If you want to pretend to have some mathematical rigor, at least keep the variable representations consistent. The dump-a-load-of-garbage-arithmatics-and-pray-the-other-guy-will-just-go-away approach doesn't work with me.

leo,
I said the FF didn't want welfare, and that the Federalist Papers supported that. Corn said there was "nothing that indicated that the FF believed that (no welfare)". So, that statement means that corn believes the FF said something else ... that something else I coined, "golden fact", just for fun. I then showed links that had the original texts and meaning and proof that I was right, along with a nice story about Davy Crockett - who was only one generation off of the original FF document when he was refusing to allow the taxpayers funds to be used like a personal account that Gov can hand out to folks they deem worthy. A simple man knew it was wrong then, and I am a simple man that knows it is still wrong.

@Reality,
You are blessed with the common sense to be conservative, the amazing mind to defend your points so well, and the patients of Job. Refreshing. Thank you for participating.

Bap33 says

I then showed links that had the original texts and meaning and proof that I was right

Your link showed a man's opinion about what the founding fathers meant by "general welfare". Which is fine. He is entitled to his opinion, as are you.

But they are most certainly NOT facts.

Nice try, but I don't think you won...

Bap33 says

Don't be a sore loser. Have a great night. Thanks for the easy "W" on this one.

I thought that was the closest to a concession I had ever heard from Bap.
I was thinking well done Corntrolio, that you got that out of him.

corn,
if you read this: http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

and some how came up with your last post, then I guess we have no more whacks to give this steed. We can move on, good game!

marcus,
you've been more angry and agressive than your normal self. Eat more fiber. Be happy.

Bap33 says

Corn said there was "nothing that indicated that the FF believed that (no welfare)".

Yes, there may have been individual founding fathers who may have believed one thing or the other, but as I've mentioned several times, it's mostly idiotic to think that the founding fathers collectively believed one particular ideology. That's all I said there, and I've said this several times consistently, and I'm still not sure what "golden fact" nonsense you're pointing at.

Reality says

What the heck is "x"?

As you quite obviously know, f(x) was used to denote some unknown function with unknown variable input, x.

As you have now identified this function to contain two variables, dS/dt and G, let's examine:

What you have said MAY BE TRUE about G effecting the Nominal GDP numbers provided:

1. G is actually understated.
2. G has a negative correlation with the nominal GDP (an understated G means an overstated birth-death function result and hence, overstated nominal GDP)
3. The birth death model is actually incorporated in nominal GDP calculations and contains input variable G

What I am saying is, well, I can't find anything BLS anywhere that specifically states that the birth death model is used to calculate nominal GDP, nor anything that states G is a variable used in the birth death model.

I would be most curious to see this, becuase to me, if we break it all down, what you are saying is nothing is really measured, ever, anymore. Simply compared to prior unmeasured calculations and such. I would like to see these formulas, the models, etc. In the business world models are constantly compared to the actual data to test the validity of the model, and BLS does a good job showing that their models test well with the actual data, but I cannot find where they specifically show the model itself.

Since BLS tests the models vs. the actual data and it appears the models have little error or bias, one would have to assume that the actual data is a lie for your main thesis to hold anyway...that inflation..and therefore..the GDP deflator..are understated. The testing shows the model holds according to their website.

Anyway, good show even though you are an egomegamaniac and I still won't get into a flame war with you.

The real solution is to increase taxes on those who advocate tax increases.

Honest Abe says

The real solution is to increase taxes on those who advocate tax increases.

How is that a solution?

There can never be fiscal sanity until those who are the advocates of largess of the public treasury feel the pain of their advocacy. Kinda simple, isn't it?

Without massive taxation (which negatively affects primarily the rich) and inflation (which negatively affects primarily the poor) we could never afford all the wars that our Nobel Peace Prize winning President has us entangled in.

And in case nobody has noticed, we are now engaged in a 4th war in Uganda. Happy travels...

where's Code Pink and when will they be at Barry's house to chant and protest and count dead soldiers?

Honest Abe says

There can never be fiscal sanity until those who are the advocates of largess of the public treasury feel the pain of their advocacy. Kinda simple, isn't it?

Where is the part where all the advocates of going to war without paying for it feel the pain of their advocacy?

Its the part where most people ignore the fact that war is supported by borrowing, inflation, taxation, or some combination of them. Liberals don't have a problem with those things.

War and empire building could not occur without continued borrowing, continued inflation, and "taxing the rich".

Do you want less war? Then demand a decrease in borrowing, eliminate inflation and lower taxes. That way the government could not afford war and empire building. Its that simple. (AKA limited, constitutional government) Ron Paul 2012.

Today's book recommendation: Surviving Civil War II - Preparing for Economic, Social and Political Collapse by Daxton Brown.

Honest Abe says

War and empire building could not occur without continued borrowing, continued inflation, and "taxing the rich".

Seems like a big flaw in your argument. The rich have a huge ability to influence government. If their taxes are going to useless wars that don't benefit them, then you can bet they'd put a stop to it.

Honest Abe says

Its the part where most people ignore the fact that war is supported by borrowing, inflation, taxation, or some combination of them. Liberals don't have a problem with those things.

Seems to me a guy called Bush and a group called the neocons got us into the latest war paid by borrowing. I didn't realize that was a bunch of liberals. My error.

Bush was then, Obama is now. Time to get your head out of your past. Continued warfare is a result of BOTH parties. If you're really interested in stopping war you need to starve the beast (aka government).

To starve the beast simply quit borrowing, stop inflating the currency, and lower taxes. Wa-laa, the beast no longer can afford to pay for war. Problem solved.

May I suggest you read and learn more of Ron Pauls philosophy. He clearly outlines these types of solutions.
Ron Paul 2012.

Honest Abe says

Bush was then, Obama is now. Time to get your head out of your past. Continued warfare is a result of BOTH parties. If you're really interested in stopping war you need to starve the beast (aka government).

So if the problem is BOTH parties then why do you say

Honest Abe says

Liberals don't have a problem with those things.

Do you have a problem saying conservatives don't have a problem with those things either? Didn't someone called Reagan talk about "starving the beast" right before he borrowed 4 trillion dollars?

My point is that conservative philosophy is just as bankrupt as liberal philosophy, just a lot more hypocritical. Anyone who goes around screaming "its all the liberals fault" is just a hypocrite. Look in the mirror lately?

bob2356 says

My point is that conservative philosophy is just as bankrupt as liberal philosophy, just a lot more hypocritical. Anyone who goes around screaming "its all the liberals fault" is just a hypocrite. Look in the mirror lately?

Ignoring idealogies, lets talk about what conservatives do when in power vs. liberals.

Conservatives increase military spending. Conservatives decrease taxes. Both contribute to the deficit.

Liberals increase spending on social programs (stimulus, Obamacare). This increases the deficit.

Neither cuts spending.

Neither increases taxes (except Clinton briefly). The last Democrat to increase taxes before Clinton was FDR.

Any questions of why we are in debt? Now, who has benefitted the most from decreased taxes?

Ask yourself - how did Obama beat Hillary, and who benefitted from it? (That was the real election in 2008, btw. Everyone knew the winner there was slaughtering whoever the Republicans put up)

Hillary might have been able to pull off raising taxes...Bubba did.

Honest Abe says

To starve the beast simply quit borrowing, stop inflating the currency, and lower taxes. Wa-laa, the beast no longer can afford to pay for war. Problem solved.

I don't get this theory. We couldn't afford the war in 2002. It didn't stop us then. Why would it be different now?

The solution to a revenue problem is not reducing revenue...

tatupu70 says

The solution to a revenue problem is not reducing revenue...

It is if you are a moron who believes the solution for your obesity, is to toss all your food in the trash and force your entire family to forage.