0
0

Thread for orphaned comments


 invite response                
2005 Apr 11, 5:00pm   211,271 views  117,730 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (60)   💰tip   ignore  

Thread for comments whose parent thread has been deleted

« First        Comments 42,445 - 42,484 of 117,730       Last »     Search these comments

42445   anonymous   2014 Feb 6, 3:16am  

I have a question, because I'm not certain on the exact mechanics of it all.

How did all the dollars in existence today, come into existence?

The USDollar is barely 100 years old, so that means at the turn of the 20th century, usdollars didn't exist. How did all of the dollars that exist today, enter circulation?

42446   upisdown   2014 Feb 6, 3:17am  

bgamall4 says

Yeah, well, you have to understand that Zionism is real. David Rockefeller
said there is a NWO. The capital, according to David Ben-Gurion, father of
Israel, will be the world court in Jerusalem.


Anything else? I can't prove the existence of God to anyone. He proves it to
his elect. As the Apostle Paul said:

LOL, you're consistant and persistant redundancy isn't to be admired or worn like a badge of honor. The NWO?

Are you sure that there's enough room or even demand for more than one kook on the net or in this world with the Alex Jones dogma?

A curse? LOL

42447   Bigsby   2014 Feb 6, 3:21am  

bgamall4 says

Bigsby just said that God is a Zionist. The curse applies.

Good grief you plum. I'm an atheist. I'm pointing out that you have zero knowledge of the existence of God and that for all you know 'he' may be a zionist. It's just as likely as your particular version of what God is.

42448   mell   2014 Feb 6, 3:22am  

indigenous says

mell says

The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

Do you see this because of international currency re-balancing?

Yes, I think those calling for a more serious dollar devaluation were early, esp. since the race for debasement is joined by many countries and since there is international money flowing into the US mostly in real estate because they are afraid of their governments. But on the long run I see the dollar weakening and more and more trades being done outside of the petrodollar in alternative currencies. That's also why they need to continue tapering.

42449   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 3:25am  

control point says

indigenous says

Mine is simple when the money supply increased it benefited the rich by being

able to invest ahead of the inflation. This is indicated on your graph and mine

in the late 20s and again in the 2000s.

So money supply didn't increase from the late 1930s through the late 1970s?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rLx

I don't think so....

money supply in comparison to the market

42450   sam1   2014 Feb 6, 3:25am  

The data displays what's known in statistics as heteroscedasticity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroscedasticity

Simple interpretation: some conservatives are devout Christians who don't drink very much, while those other conservatives who drink do so at higher consumption levels than the average, whereas liberals have more average consumption patterns.

I'd also guess that liberals tend to have more European drinking patterns, drinking wine regularly but moderately with their meals (as opposed to binge drinking). Most of the wine drinking in the US is in the blue states/counties.

42451   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 3:29am  

mell says

indigenous says

mell says

The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

Do you see this because of international currency re-balancing?

Yes, I think those calling for a more serious dollar devaluation were early, esp. since the race for debasement is joined by many countries and since there is international money flowing into the US mostly in real estate because they are afraid of their governments. But on the long run I see the dollar weakening and more and more trades being done outside of the petrodollar in alternative currencies. That's also why they need to continue tapering.

Additionally the trade deficit will go down.

42452   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 3:29am  

sbh says

Inanity after inanity. You must wear yourself out.

not an argument, just a comment

42453   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 3:43am  

sbh says

OK, what market are you talking about with this inane dodge?

Please be clear what inanity you are referring to?

42454   control point   2014 Feb 6, 3:48am  

indigenous says

money supply in comparison to the market

What market?

42455   upisdown   2014 Feb 6, 3:53am  

Call it Crazy says

upisdown
says



Having a rational discussion with him is like trying to drown a fish.


It won't ever happen.


Really??


I provided you with 8 links to data,


http://patrick.net/?p=1237805&c=1049892#comment-1049892


How many have you provided back?? ZIPPO!!!! I'm STILL waiting for a SINGLE
data point from you....


Talk about rational...

LOL, WOW! You took my summation of you and turned it into a prophecy.

Way to go, you showed me!

42456   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 3:56am  

control point says

indigenous says

money supply in comparison to the market

What market?

The economy.

42457   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 4:00am  

sbh says

comparison to the market

How are you saying the money supply works?

42458   rooemoore   2014 Feb 6, 4:01am  

The short-sighted, dim-witted, bible-thumping patsies for oligarchs like the Koch brothers has driven me to drink.

42459   Ceffer   2014 Feb 6, 4:06am  

"Naked Face Eater Bites Dust".

42460   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 4:10am  

sbh says

.....the market.....the economy.....the market.....the economy.....ask a question, any question, just keep the dodge going. This is what you do every time you paint yourself into a corner. Haven't you found anything on mises.org to obfuscate your way back to safer ground. Say something about government coercion, c'mon, that's good fer what ails ya!

This is not an argument just more ad hominem

42461   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 4:24am  

sbh says

Now, you've heard my argument, so tell me the substance of your statement about the "market" compared to money supply.

As stated before the increase in the money supply correlates with the inequality in the graph.

This was true in the 20s and it is true now with captain Benny spending 6 trillion.

42462   control point   2014 Feb 6, 4:35am  

indigenous says

The economy.

Try again.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rMm

The share of income of the 1% was falling over the entire period shown on this GDP vs. money supply graph.

And over the entire period shown (1947 through 1972) money supply growth outpaced GDP growth.

42463   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 4:43am  

control point says

indigenous says

The economy.

Try again.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rMm

The share of income of the 1% was falling over the entire period shown on this GDP vs. money supply graph.

And over the entire period shown (1947 through 1972) money supply growth outpaced GDP growth.

That graph does not show the 2 periods of time we are talking about.

Another factor is money velocity which is at historic low right now and I would think back in the 20s

42464   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 4:44am  

sbh says

Bad short term memory. You have to make a substantive statement with the word "MARKET" in it. Remember? Remember? Hello? Hello? Come back and deal with it.

and while you're googling:

indigenous says

As stated before the increase in the money supply correlates with the inequality in the graph.

No it doesn't. It doesn't correlate in any way you posit. The most you could say, without obvious manipulative lying, is that they are coincident. Besides, you always trash correlation in favor of causation and you have even less of that at work here.

Accusation without any facts. Try to be coherent

42465   control point   2014 Feb 6, 4:52am  

indigenous says

That graph does not show the 2 periods of time we are talking about.


Another factor is money velocity which is at historic low right now and I
would think back in the 20s

It does show increasing money supply relative to the economy over a given time period.

This means that what you are saying - when money supply grows faster than the economy, inequality increases - was not observed from 1947 through 1972. 25 years. Reference earlier graph - inequality fell consistently over that time period. QED, you lose.

You are hopeless.

By the way velocity is a useless point. It is calculated, GDP/Money. No shit money velocity fell during the recession - it would have with zero money supply growth.

Just give up. This is why I wasn't going to pull up the data - because no matter how hard it slaps you in the face you never give up your blind faith in the cult. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse of others.

42466   Tenpoundbass   2014 Feb 6, 4:59am  

Call it Crazy says

Why three years? Because by then Obama will be gone (absent some very radical changes to presidential term rules), and Obamacare will be someone else's problem.

Onetime I farted as I pulled into work, I knew it was going to be a bad one. So I quickly pulled my keys out of the ignition and opened the door and promptly closed it as quick as I could. Later that day at 5, after I long forgot about it. When I got back in my car to leave, that Jimmy Dean chicken biscuit I ate for breakfast came back to roost. It waited 8 long hours for me.

Obamacare will always be his problem, especially in History.

42467   mell   2014 Feb 6, 5:08am  

control point says

This means that what you are saying - when money supply grows faster than the economy, inequality increases - was not observed from 1947 through 1972. 25 years. Reference earlier graph - inequality fell consistently over that time period.

Money supply grew barely if at all during that period, only towards the end it accelerated. If you assume some delay for velocity and then look at the continued much higher growth of money supply into today, then the trend stays intact IMO. If you look at 2008 inequality was shrinking fast until QE was announced and started. Surely there are other factors, but injecting money at the top (banks) will always disproportionally benefit the wealthy, why do you think they didn't send the money directly to the middle class instead?

42468   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 5:18am  

control point says

This means that what you are saying - when money supply grows faster than the economy, inequality increases - was notht observed from 1947 through 1972. 25 years. Reference earlier graph - inequality fell consistently over that time period. QED, you lose.

Where it is accentuated as during the 20s and since 2008 is where the rich can invest ahead of inflation.

control point says

By the way velocity is a useless point. It is calculated, GDP/Money. No shit money velocity fell during the recession - it would have with zero money supply growth.

Then why is it so low now with 6 trillion dollars printed.

control point says

Just give up. This is why I wasn't going to pull up the data - because no matter how hard it slaps you in the face you never give up your blind faith in the cult. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse of others.

Why you are clearly better with the math and graphs yet I disprove your ideas.

42469   control point   2014 Feb 6, 5:19am  

mell says

Money supply grew barely if at all during that period, only towards the end it
accelerated.

The graph I posted shows otherwise. Consistently steeper slope for money supply growth than GDP.

mell says

Surely there are other factors, but injecting money at the top (banks) will
always disproportionally benefit the wealthy, why do you think they didn't send
the money directly to the middle class instead?

Except for 1947 through 1972 as shown.

42470   control point   2014 Feb 6, 5:22am  

indigenous says

Then why is it so low now with 6 trillion dollars printed.

Because money supply and GDP growth are not correlated.

indigenous says

Why you are clearly better with the math and graphs yet I disprove your
ideas.

This is a joke. You can take a student to class but you can't make him learn. Thanks for playing, but I view this as a two way street - I learn, I teach. I can do neither with you so I give up.

42471   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 5:25am  

control point says

Because money supply and GDP growth are not correlated.

No we are talking about inequalitycontrol point says

This is a joke. You can take a student to class but you can't make him learn. Thanks for playing, but I view this as a two way street - I learn, I teach. I can do neither with you so I give up

Don't flatter yourself you just fade away like you always do.

42473   anonymous   2014 Feb 6, 5:28am  

sbh says

control point says

because no matter how hard it slaps you in the face you never give up your blind faith in the cult. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse of others.

Can I get an AMEN!

I dunno. Did the State tell you that you may have an AMEN! Yet?

Blind faith in the cult lol

42474   control point   2014 Feb 6, 5:49am  

indigenous says

Don't flatter yourself you just fade away like you always do.

I fade away when I decide it doesn't look good to argue with retards anymore.

42475   indigenous   2014 Feb 6, 5:56am  

control point says

I fade away

Yea that is what I'm saying

42476   Tenpoundbass   2014 Feb 6, 7:14am  

OK Who had Cluster Fuck?! Anyone have "Cluster Fuck" for the "I bet Obamacare turns into..." Pool?

42477   dublin hillz   2014 Feb 6, 7:35am  

It's all a consipiracy that will end in death camps in swiss alps when these "employees" will be screened for the perfect specimen to be beheaded to receive the frozen head of adolph hitler. Then, you will see your "death panel."

42478   zzyzzx   2014 Feb 6, 7:43am  

It's all Obama's fault!!!

42479   HydroCabron   2014 Feb 6, 7:52am  

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

What's the penalty for lying? I am running a business, what else am I going to say but THE GOVERNMENT IS RAPING ME, RAPING ME, I TELL YOU, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT SHOOT EVERY EMPLOYEE AND SHIP EVERY LAST JOB TO INNER MONGOLIA just to survive the next quarter!

When a businessman makes a profit, it's due to hard work. When he loses money, it's the government's fault because they banned slave and child labor.

Everyone knows that!

42480   dublin hillz   2014 Feb 6, 7:56am  

Nothing will change until gene mutation ensures that there's only 1 fertile king, 1 fertle queen and everyone else a drone who will work for the colony.

42481   dublin hillz   2014 Feb 6, 7:59am  

CaptainShuddup says

OK Who had Cluster Fuck?! Anyone have "Cluster Fuck" for the "I bet Obamacare turns into..." Pool?

The problem is that the reform ran contrary to what's expected in darwinian paradise. These social engineers had the audacity to expand coverage when in reality they should have taken the opposite approach and started denying access to emergency rooms....

42482   HydroCabron   2014 Feb 6, 8:22am  

Why does the government need to set up Death Panels, when private insurers can deny care more efficiently?

42483   curious2   2014 Feb 6, 8:31am  

Generalissimo Monsignor Cabron says

Why does the government need to set up Death Panels, when private insurers can deny care more efficiently?

And when hospital corporations can kill you more profitably. Even more efficient: drug companies can chemically induce people to kill themselves.

42484   corntrollio   2014 Feb 6, 9:40am  

We need to define what a sick housing market is. I would argue that it means something other than an organic real estate market (regardless of what prices are), but most people in government, the finance/real estate industry, and the media use that term solely to mean that prices aren't rising.

An organic real estate market has pricing and valuation such that new home buyers are able to buy and existing home buyers can move up. It shouldn't have undue subsidies (as is the case currently) or ridiculously loose credit (think the recent boom cycle)

If you believe in an organic housing market, foreclosures after a large boom are good because they lead to more accurate pricing and provide restorative pressure to get back to a normal market. If you are a typical government, realtor, or media person, foreclosures are bad because it means a lower-priced sale has been recorded on the books. We should have had more foreclosures and short sales, but we didn't because of various subsidies and regulatory efforts to stop them. These subsidies and regulatory efforts prevent us from having an organic market and mask the "sickness."

Investor home sales are a symptom of the overall subsidies and distortions affecting the housing market right now. There should be fewer investors, but interest rates are very low, and institutional and other large investors are borrowing money cheaply and looking for yield.

« First        Comments 42,445 - 42,484 of 117,730       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste