Is the other shoe about to drop?

[RobDownSouth]

I certainly hope you are correctomundo

I'm occasionally mistaken, but never "wrong".

Most economists agree with RobDownSouth, laugh at "Doom and Gloom" prediction from Wingnut Nation

 

[RobDownSouth]

"Rebound?" From nothing? What a brave prediction. Of course there will be a modest increase in the rate of non-growth.

How about predicting the point where the Obama (non)Recovery attains 1/4 of the strength of the (supposedly discredited supply-side ecomomics) Reagen Recovery?

Care to nut up and make a prediction for the second quarter? Do you see a continuing downturn like the chief does? Are we heading to Recession City?

I'm predicting positive growth in 2nd quarter, which means no recession. What is your prediction?

And by the way, Reagan was never hamstrung by a nihilistic opposition party who would rather see America fail than a Democratic president succeed.

 

[Que]

First, there's no assurance that our Federal Reserve is more nimble than the Chinese version. In fact, the opposite is almost certainly true given that - as I stated previously - China is the world's largest producer of gold. This would give the Chinese the advantage of scale and flexibility, two things that can't be beat by any number of "USA #1 bumpers".

To use your numbers, look at all the things you own around you right now. Now imagine that they're worth 1/1,600th of what they were worth yesterday.....

....now tell me how happy you are with the prospect of your entire net worth being devalued so as to remind you of Monopoly money.

Now tell me how you're going to achieve wealth when 1/1600th of a pittance is still a pittance. Then figure out how you're going to live your life without technology because the majority of our tech is gold-based.

Now tell me you're better off for it.

$1 of fiat currency is worth $1 (for now)... $1 backed by 1/1600th of an ounce of gold would be worth...wait for it. $1.

$1600 of current fiat currency currently buys about an ounce of gold.

$1600 of currency backed by 1/1600th of an ounce of gold would currently buy...wait for it...an ounce of gold.

Math isn't your strength is it?

What does the federal reserve vs the Chinese central bank have to do with gold? You said you dont want the gold standard because it would benefit the Chinese..(as if the chosen medium of exchange and the producer of that medium of exchange had anything to do with the price of tea in China.)

My point was fine, how does the feds making up money somehow present an advantage over the Chinese ability to make up money?

 

[Que]

Care to nut up and make a prediction for the second quarter? Do you see a continuing downturn like the chief does? Are we heading to Recession City?

I'm predicting positive growth in 2nd quarter, which means no recession. What is your prediction?

And by the way, Reagan was never hamstrung by a nihilistic opposition party who would rather see America fail than a Democratic president succeed.

You are beyond stupid. Tip O'Neal was a big fan, in your view? The "Reagen Tax cuts" were delayed two YEARS by agreement where Regen capitulated to O'Neal because he understood something in two years was better than nothing, ever.

Announcing your coronation with "elections have consequences" is not exactly "working with the opposition."

Unlike Regan...Obama had control of all three constituencies that it takes to get a bill through. He chose to make that about his first step towards single payer..

We are STILL operating at the vastly inflated level of government that he DID get through with the Democrats budget wise unopposed..

As I said your prediction is silly...I agreed with your ridiculously tame prediction. It will be up modestly in the next quarter ass it is every spring the modest increase will still be modest even when it will be predictably artificially inflated. That report will be revised downward a couple of months later.

Go back to posting cartoons, and hurling homophobic, misogynistic and racist insults.

Pretending you know anything must be exhausting.

Your point is what?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You are beyond stupid. Tip O'Neal was a big fan, in your view? The "Reagen Tax cuts" were delayed two YEARS by agreement where Regen capitulated to O'Neal because he understood something in two years was better than nothing, ever. Announcing your coronation with "elections have consequences" is not exactly "working with the opposition." Unlike Regan...Obama had control of all three constituencies that it takes to get a bill through. He chose to make that about his first step towards single payer.. We are STILL operating at the vastly inflated level of government that he DID get through with the Democrats budget wise unopposed.. As I said your prediction is silly...I agreed with your ridiculously tame prediction. It will be up modestly in the next quarter ass it is every spring the modest increase will still be modest even when it will be predictably artificially inflated. That report will be revised downward a couple of months later.Go back to posting cartoons, and hurling homophobic, misogynistic and racist insults. Pretending you know anything must be exhausting. Your point is what?

You certainly are a whiny little revisionist bitch today. Even for a self-professed schmott guy such as yourself.

 

[islandman]

$1 of fiat currency is worth $1 (for now)... $1 backed by 1/1600th of an ounce of gold would be worth...wait for it. $1.

$1600 of current fiat currency currently buys about an ounce of gold.

$1600 of currency backed by 1/1600th of an ounce of gold would currently buy...wait for it...an ounce of gold.

Math isn't your strength is it?

What does the federal reserve vs the Chinese central bank have to do with gold? You said you dont want the gold standard because it would benefit the Chinese..(as if the chosen medium of exchange and the producer of that medium of exchange had anything to do with the price of tea in China.)

My point was fine, how does the feds making up money somehow present an advantage over the Chinese ability to make up money?

Ah, so the price of gold is fixed. That's a brilliant system if you're fine with the producers of the gold owning everything. Funny thing is, a gold standard doesn't afford the financial flexibility than the people often envision. The economics just don't work that way, which is why the world shrug off gold and the world economy boomed.

What do the Federal Reserve and the Chinese federal reserve have to do with gold? Who else would manage this process on a national level? You don't have to call it the Fed and certainly not in its current form. Maybe I'm being lazy with the lingo; feel free to blame my Econ degree.

(as if the chosen medium of exchange and the producer of that medium of exchange had anything to do with the price of tea in China.)....I'm not sure how to address this.....if you're a fan of Dune, then he who controls the spice (gold) controls the universe. Better?

Once again, under a gold standard, China doesn't "make up" money. The biggest producer wins. Economies of scale, control over supply, etc.

Sheesh. I haven't had to explain producer power in over two decades.

 

[Que]

Ah, so the price of gold is fixed. That's a brilliant system if you're fine with the producers of the gold owning everything. Funny thing is, a gold standard doesn't afford the financial flexibility than the people often envision. The economics just don't work that way, which is why the world shrug off gold and the world economy boomed.

What do the Federal Reserve and the Chinese federal reserve have to do with gold? Who else would manage this process on a national level? You don't have to call it the Fed and certainly not in its current form. Maybe I'm being lazy with the lingo; feel free to blame my Econ degree.

(as if the chosen medium of exchange and the producer of that medium of exchange had anything to do with the price of tea in China.)....I'm not sure how to address this.....if you're a fan of Dune, then he who controls the spice (gold) controls the universe. Better?

Once again, under a gold standard, China doesn't "make up" money. The biggest producer wins. Economies of scale, control over supply, etc.

Sheesh. I haven't had to explain producer power in over two decades.

The price of money is fixed

"explained?"

If China is a producer of something of value (gold) why SHOULDN'T they rule the world?

What gives you the confidence that producing LESS things of value and cleverly manipulating your currency SHOULD or even CAN give you actual power?


"Who else would manage THIS on a national level." WHY does "THIS" have to be managed?....Why cannot the medium of exchange for goods and services be "managed" by people that produce goods and services and the people that consume those goods and services?...

I would guess you are one of those people that rails against the manipulation of our world by the so-called 1% and cheerfully agrees that the present system is the only possible one, and even a good one.

 

[islandman]

The price of money is fixed

"explained?"

If China is a producer of something of value (gold) why SHOULDN'T they rule the world?

What gives you the confidence that producing LESS things of value and cleverly manipulating your currency SHOULD or even CAN give you actual power?


"Who else would manage THIS on a national level." WHY does "THIS" have to be managed?....Why cannot the medium of exchange for goods and services be "managed" by people that produce goods and services and the people that consume those goods and services?...

I would guess you are one of those people that rails against the manipulation of our world by the so-called 1% and cheerfully agrees that the present system is the only possible one, and even a good one.

Aren't those two statements contradictory?

I mean, if I rail against the 1% yet cheerfully agree with the present system (that created them), wouldn't that make zero sense?

As for managed, much like a bank teller makes change, albeit on a gargantuan level - say country-to-country or state to state....I'm not sure how I can make this concept any clearer.

As for the creation of things of a lesser value, you haven't made the case for it. Yours is a perception of lesser value and manipulation. Even when the world was on the gold standard there was manipulation.

Ergo, you haven't made the case that a gold standard is a better economic system. What you have done is state your case for a complete economic reset the likes of which might take centuries to recover from....and for some unknown personal motivation. Why on Earth do you think that would motivate people to side with you?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Queerbait, in addition to his many other failings, is a goldbug.
Imagine that.

 

[Que]

You speak of "financial flexibility as if that is a good thing, universally. EVERY time the Fed "flexes" there are winners in that transaction...there are a dollar-for-dollar equal number of losses on someones books.

None of this gives ME or YOU any flexibility at all..it gives the ubiquitous THEM that flexibility.

The world "shrugged off gold" so that unhindered deficit spending could fuel various for profit speculative bubbles from dot-com- to real estate, to the MASSIVE growth of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about.

Of course that is just wonderful, productive "job growth" as long as it benefits a republican Campaign donor or a Democrat insuring the "jobs" happen in their State.

You spend capital to engineer, design, and build a tomahawk missile at what? A million bucks a copy. You fire it at some tents in the desert. Your country now has the ability to make more of these million dollar missiles but the actual missile is gone. They lost a few tents.

Unless we are going to use those assets to seize the assets of other countries (and we have never, and will never have the will to do that) we are diminished by the experience by the capital expenditure. The economy may show "activity' but our country has no increase in actual wealth, which is not measured in the ones and zeros in a banking system, but by the actual "things" of value we possess in total.

The hubris to condescend the way you do while spouting such flawed economic theory is amusing.

 

[Que]

You certainly are a whiny little revisionist bitch today. Even for a self-professed schmott guy such as yourself.

Ok enlighten me.

Explain the bills and public statements made in the first two years of the Reagan Administration put forward by any Democrat in support of the direction that they wanted to go after the Carter administration drove the car into a ditch...

Speaking of "revisionist"...I am still flattered how you randomly pick a polysyllabic word form one of my posts daily, and use it as your daily vocabulary builder.

Why not go back and have a chortle with Sean Renaud about how GREAT the Carter Administration was in comparison to the Reagen Administration in the sage wisdom of "historians." No revisionist activity there at all.

::nods::

 

[islandman]

I'm sensing that you're unable to let go of your idea of what the Fed is or what it does today relative to its role under a gold standard. By and large, under a gold standard, it would be a gold depository, a Fort Knox, nothing more.

Similarly, financial flexibility under a gold standard means something altogether different from what you now know it to be. In a monopoly - which is what a gold standard would create - producers have all the flexibility and consumers have none.

I'm happy to be corrected on my flawed economic theories, though I suspect that it won't be by the likes of you who seems intent on thinking of the Federal Reserve as a federal reserve under a gold paradigm (note the use of upper and lower case).

Further, hubris isn't poking holes into your unfounded-in-reality theory about value and manipulation. Hubris is thinking that you understand the entirety of what you're attempting to discuss based on a severely limited education on the topic and I know it's limited because you're jumping from one nonsensical point to another in the hopes that something, anything sticks. At the very least, know what you're arguing for, namely a radical departure in economic and cultural values the likes of which the world hasn't seen since man discovered how to make steel. Only fools ask for what they know not.

 

[unregistered]

 

[islandman]

The above is a concept our liberals do not understand. I ran the tying of any amount of gold to the dollar as a way to stop the creation of fiat currency out of thin air, but was met with a chorus of tub thumping, and the usual rain dance.

The math is correct because it's simply math. Choose any permutation and the answer will always be mathematically correct.

The assumptions on which it is based, however, are not. That you choose to laugh at those who question it because you have a calculator at hand, that's pretty much par for the course for you, dummy.

 

[JohnnySavage]

$1 of fiat currency is worth $1 (for now)... $1 backed by 1/1600th of an ounce of gold would be worth...wait for it. $1.

$1600 of current fiat currency currently buys about an ounce of gold.

$1600 of currency backed by 1/1600th of an ounce of gold would currently buy...wait for it...an ounce of gold.

Math isn't your strength is it?

...

In other words, you are tying the value of one marker with no intrinsic value to the value of another marker with no intrinsic value.

 

[Que]

Aren't those two statements contradictory?

I mean, if I rail against the 1% yet cheerfully agree with the present system (that created them), wouldn't that make zero sense??

It does make zero sense...which is why you shouldn't support both ideas.

As for managed, much like a bank teller makes change, albeit on a gargantuan level - say country-to-country or state to state....I'm not sure how I can make this concept any clearer.

You mean you can't think of any other reason to justify it.

Heard of Paypal? Any reason it couldn't be powered by fairy feathers, bit-coin, Ecuadorian dollars, reales, Chinese yuan or gold reserves..tomorrow?

Nope.. Only the 12 wise men can tell us how to transact business.

As for the creation of things of a lesser value, you haven't made the case for it. Yours is a perception of lesser value and manipulation. Even when the world was on the gold standard there was manipulation.

I don't have to "make the case" for actual production of things of value to be the winning strategy for any country. Yes that includes slightly intangible "things of value' such as creative endeavors, music, software, books, etc.
Anyone that thinks contrary to that is an idiot.

So, my "perception" is that gold with a 5000 year history, proven scarcity, ductile, malleable, and highly conductive that you can hold in your hand and has conveyed value from generation to generation all that time is of value.

Producing goods and services is of value...yep you have my "perception" about value correct.

Your "perception" is that fake money has value over that because???

Ergo, you haven't made the case that a gold standard is a better economic system.

I am not arguing that the gold standard is the only viable system, only that there is ZERO reasons to support the current system. You were arguing that the (inflated) dollar amount of the M1 made gold as a standard impossible. I was pointing out to you why that is nonsense. The actual growth of real assets since decoupling our currency has not outstripped Gold production in any meaningful way.

What you have done is state your case for a complete economic reset the likes of which might take centuries to recover from....

"Complete economic reset"

Oh you mean like when Nixon with a stroke of a pen changed ours? It hasn't taken a century to feel the effects of that, has it? Carter Administration? Admittedly Carter's ineptitude with slapping on wage and price controls made it worse, but that inflation was a direct result of a "complete economic reset."

Just because you have had full faith and confidence in green pieces of paper your entire life does not mean that that is "sustainable' to use the word progressives love. When and if the majority of people come to consider that they are not at all confident in having a naked emperor, they will find other ways to make exchanges.

It happened in the 70's during hyper-inflation. Barter exchanges sprung up WITHOUT the internet to provide for ease of tracking and portability.

...and for some unknown personal motivation. Why on Earth do you think that would motivate people to side with you?

YOUR personal motivation for vouching for the status quo is as yet still not articulated. All of the reasons you cite are easily dismissible.

No one is "siding with me' as I have no voice and no power. It is not "MY side. It is the "side" of economic reality.

If, and only if, our spending were reduced dramatically can the "full faith and credit of the United States of America" continue to have any weight in the long term. Spending 40cents more than we take in is beyond unsustainable.

Actual analysts working for bond rating companies have reached this conclusion. Our ratings will continue to fall, the corresponding interest rates that those (few) buyers of bonds will demand will increase and the house of cards will come down.

The only reason international investors buy US Bonds at all is that they believe that the US Government will continue to prop them up with the help of the artificial buys at the unaudited Federal Reserve.

The artificial buys are helping those international investors ease out of US Treasuries without causing a panic that would be detrimental to those still in, the Federal Reserve and the US Gov't.

 

[Que]

In other words, you are tying the value of one marker with no intrinsic value to the value of another marker with no intrinsic value.

Gold has no intrinsic value? In what century?

 

[Adre]

Great to see the genius stopping by to school everybody. My folding money still spends just fine so don't worry about me.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Gold has no intrinsic value? In what century?

Gold is no different than any other kind of currency. It's only worth what someone will trade you for it.

Gold... dollars.... sea shells... it's ALL fiat currency.

I just found it amusing that you said X amount of gold = X amount of Dollars.

Shirley you can see the irony.

 

[islandman]

It does make zero sense...which is why you shouldn't support both ideas.



You mean you can't think of any other reason to justify it.

Heard of Paypal? Any reason it couldn't be powered by fairy feathers, bit-coin, Ecuadorian dollars, reales, Chinese yuan or gold reserves..tomorrow?

Nope.. Only the 12 wise men can tell us how to transact business.




I don't have to "make the case" for actual production of things of value to be the winning strategy for any country. Yes that includes slightly intangible "things of value' such as creative endeavors, music, software, books, etc.
Anyone that thinks contrary to that is an idiot.

So, my "perception" is that gold with a 5000 year history, proven scarcity, ductile, malleable, and highly conductive that you can hold in your hand and has conveyed value from generation to generation all that time is of value.

Producing goods and services is of value...yep you have my "perception" about value correct.

Your "perception" is that fake money has value over that because???



I am not arguing that the gold standard is the only viable system, only that there is ZERO reasons to support the current system. You were arguing that the (inflated) dollar amount of the M1 made gold as a standard impossible. I was pointing out to you why that is nonsense. The actual growth of real assets since decoupling our currency has not outstripped Gold production in any meaningful way.



"Complete economic reset"

Oh you mean like when Nixon with a stroke of a pen changed ours? It hasn't taken a century to feel the effects of that, has it? Carter Administration? Admittedly Carter's ineptitude with slapping on wage and price controls made it worse, but that inflation was a direct result of a "complete economic reset."

Just because you have had full faith and confidence in green pieces of paper your entire life does not mean that that is "sustainable' to use the word progressives love. When and if the majority of people come to consider that they are not at all confident in having a naked emperor, they will find other ways to make exchanges.

It happened in the 70's during hyper-inflation. Barter exchanges sprung up WITHOUT the internet to provide for ease of tracking and portability.



YOUR personal motivation for vouching for the status quo is as yet still not articulated. All of the reasons you cite are easily dismissible.

No one is "siding with me' as I have no voice and no power. It is not "MY side. It is the "side" of economic reality.

If, and only if, our spending were reduced dramatically can the "full faith and credit of the United States of America" continue to have any weight in the long term. Spending 40cents more than we take in is beyond unsustainable.

Actual analysts working for bond rating companies have reached this conclusion. Our ratings will continue to fall, the corresponding interest rates that those (few) buyers of bonds will demand will increase and the house of cards will come down.

The only reason international investors buy US Bonds at all is that they believe that the US Government will continue to prop them up with the help of the artificial buys at the unaudited Federal Reserve.

The artificial buys are helping those international investors ease out of US Treasuries without causing a panic that would be detrimental to those still in, the Federal Reserve and the US Gov't.

I'm not going to respond to these because, frankly, you seem incapable of understanding that I'm using the Fed in name - AND NOT FUNCTION - only.

Also, I'm not vouching for the status quo. All I've done is poke holes into your fantasy. An intellectual exercise, if you will. But just because I haven't articulated my beliefs doesn't mean that I can't see yours aren't abject lunacy.

I'm just quoting it for the sheer hilarity of your comments.

 

[Que]

The math is correct because it's simply math. Choose any permutation and the answer will always be mathematically correct.

The assumptions on which it is based, however, are not. That you choose to laugh at those who question it because you have a calculator at hand, that's pretty much par for the course for you, dummy.

It will also be ECONOMICALLY correct that if your currency is tied to SOMETHING you cannot devalue it artificially and thereby cause inflation artificially.

I don't care if you tie it to buckets of sea shells as long as somewhere there is a warehouse full of sea-shells.

You are used to the late 20th century idea that every quarter there SHOULD be inflation and that as long as the graduations are acceptably imperceptible on a day to day basis, all is well.

It is a LOT easier to raise the price of twinkies a penny than it is to get one's employer to keep pace. There is a vested interest in this system in the business community for that reason.

They are grateful that the government economists that are doing an accurate job on indexes AFTER the indexes are skewed away from ACTUALLY representing the inflation that the average consumer experiences....does not reflect the long term realities.

That has as much to do with the lack of growth in real wages during boom times as any other factor. The current lack of growth in real wages is compounded by the fact that there is far more competition for jobs amongst the labor pool than the ridiculous number of how many NEW people filed for unemployment this week. As if that tells you anything particularly useful.

 

[Que]

I'm not going to respond to these because, frankly, you seem incapable of understanding that I'm using the Fed in name - AND NOT FUNCTION - only.

I'm just quoting it for the sheer hilarity of your comments.

Yeah, thanks for documenting the 'win" with your mirth...as if arguing with an economic illiterate on the internet is something I should be proud of.

 

[islandman]

Yeah, thanks for documenting the 'win" with your mirth...as if arguing with an economic illiterate on the internet is something I should be proud of.

I state categorically that there was no "win" on my part. I just happen to find your "analysis" funny, though your rhetoric reminds me of a mad man fighting for something he has no clue about, yet, because someone else said it was worth fighting for, he's fighting for it.

Once again - because I know it takes a few tries to sink in with you - our exchange this afternoon was in no way a win for me. In fact, I'll readily admit that I'm the poorer for it.

 

[Que]

Gold is no different than any other kind of currency. It's only worth what someone will trade you for it.

Gold... dollars.... sea shells... it's ALL fiat currency.

I just found it amusing that you said X amount of gold = X amount of Dollars.

Shirley you can see the irony.

Gold is pretty and useful. Silk is pretty and useful, Spices are tasty and useful, sea shells are pretty and useful (as pretty jewelry). Dollars are mostly ugly except for the $2 bill, and useful to roll into a cocaine straw.

The reason I did the math for him about what the value of a gold backed dollar would be today after it floating untethered for 40 years is to illustrate that his assertion that tying it to gold would make dollars worth somehow LESS is silly...you pick a point tether it, and gold continues to rise and fall according to production.

I used the (guess) on current value as the set point because of the common argument that "there isnt' enough gold in the world" to back all the fake money.

That SHOULD make you scratch your head...

Really? So where did all the fake money "come from' is it somehow a function of some other actual economic activity?

We could be told tomorrow that new currency is being issued that can be exchanged two for one for the existing currency...bring in a 10 of old money...we will give you a twenty...

Overnight the numerical value (the actual written number) would double, but the value would stay exactly the same.

It is like a two for one stock split. You now own more shares, but the thing described by your portfolio remains the same.

Just as countries sometimes choose to devalue their currency by doing the opposite but NOT giving the currency holder an eve exchange...you give me 1000 of the old pesos and I will give you one, new, improved peso. which will buy what maybe 850 pesos bought the day before.

If it is tied to something concrete a government , of course, can still inflate of devalue their currency. But they have to ACTUALLY do it. Out in the open where everyone can understand...even economic illiterates.

For me it is a moral question, one that i am surprised on the one hand that progressives are not on board with. Our current system the last forty years is a tax on the elderly on fixed income, and especially a brake on the economic progress of statistically risk averse populations such as minorities and women that both in surveys on sentiment and in actual real percentages of their income do NOT invest to the degree that say married white couples do in stocks (which are called equities for a reason) they are a hedge against this insidious tax,,,they help you move your wealth through time, less scathed then it otherwise would be if you put it in a mattress.

All of this incentive FOR equities is what fuels the stock market and the commissions and the profits that traders and managers make that the progressives label as excessive.

This (and home-ownership with actual equity) accounts for the largest part of the observable gap in wealth-building between say black and white on average. It also accounts for the largest part of generational wealth transfer. Tucked into trusts the truly wealthy regardless of their political stripe, pay no estate taxes, and for that matter they are able to pay lower marginal rates and choose WHEN to take (and be taxed for) those gains.

On the other hand I am NOT surprised progressives love this system, because the oppression I outline above can be (inaccurately) blamed on others and it enables deficient spending so that they can play Santa Clause to uplift the downtrodden...that are actually disadvantaged by the system that they support. Government spending is always an inefficient use of capital. Every dollar squeezed from a "fat cat" for a government ant-poverty program is a dollar not available to employ someone or even to donate to a charitable function.

We have MORE poverty now then before the great society...doesn't matter if you take a reactionary position that the govt largesse made people lazy or the socialist position we didn't spend enough...neither is true.

Before the great society our poor were taken care of exclusively by charities. Workers in those charities had the freedom to work with the poor on a case by case basis and weed out some instances of enabling. The combined, adjusted for inflation spending of all charities that you could think of would be FAR less than what the govt spends now with no perceptible benefit.

If you eliminated ALL federal programs tomorrow and instead offered a dollar for dollar tax credit (not deduction, credit) it would have a far greater benefit at a far lower cost.

Progressives don't know about that because they don't give to charity...they give through their vote for politicians to play robin hood. I assume it assuages their consciences.

 

[Que]

I state categorically that there was no "win" on my part. I just happen to find your "analysis" funny, though your rhetoric reminds me of a mad man fighting for something he has no clue about, yet, because someone else said it was worth fighting for, he's fighting for it.

Once again - because I know it takes a few tries to sink in with you - our exchange this afternoon was in no way a win for me. In fact, I'll readily admit that I'm the poorer for it.

Oh, sorry...I didn't think you would take that as me suggesting even sarcastically that YOU "won" -whatever that means.

I meant your mirth documented the "win" for me, as it is always the out when someone has no rebuttal.