Is the other shoe about to drop?

[Que]

And in other news:

The idea that rob with his long history of comically school-yard, misogynistic, racist and homophobic insults is characterizing me pointing out that his response supports my position as "childish" is truly funny.

So... in kind:
"I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Que]

94% is 6% less than infinity?

I guess Harvard didn't teach math.

I guess you weren't told that percent, means "out of 100."

When you approach an unattainable limit, it is expressed in terms approaching infinity.

In the group of all numbers between 0 and 100, the sub-set of all rational and irrational numbers between 0 and 94 is exactly 6% away from encompassing the infinite numbers between that defined limit.

I guess no one taught you that there are an infinite amount of number values between zero and one either?

What else would you like to learn? How about imaginary numbers?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I guess you weren't told that percent, means "out of 100."

When you approach an unattainable limit, it is expressed in terms approaching infinity.

In the group of all numbers between 0 and 100, the sub-set of all rational and irrational numbers between 0 and 94 is exactly 6% away from encompassing the infinite numbers between that defined limit.

I guess no one taught you that there are an infinite amount of number values between zero and one either?

What else would you like to learn? How about imaginary numbers?

How much IS 94% of infinity Harvard?

Keyword there, approaching infinity, a number that can never be reached. 94% is not 6% from infinity it's 6% from 100%. Infinity is not a 'defined limit', it has no limit.

I think you should probably get percentages and infinity down first perfesser.

 

[Que]

How much IS 94% of infinity Harvard?

Keyword there, approaching infinity, a number that can never be reached. 94% is not 6% from infinity it's 6% from 100%. Infinity is not a 'defined limit', it has no limit.

I think you should probably get percentages and infinity down first perfesser.

Raising taxes "infinitely" is of course hyperbole...since confiscation of all that you own would be the limit of what one could (hypothetically, but not in practice) achieve.

However that was not what he was arguing. He was arguing that even up to 94%... taxes are collectable.

So....Express accurately the total quantity of, say rational numbers between .0001 and .0013.

One could have a marginal tax rate of 7.065%, 22.3%, 19.08253%, 16.6666666666666666%, 54.0% 2/3rds...or any other rational or irrational numbers between 0% and 100%. It could be said that of the infinite number of possible tax rates, there is a finite range of within the set of all possible tax rates that has been shown to deliver the maximum percentage of GDP to the treasury.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Raising taxes "infinitely" is of course hyperbole...since confiscation of all that you own would be the limit of what one could achieve.

However that was not what he was arguing. He was arguing that even up to 94% taxes was collectable.

So....Express accurately the total quantity of, say rational numbers between .0001 and .0013.

No, you were arguing that. He said that the marginal tax rate was 94% on income over $200k during WWII and the country survived.

The rest was your invention.

I finished college long ago perfesser. Shove your homework up your ass, infinitely.

 

[Que]

No, you were arguing that. He said that the marginal tax rate was 94% on income over $200k during WWII and the country survived.

The rest was your invention.

I finished college long ago perfesser. Shove your homework up your ass, infinitely.

well...since you have finished your education, I will leave you in your finite knowledge.


And his statement that you quoted was in response to what?

You really are a tiresome bore with your little victories.

Nothing in my response to your snark was in anyway suggestive that I don't fully comprehend percentages and infinity.

Nothing in your lack of response to my queries about your snark demonstrated the same.

Your little tilts are all this way. When, finally you have no response...crickets...whenever you think your little battle is on the offensive, you impatiently announce the other person hasn't come back immediately to rebut.

You are more effectively menacing when you are issuing barely conditional threats of physical violence.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You ascribed the position that Liberals thought that they could raise marginal tax rate "infinitely".

It isn't that they haven't been exposed to the field of economics, if only (obviously) skin deep. It is that what little they know is wrong, with the wrong foundational assumption about human nature, and the way people adapt to changing economic conditions.

Some of it is just silly. I understand why they want the laffer curve to be wrong, for example...but to argue that you can infinitely raise marginal rates and continue to gain revenue makes no sense...

Never has anyone suggested that marginal tax rates be raised "infinitely". Mostly because that would be impossible. This was your first straw man.

You then proceeded to further ascribe the position to Rob that he wanted to raise the marginal tax rate to "94% of infinity", your second straw man and mathematically impossible by the way.

I stand corrected, your position is that raising tax rates within 6% of "infinity" have the effect of increasing revenue collected.....

What he actually said was :

It makes perfect sense when you realize that nobody is advocating this, it's a strawman on your part. A schmott guy like you should have realized this.

Another thing a schmott guy should remember is that America won a war against the Nazis with a marginal tax rate as high as 94% (on all income over $200,000, equivalent of 2.5 million in 2012 dollars)

Of course, schmott guys like you routinely refuse to acknowledge "inconvenient facts" that run contrary to your cherished TAXES BAD platform.

You said something stupid, was called on it, an like the rest of the RWCJ here, just keep digging.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There are always more liberals under 30 than over 40. Each new "class" of liberals seems to think that unlike the last batch of 20-30 somethings this time they really DO know something the old and the senile don't.

If you were not liberal in your youth, you had no heart (I never led with mine)...If you are not conservative in your maturity you have no brain.

There's a great chapter in The Last Knight of Liberalism that explains how the Viennese were convinced that technology implied that Society had evolved and that they were clever enough to manage a pure fiat money. Of course, they were flat wrong, but we see this generational fallacy still being used to this day (on this board).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

if you want to see inflation, just look at the stock market. It's totally driven by the Fed printing money.

You also have to, as I pointed out earlier, factor in that with interest rates approaching zero, that it is the only investment that gives you a chance to stay ahead of inflation, provided, of course, you withdraw before the bubble burst.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There's a great chapter in The Last Knight of Liberalism that explains how the Viennese were convinced that technology implied that Society had evolved and that they were clever enough to manage a pure fiat money. Of course, they were flat wrong, but we see this generational fallacy still being used to this day (on this board).

Really? So do you want to go on record and predict a return to the gold standard (or any precious-metal based standard) in your lifetime?


....didn't think so.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Most commentators are of the view that the massive monetary pumping of the Fed during 2008 prevented a major economic disaster. The yearly rate of growth of the Fed’s balance sheet jumped from 3.9 percent in January 2008 to 150.9 percent by December of that year. The federal funds rate target was lowered from 3 percent in January 2008 to 0.25 percent by December of that year.

According to popular thinking, the Fed’s actions have bought time to allow the US economy to heal — much like keeping a coma patient on life support. Consequently, popular thinkers are harshly criticizing commentators that advocate allowing economic recession to take its course.

Contrary to popular thinking, economic recessions or economic busts are not about the end of the world but about the removal of various non-productive activities, also labeled as bubble activities brought about by previous loose monetary policies of the central bank.

Observe that by means of loose monetary policy wealth is diverted from wealth generators to non-wealth generating activities. The stronger the pace of monetary pumping the stronger is the divergence of wealth. (Bubble activities, which don’t generate wealth, cannot exist without this divergence.)

Frank Shostak
More at: http://mises.org/daily/6773/The-Fed-Wont-Let-the-Economy-Heal

This is why we have not had our corrective recession and this is why the economy has never truly recovered, replacing good jobs with part-time, lower paying jobs.

 

[Que]

80 billion a month in fake money...

...and they think it is a "recovery."

Be cheaper to just hand out hundred dollar bills.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

80 billion a month in fake money...

...and they think it is a "recovery."

Be cheaper to just hand out hundred dollar bills.

It might come to that for 2016...

 

[RobDownSouth]

It might come to that for 2016...

Do I need to bump Karen's hyperinflation prediction thread from 2009 as well, Chief?

#doooooom
#gloooooom

 

[Ishmael]

Speaking of "divergence." It never fails to amaze me how the liberal mind cannot accept, or rationally reconcile, the divergence of the economic and social policies they implement with the results they produce. No matter how disastrous the results their answer is always more of the same thing, only bigger this time.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

Speaking of "divergence." It never fails to amaze me how the liberal mind cannot accept, or rationally reconcile, the divergence of the economic and social policies they implement with the results they produce. No matter how disastrous the results their answer is always more of the same thing, only bigger this time.

Ishmael

All liberals care about are good intentions. Results of their policies are almost always disastrous, but feeling good about what they do is more important than real world outcome, regardless of how many people get hurt.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Miles "knows" what libruls care about.
:nods:

 

[Que]

Who is he always nodding to? Is it some kind of palsy?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

"starring"?

 

[Que]

"starring"?

NICE, spell-check!

::nods::

 

[miles]

Who is he always nodding to? Is it some kind of palsy?

Narcolepsy.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Speaking of "divergence." It never fails to amaze me how the liberal mind cannot accept, or rationally reconcile, the divergence of the economic and social policies they implement with the results they produce. No matter how disastrous the results their answer is always more of the same thing, only bigger this time.

Ishmael

All liberals care about are good intentions. Results of their policies are almost always disastrous, but feeling good about what they do is more important than real world outcome, regardless of how many people get hurt.

::::::::::nods::::::::::

 

[Ishmael]

US banks prepping to impose fees to cover negative interest rates.

Deposit fees?

I can't wait to see how this works out.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]