Sorry to hear about your early onset Alzheimer's because that schooling shit was completely destroyed.

It's pretty evident by your posts.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

Hi Tokie,

Why do you keep claiming the there is a "dramatically" lower cost of living today. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, $100 in 1979 is equivalent to $253.44 in 2003.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

And, don't worry Tokie, I'm not going to explain the whole outlier thing again....that would probably be a waste of my breath.

Now, this is probably one of the few intelligent things you have said. You're right, Tokie.....there is movement within the brackets and the statistics I've presented do not capture this movement....and I never claimed they did. How much movement? That's hard to say.

Oh, settle down there, Tokie. Cat and Crow are right.....you need to read and consider more and infer a whole lot less there, buddy.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

LOL!

I keep claimng it because YOU keep conflating your numbers....conflate like the wind, Stormy!

Glad to hear you won't be launching into yet another long, MoveOnPac-approved lecture based in your Keynesian economics.

I have some things to do and can't take a nap right now.

Ah...and because it's hard to nail the numbers down and account for them (in the Keynesian model) we must ignore them.

As Keynes teaches. Which is one of the big reasons real econmists laugh at these theories and models today...oh, well...you and Crow can always revert to Malthus, right?

I need to read between the lines in exactly the way I am, because leftists--especially those like you, running around on the 'net at the behest of MoveOnPac--cannot tell the truth, and worse, in many cases cannot tell that they cannot tell the truth. I suspect YOU are bright enough to know that you are spewing boilerplate economic-nonsense, but then you are getting paid per-post to do so. You are no different than any other lib who so eagerly sells his/her/other honor for a few pieces of Soros silver.

As for Crow and whoever else: they are ignorant n00bs desperate to confirm that their own lowly (and unlikely to improve) station in life is the fault of "someone else!!" like eeeehhhhhvvvviiiiihhlllllll conservatives who are somehow conspiring ot keep them down.

Giving you your due: at least you are bright enough to ignore my having identified you for a MoveOnPac operative.

Tokie

Actually, I do like that word, Tokie....but, how am I "conflating" my numbers again?
I'd imagine most would find the explanation of statistical outliers pretty boring.

Tokie, I had one year of ecomomics when I was a sophomore in college....being a math geek, I did pretty well. But, that was a long time ago. I'm not an economist. But, I am a mathematician/operations researcher (for the US military) and many of those skills can be applied elsewhere. I am not familiar with Keynes nor Malthus. I just persent information....information that apparently you aren't too fond of....what can I say...too bad.
This is that whole inference thing I was talking about, Tokie.
After your diatribe above, you think it's Crow, Cat and me that are the conspiracy freaks??? That's pretty funny, dude.
I just stick to the argument at hand, Tokie....what you do, what organizations you are involved with, etc.....I don't know nor do I care. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

1. Nothing happens in a vaccum. You can't say, well, wages are up and it costs less to live now, so people must be making less money!!! It makes no sense, regardless of what Keynes has to say.

2. Statistical outliers are not boring. And they are often the only thing you can rely on to make any sort of prediction, as they are on the outside edges of any event and may represent changes about to take place

3. Simply being able to parrot charts and graphs without any real understanding of what they represent in the real market is, while useful in it's own little segment of the whole, not in fact the whole. Parroting your Keynesian (sorry if you know little of Keynes...but that's whose chart that is) is proof of little more beyond the fact that your may be able to read the numbers, but you don't know what they mean when applied to the real world economics. And as much as I honor your service and appreciate the military, I very much doubt that you are tasked there with figuring out what the American civilian economy is doing these days. If you are, some Congressman needs to know about it. And it's not a matter of what I am "fond" of. Malthus especially and Keynes have been so thoroughly repudiated BY THE MARKET and by other, later economists, relying on them is laughable. I hope to CHRIST the US Military is not.

4. Inference: don't play games, and I won't be force to infer.

5. I don't know about you, but it's pretty clear most libs believe that the VRWC is out to get them. You hide behind your numbers and claim you are just citing the facts, but you are misreading the facts from within a very cloistered bubble.

6. You sound very much like a MoveOnPAC operative. I would hope, if you are active duty military you are not one, but it remains a possiblity. I note that you have not denied it....

Tokie

Hi Tokie,

OK, Tokie, so what do my numbers and graphs tell you?
Well, there not boring to me, Tokie....being the math geek that I am.
So, how am I lacking an understanding of what they mean in the real world? What specifically have I said that is wrong?
I'm not active duty, Tokie....I am a civilian that works for the military. I work on future force structure issues....what capabilities do we need, what are the best combinations of platforms, etc.?
I'm a mathematician/statician/data analyst/modeler. I don't do economics for the military except from a cost/capabilities optimization point of view...this board is just on the side, Tokie.
What games?
Who the hell is the VRWC?

I typically don't respond to silly accusations, Tokie.....no, I have nothing to do with Moveon or any other political party or group.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

While this stuff CAN be made quite complex (it HAS to be if one wishes to maintain a Keynesian view of it, because Keynesian economics simply doesn't work in the real world, today), it's really quite simple: A larger, continually growing economy with correspondent rises in wages while the cost of living spikes dramatically downward means more people make more money, no matter how you cook the Keynesian books to make it look otherwise.

You need to read what I am saying, Stormy, not what it is you WANT me to say.

I said the outliers are NOT boring and are very often indicators of what's to come and in MODERN (key term) economics can be VERY important. Yes, in your Keynesian approach of COURSE outliers don't make a bit of difference. Keynesians IGNORE such things, because their models don't permit such things to exist.

As you know, the current employment rate in the US is, by Keynesian economics...impossible. An economy cannot HAVE employment of over 95%. It can't happen. And since it can't happen, why then...something MUST be "off" somewhere in the numbers, which is why you have so many leftists (like you) running around finding reasons that these numbers, quarter after quarter MUST be inacurate by 10-15, even 20%!

I'm not here to argue specific math issues, Stormy, as fun as that must be. The issue here is your misunderstanind of the very pie chart you are presenting, as you MUST misunderstand it in order for you Keynesian models to work.

That's why you dismiss out of hand the facts of rising wages and falling costs.

You have to.

And I sincerly hope you are not permitted to use this failed, leftist economic model in your work, but it makes sense that the Fed gov't would hire Keynesians....who would be better at making sure more money comes to gov't no matter what?

No, I believe you ignored my pegging you as a MoveOnPAC poster because that's what you are. I've seen that before. I called you on it time and time again, and so eventually you had to deny it.

You've had no problem denying anything else I've said you are (a Keynesian, for example..hell, you've claimed you don't know what that is, and maybe not, but it's still the way you look at economics).

Tokie

I am reading what you are saying, Tokie, but I don't see how you are concluding that the cost of living has dramatically dropped since 1979. For example, according to the CPI,
- Electricity is about 2X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
- Utility gas is more than 3X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
- Gas is 2.5X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
- Bread is about 2X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
- Beef is ~ 1.4X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
- Tomatoes is more than 2.2X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
- OJ is ~ 1.6X more expensive in 2003 than in 1979.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

So, I'm not sure how you are concluding that. And I accounted for this (using real dollars) in my data and graphs.

I accounted for everyone in my data and graphs, Tokie.....and discarded no one. I just don't think using averages when the data is so widely varying from 0 to many millions is very wise.....medians are better. I have to run....more later.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

These numbers are not in real dollars, and you know it.

Nice try. I imagine the more ignorant among your fellow travelers on the hate-America-first side of things will be nodding their heads sagely at this.

So be it.

I wonder though: let's say your doom and gloom picture is correct. How will electing people that will raise taxes to the 80% levl, cause the costs of energy to go through the roof, hand over most of our national product to the UN for "redistribution," etc., help the average American?

Can you explain it?

Tokie

You're right, Tokie....they are not.....perhaps, I should've said that, but I was in a hurry. The point is that if you convert everything to real dollars...say FY2000 dollars, then the prices will be more or less the same....some higher, some lower. And all of the data that I presented where I compared things from different years were in real dollars....and I've said that about 20 times now. You keep claiming that the data is wrong because costs have dropped and wages have risen, but when you convert to real dollars, that's all rolled into the computations. Do you agree?
Tokie, I've never claimed it was gloom and doom. It is what it is.....information. I posted the information for two reasons:
1) Correct Gix's statement which was clearly wrong. Maybe he misspoke, but, regardless, it needed correcting.
2) Gix and others constantly claim that things are getting worse and worse for the upper classes and unfairly so. But, if you look at the numbers, it simply ain't so.
I can't imagine raising taxes to the 80% level would do much good at all, Tokie.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...