Inflation isn't calculated. It's created. Monetary policy is manipulated to keep inflation between 3% and 5%. So, is "calculating inflation" calculating the ideal for next year, or measuring it after it happened?
The right value is 2%. But the targets are 3-5% because deflation is an unstable feedback loop, so it's better to be 10% too high, than 3% too low.
The value exactness is irrelevant. You can be any number greater than 0% and there isn't a problem. But below 0% is catastrophic.
Also, note that inflation dipped negative [statista.com] for a couple of months last year.
A quick dip into the negative is a matter of measurement, not reality. When you measure the IQ of someone with a cold, it's lower than when they are well. So does a cold actually cause someone to get dumber, or does a cold mess with the measurement taken at that time? Given the recovery after, one concludes it was a temporary measurement error. CPI is good at comparing inflation, but poor at actually measuring it. If you want to find out whether your inflation this year is higher or lower than last, then CPI works. But to find out how much more it'll cost you to live this year, vs last, then you'll need a more accurate inflation measure.
When you outsource, the outsource company's primary goal is to extract money from you. Secondary is to make you like it (or do what you want them to do, however you like to word it). When you hire, the employees should want to do the best for the company, as that keeps them employed longer and better.
The "next quarter" CEOs don't seem to understand the difference.
Neither. But Bernie would push Congress, and when they don't respond, the midterm elections will clean house. Hillary won't stir up Congress. Bernie would actually get more done than Hillary.
My 6 hour wait in an ER was in a smaller rural hospital with only one x-ray machine. My car-crash x-rays were lower on the priority list than the odd string of heart attacks that came through. So 6 hours because the smaller hospital couldn't handle a regular stream of people. This was long before ACA.
Perhaps Obamacare became affordable for a small percentage, but for my business it is a significant and incremental expense.
Yes. It's more like a hidden tax, than an explicit single-payer program as it should be.
Another interesting detail: have you noticed that rich encourage you to vote for Democrats?
If you cherry-pick the "rich" to only be celebrities, not business people, then yes. But if you randomly select from "rich" they seem to overwhelmingly support Republicans.
Keep voting for those who promise free stuff, more security and more political correctness, and in few years you can remember this conversation, after waiting to see the doctor after the 6 hour wait (under universal/single payer healthcare).
Single payer is cheaper and better than the US system. And yes, I've lived under both. Have you?
When that invisible hand is holding a gun, and the workers kill the owners. It's not hard, the workers greatly out number the directors and CxOs. It has worked before, and that's the only thing that will change anything.
They aren't left-wingers, but right-wingers donating to the Democratic Party to select between the available candidates. Your lack of understanding of politics doesn't make a good argument.
There is a small bias in donations to Democrats. But all the left-wingers in Texas are registered Republicans because that's the only way to select local politicians, as many run unopposed in the general election.
When you don't know the difference between party and beliefs, you'll get confused.
Those in your situation generally go for a skilled migrant visa to the large number of commonwealth companies that have them. The US is very hard for an upper midddle or lower upper class person to get in to. The 1% can move anywhere with the "investor" class visas that are nearly universal, and the poor can move anywhere because they have nothing to lose if caught. But the middle can only move if it benefits someone else financially.
Prison is better almost anywhere other than the US. The US is one of the few places that effectively encourages regular rape of inmates as a means to increase punishment without having the government have to get its hands dirty.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Marx called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". What that means is that one class (the proletariat) overrides the will of the people in a representative form of government in order to compel people to adopt socialism.
And the Funding Fathers called that democracy. Again, you are picking and choosing your words and definitions to combine them in a manner that means something different to you than anyone else on the planet. That's not communication, that's mental masturbation. Have fun masturbating with yourself.
We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do).
So if they shouldn't do it, it's invalid, even if they have the power (and some argue, mandate) to do it?
Then again, it comes down to you using words with unique definitions to win an argument, rather than discuss a point.
As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up).
So now you are talking about what the government CAN do, not what they SHOULD do. Again, you are a lying hypocrite.
How about throwing a rock and hitting it, even though the impact point is 20 feet away and it'll take a second to get there, with both objects moving? Don't you need some serious algebra to work that out?
Nope. No math needed. A dog playing catch doesn't use math at all. Learning can be from experience without any knowledge of the underlying science. Teach one kid lots of math and science, and never have him catch a ball. Repeat with a child that's never taught math or science. They'll both be equally inept at catching a high fly ball, likely both running too close in, and the ball going over their head. They will learn to catch the ball at about the same rate.
You don't calculate where to stand to catch it, or the eye-hand for the last bit, but you learn it from trial and error. Or practice, if you like to call it that. And when performing the act, rather than calculating anything, you use visual feedback and training to catch it.
No. Me pointing out that you lied isn't ad hominem. Me calling you a liar isn't ad hominem. Before you use the big words, you should learn what the mean.
"You are wrong in your opinion about the FAA because you incorrectly declared that I support the FAA decision" would be an ad hominem, and doesn't include any insults.
Someone to stupid to know what an ad hominem is obviously can't understand the nuance of government regulation.
There, for your pleasure, you may now correctly say I used an ad hominem. Do you feel better now?
It doesn't change the fact that you lied about my position to make a strawman, and non sequitured the discussion with your ad hominem of me.
You lied. You were the first in the discussion to use ad hominem.
You kept lying about me after I corrected you. That makes you stupid and unteachable, continuing with your lies about me to push your incorrect opinion as fact.
And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case),
Your lying assumption isn't fact. You complained about the FAA doing it. I merely implied that you are a hypocrite because when the "no park zone" was created around federal buildings, you didn't assert the government didn't have the power to do that. A no fly zone around sensitie government installations is the same thing. So, now that we know you are a lying hypocritical liar and hypocrite, are you going to actually address the question of logic I posed, or keep lying about what I said to invent strawmen to make sure you win an argument on the Internet?
Fine, you win. Your smarter than everyone else, including knowing the law better than law makers, and air regulations better than the FAA. Some idiot on the Internet asserting the FAA can't do it, vs the FAA actually doing it, seems to indicate a dangerous delusions. I bet it was the Cubans who killed JFK, right?
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
So you equate socialist and communist. And you think there can be such a thing as a socialist dictatorship.
I bet she's one of those people who hold the trigger the entire time without flipping the little switch that locks it in place until the tank is full)
I've lived places where those are illegal. They may increase spillage, which is bad for the environment.
Re: Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I'm a libertarian, and I prefer Bernie. None of the conservative candidates are pro-choice (not just abortion, but marriage, drugs, and all that). The Republicans all want to increase government regulations and increase government size, while borrowing more to pay for it. That's about the opposite of "real" libertarian as you can get. I say "real" because so many LP members in the US are conservatives who want to cut welfare (but increase welfare to the rich).
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
In the US, welfare states are considered socialist. Since they are all wrong, name one you would accept.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I happen to think fiscal conservatism is at the moment more important than social liberalism,
After abuse at the hands of conservatives almost constantly since Nixon, they are converging. Social liberalism would fund things like Head Start because it's good for the kids, but fiscal conservatism should fund things like Head Start because the savings in things like prison is greater than the cost.
Instead, we have Republican spiteful conservatism. Where you de-fund Head Start because you don't want to see money helping minorities.
That, and there are no fiscally conservative Republican candidates for president.
Now you are just lying. Explaining the why to someone who claims not to understand doesn't mean I agree or support it. Stop lying, you lying little liar.
There is no one rule that will be considered reasonable by *all* people. So they picked one arbitrary rule that at least one person thought reasonable. That's how reality works. That you are unaware of that indicates that the reality distortion field is on your end.
How would DPRK be a smoking ruin? They already have MAD. Conventional bombing/shelling of South Korea would effectively leave South Korea a smoking ruin. They get to poke the bear, and maybe live.
There is no scenario where DPRK can win a war of any kind with anyone. So putting that down as a condition seems silly. They'll never first-strike to win, but as more an only-strike. Fly the bomb in on a private jet going to Kansas, and it'll get over the border without too much trouble. Then throw it in a truck, and drive to DC. It's theoretically possible that the radiation detectors around DC could get hits, but if you are suicide bombing, you'd get to the location and have 30 seconds to go boom before anyone responds, if you come in outside rush hour. If you come in during rush hour, the traffic will be so slow, it's possible that the sensors will be triggered, and you'll be intercepted before you can get in a position to do anything other than scare people and kill those in the cars next to you.
Slashdot Mirror
The right value is 2%. But the targets are 3-5% because deflation is an unstable feedback loop, so it's better to be 10% too high, than 3% too low.
The value exactness is irrelevant. You can be any number greater than 0% and there isn't a problem. But below 0% is catastrophic.
Also, note that inflation dipped negative [statista.com] for a couple of months last year.
A quick dip into the negative is a matter of measurement, not reality. When you measure the IQ of someone with a cold, it's lower than when they are well. So does a cold actually cause someone to get dumber, or does a cold mess with the measurement taken at that time? Given the recovery after, one concludes it was a temporary measurement error. CPI is good at comparing inflation, but poor at actually measuring it. If you want to find out whether your inflation this year is higher or lower than last, then CPI works. But to find out how much more it'll cost you to live this year, vs last, then you'll need a more accurate inflation measure.
When you outsource, the outsource company's primary goal is to extract money from you. Secondary is to make you like it (or do what you want them to do, however you like to word it). When you hire, the employees should want to do the best for the company, as that keeps them employed longer and better.
The "next quarter" CEOs don't seem to understand the difference.
Neither. But Bernie would push Congress, and when they don't respond, the midterm elections will clean house. Hillary won't stir up Congress. Bernie would actually get more done than Hillary.
My 6 hour wait in an ER was in a smaller rural hospital with only one x-ray machine. My car-crash x-rays were lower on the priority list than the odd string of heart attacks that came through. So 6 hours because the smaller hospital couldn't handle a regular stream of people. This was long before ACA.
Perhaps Obamacare became affordable for a small percentage, but for my business it is a significant and incremental expense.
Yes. It's more like a hidden tax, than an explicit single-payer program as it should be.
Another interesting detail: have you noticed that rich encourage you to vote for Democrats?
If you cherry-pick the "rich" to only be celebrities, not business people, then yes. But if you randomly select from "rich" they seem to overwhelmingly support Republicans.
Keep voting for those who promise free stuff, more security and more political correctness, and in few years you can remember this conversation, after waiting to see the doctor after the 6 hour wait (under universal/single payer healthcare).
Single payer is cheaper and better than the US system. And yes, I've lived under both. Have you?
When that invisible hand is holding a gun, and the workers kill the owners. It's not hard, the workers greatly out number the directors and CxOs. It has worked before, and that's the only thing that will change anything.
Nobody actually offered them the pay cut. Instead, it's all a lie by the greedy owners to blame the workers for wanting fair pay.
They aren't left-wingers, but right-wingers donating to the Democratic Party to select between the available candidates. Your lack of understanding of politics doesn't make a good argument.
There is a small bias in donations to Democrats. But all the left-wingers in Texas are registered Republicans because that's the only way to select local politicians, as many run unopposed in the general election.
When you don't know the difference between party and beliefs, you'll get confused.
Those in your situation generally go for a skilled migrant visa to the large number of commonwealth companies that have them. The US is very hard for an upper midddle or lower upper class person to get in to. The 1% can move anywhere with the "investor" class visas that are nearly universal, and the poor can move anywhere because they have nothing to lose if caught. But the middle can only move if it benefits someone else financially.
The game is rigged.
Prison is better almost anywhere other than the US. The US is one of the few places that effectively encourages regular rape of inmates as a means to increase punishment without having the government have to get its hands dirty.
Marx called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". What that means is that one class (the proletariat) overrides the will of the people in a representative form of government in order to compel people to adopt socialism.
And the Funding Fathers called that democracy. Again, you are picking and choosing your words and definitions to combine them in a manner that means something different to you than anyone else on the planet. That's not communication, that's mental masturbation. Have fun masturbating with yourself.
We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do).
So if they shouldn't do it, it's invalid, even if they have the power (and some argue, mandate) to do it?
Then again, it comes down to you using words with unique definitions to win an argument, rather than discuss a point.
As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up).
So now you are talking about what the government CAN do, not what they SHOULD do. Again, you are a lying hypocrite.
How about throwing a rock and hitting it, even though the impact point is 20 feet away and it'll take a second to get there, with both objects moving? Don't you need some serious algebra to work that out?
Nope. No math needed. A dog playing catch doesn't use math at all. Learning can be from experience without any knowledge of the underlying science. Teach one kid lots of math and science, and never have him catch a ball. Repeat with a child that's never taught math or science. They'll both be equally inept at catching a high fly ball, likely both running too close in, and the ball going over their head. They will learn to catch the ball at about the same rate.
You don't calculate where to stand to catch it, or the eye-hand for the last bit, but you learn it from trial and error. Or practice, if you like to call it that. And when performing the act, rather than calculating anything, you use visual feedback and training to catch it.
"You are wrong in your opinion about the FAA because you incorrectly declared that I support the FAA decision" would be an ad hominem, and doesn't include any insults.
Someone to stupid to know what an ad hominem is obviously can't understand the nuance of government regulation.
There, for your pleasure, you may now correctly say I used an ad hominem. Do you feel better now?
It doesn't change the fact that you lied about my position to make a strawman, and non sequitured the discussion with your ad hominem of me.
You lied. You were the first in the discussion to use ad hominem.
You kept lying about me after I corrected you. That makes you stupid and unteachable, continuing with your lies about me to push your incorrect opinion as fact.
And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case),
Your lying assumption isn't fact. You complained about the FAA doing it. I merely implied that you are a hypocrite because when the "no park zone" was created around federal buildings, you didn't assert the government didn't have the power to do that. A no fly zone around sensitie government installations is the same thing. So, now that we know you are a lying hypocritical liar and hypocrite, are you going to actually address the question of logic I posed, or keep lying about what I said to invent strawmen to make sure you win an argument on the Internet?
Fine, you win. Your smarter than everyone else, including knowing the law better than law makers, and air regulations better than the FAA. Some idiot on the Internet asserting the FAA can't do it, vs the FAA actually doing it, seems to indicate a dangerous delusions. I bet it was the Cubans who killed JFK, right?
So you equate socialist and communist. And you think there can be such a thing as a socialist dictatorship.
I disagree with your definitions.
I bet she's one of those people who hold the trigger the entire time without flipping the little switch that locks it in place until the tank is full)
I've lived places where those are illegal. They may increase spillage, which is bad for the environment.
I'm a libertarian, and I prefer Bernie. None of the conservative candidates are pro-choice (not just abortion, but marriage, drugs, and all that). The Republicans all want to increase government regulations and increase government size, while borrowing more to pay for it. That's about the opposite of "real" libertarian as you can get. I say "real" because so many LP members in the US are conservatives who want to cut welfare (but increase welfare to the rich).
In the US, welfare states are considered socialist. Since they are all wrong, name one you would accept.
I happen to think fiscal conservatism is at the moment more important than social liberalism,
After abuse at the hands of conservatives almost constantly since Nixon, they are converging. Social liberalism would fund things like Head Start because it's good for the kids, but fiscal conservatism should fund things like Head Start because the savings in things like prison is greater than the cost.
Instead, we have Republican spiteful conservatism. Where you de-fund Head Start because you don't want to see money helping minorities.
That, and there are no fiscally conservative Republican candidates for president.
Now you are just lying. Explaining the why to someone who claims not to understand doesn't mean I agree or support it. Stop lying, you lying little liar.
There is no one rule that will be considered reasonable by *all* people. So they picked one arbitrary rule that at least one person thought reasonable. That's how reality works. That you are unaware of that indicates that the reality distortion field is on your end.
How would DPRK be a smoking ruin? They already have MAD. Conventional bombing/shelling of South Korea would effectively leave South Korea a smoking ruin. They get to poke the bear, and maybe live.
You are presuming an enforcement that's not only insane, but impossible. When you come off you LSD trip and want to talk reality, let us know.
There is no scenario where DPRK can win a war of any kind with anyone. So putting that down as a condition seems silly. They'll never first-strike to win, but as more an only-strike. Fly the bomb in on a private jet going to Kansas, and it'll get over the border without too much trouble. Then throw it in a truck, and drive to DC. It's theoretically possible that the radiation detectors around DC could get hits, but if you are suicide bombing, you'd get to the location and have 30 seconds to go boom before anyone responds, if you come in outside rush hour. If you come in during rush hour, the traffic will be so slow, it's possible that the sensors will be triggered, and you'll be intercepted before you can get in a position to do anything other than scare people and kill those in the cars next to you.