* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Curious: I would have thought that dividend would have been higher;
taxes were lowered significantly on them, and the economy has
registered mediocre gains, in which companies should be able to take
profits. But then I just heard that the producer
At 09:59 PM 1/12/2005 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Sometime listmember Brad DeLong's take:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/
Why Am I Not For Bush's Social Security Reform?
It's strange--I ought to be a member of what Joshua Micah Marshall calls
the faint-hearted faction--those
At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
FAIR-L
Fairness Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-socialsecurity.html
Does it really contribute to the debate here to
John D. Giorgis wrote:
This week:
St. Louis at Atlanta - Pick: FALCONS
Falcons.
NY Jets at Pittsburgh - Pick: STEELERS
Steelers.
Minnesota at Philadelphia - Pick: EAGLES
You're probably right, but I just cannot pick any team currently
employing T.O. Vikings.
Indianapolis at New England - Pick:
JDG wrote:
One question I would love to ask, and I apologize if this sounds a little
harsher than it really is, but here is my question:
And how can a neutral, fair-minded observer distinguish the above answer
from Because I am bought and paid for by the Democratic Pary, and there is
simply no way
I don't need to tell you that if the raw materials price is down, then
the extractive industries are not making as much profit. But since the
'producer' segement is larger, I suppose that there might be a net rise
in profits.
~Maru
Erik Reuter wrote:
By the way, PPI for finished goods is an
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Erik wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear (or perhaps you are confusing my position
with Bush's confusing rhetoric).
Or maybe I'm somewhat dense when it comes to this stuff. Thanks for
clarifying things for me.
If you're dense, you're not unduly so.
I mean, I doubt that
maru dubshinki wrote:
I don't need to tell you that if the raw materials price is down,
then
the extractive industries are not making as much profit. But since
the
'producer' segement is larger, I suppose that there might be a net
rise in profits.
~Maru
There is also the chance that prices
http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/gallery/26/display.php?x=0
xponent
From Traalfamador Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:22:50 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will we have to sign some form of non-disclosure agreement to
try it out?
Non-this-clothes-use?
Well, I ain't talkin' nude. But I'll give Holocene a try.
You'll need a test subject with
One minor nitpick here
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Dan Minette wrote:
The marginal value of working for someone on welfare is a real problem,
but I think we can mostly seperate it from the problem of one spouse
working for 20k/year and the other spouse thinking of taking a 20k/year
job.
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Social Security
One minor nitpick here
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Dan Minette wrote:
The marginal value of working for
Actually there may be some points of agreement among us.
I like private accounts, just not to replace Social Security which
serves a different function.
I like 401Ks in which some percentage of income is removed from
taxation and used to promote retirement savings.
Let us look at what this
This indexing of benefits to inflation instead of wages may help as
does a guaranteed median federal benefit of $29,500 65 years from now
seem necessary? BTW, I am most concerned about low income retirees as
doing nothing to change the formulas doesn't and running SS off of
the diminished trust
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Social Security
If no one says that they've already calculated this in an hour or
two, I'll go to last year's copy of TurboTax
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:13:16 -0600, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:20:38 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
Should I point you to the Constitution or federal law about how real
these obligations are?
Or should I
Well, I ain't talkin' nude. But I'll give Holocene a try.
I used to always be online here in the nude before I moved a few months ago.
Gary Denton
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote:
That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number
of workers per retirees
Shirley, you can't be serious.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote:
That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number
of workers per retirees
Shirley, you can't be serious.
... and my name is not Shirley, but if it was just the
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:08:04 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the cite, Gary.
So if you argue that the experts disagree on the exact figure, then that
is a reasonable argument. But to say that the range is 0 to $3 or $4
trillion instead of $3 to $7 or $3 to $10 trillion,
On Jan 15, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Gary Denton wrote:
From Financial Times:
According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and
head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr Bush recently
asked Mr Powell for his view on the progress of the war. We're
losing, Mr Powell was quoted
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:26:51 -0600, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote:
I normally disagree with Netter but he laid out the false claims of Bush here:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table
I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search
turned it up). I'm still working through it:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/
Rolling Stone on the Non-Social Security Criisis
They interview Krugman to fact-check W.
Actually very clear and informative.
http://tinyurl.com/5pwlm
The Economic Policy Institute also referencing economists at Goldman
Sach also fact check the likely replacement plan in more clear writing
and
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table
I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search
turned it up). I'm still working
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table
I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:41:59 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I found the web link for the article which was the source
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Of course, the current GOP appointed trustees have slanted this last
report to make the situation more dire. If you go back to the last
report in 1997 the optimist case had the economy growing atr 2.2% a
year. The new optimistic scenario is a growth
- Original Message -
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:13 PM
On Jan 15, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Gary Denton wrote:
At least he didn't have Powell shot, which is what Hussein reportedly
used to do when advisers told him he couldn't possibly win a war
against the US.
Curious. He lives up to your low expectations of not being a mad
dictator?
:D
He's managed to live
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table
I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search
turned it up). I'm still working through it:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/
Dan,
As I've been reading
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Social Security
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I found the web link for the article which was the source of the
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:40:31 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for
raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers.
From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:23:03 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than making silly partisan insinuations, and rapidly quoting
sound-bites without studying and thinking about them, it is useful to
actually look at facts and numbers.
On Jan 15, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
In other words, you don't have a clue about what you are writing, and
are just playing Eliza again, repeating sound bites randomly instead of
giving an analytical basis for your argument.
Which of these items is the foregoing an example of?
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:16:59 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What? This list isn't your number one priority? I'm shocked, shocked. :-)
I was supposed to be doing something else this afternoon and evening
but ended up on list and web surfing.
A QUESTION OF NUMBERS
Like other
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
To repeat it in words even a half-educated engineer can understand
the 200+ year GDP is flawed because it assumes they can accurately
measure GDP that far back - that historical GDP has its own set of
assumptions.
How would you decide which data is
- Original Message -
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter.
Yes, but is suspect the real
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OK
Here's one:
We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis
in the Social Security system. We have a great opportunity now to be
able to tell all these young people who
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:22:37 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OK
Here's one:
We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis
in the Social Security
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Interesting quote from Clinton as he presented a balanced budget in
98. Should I insert a rhetorical point here about the GOP?
If you like, but I probably won't be reading it. My post was just
testing a hypothesis about whether you would make a cogent
Hmm... Reasonable yes. But, isn't that assuming that the survivorship
bias continues to favor the US? For a 75 year, or infinite horizon
projection, the chances that it won't can't be neglected.
~Maru
Erik Reuter wrote:
...
For Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, UK, US, Australia, S. Africa, and
If you are interested please, reply to Brin-L. (Effectively
this is a blank-check form of RSVP.)
Count me in.
Gary
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
43 matches
Mail list logo
