U.S. Deficit For 2022 Falls To 1/2 2021 Level, Only $1.4T Now...

[Fred Bloggs]

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137

Once interest rates return to sane values things must collapse. Idiot
economists encouraged criminally stupid politicians to schedule a
historic train wreck.

The only way to unwind this is to renege on the debt, namely inflate
it away and steal everyones\' savings.

31 trillion is around $100K debt per citizen, $200K per working
American, and as you note will only go up.

Buy real estate. They can\'t print more land.

(That\'s an interesting issue too.)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 1:10:19 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137
Once interest rates return to sane values things must collapse. Idiot
economists encouraged criminally stupid politicians to schedule a
historic train wreck.

The only way to unwind this is to renege on the debt, namely inflate
it away and steal everyones\' savings.

31 trillion is around $100K debt per citizen, $200K per working
American, and as you note will only go up.

Like I said, there is no shortage of very smart people advising the elected government. The problem is not that they don\'t listen, but they have to prioritize their donors and constituents to stay in office.

This Jonathan Williams of ALEC sounds very capable:

:

Jonathan Williams, the chief economist and executive vice president of policy for the American Legislative Exchange Council, said the first step states need to take to change course is to stop making the problem worse.

\"When you are in the hole, the first step is to stop digging it deeper,\" he said. \"Right now, states are in a historically strong position when it comes to cash flow. There\'s a lot of money sloshing around state capitals right now. One of the things that can be done with the revenue growth from the state level is to pay down current unfunded liabilities.\"

States also need to examine the structure of their pension plans and switch from defined benefit plans to 401(K)-style defined contribution plans, Williams said.
:

They need to replace SS with a 401(K) style or managed investment plan too. But watch the know-nothings scream whenever the subject comes up.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/unfunded-state-pension-liabilities-grow-to-8-28-trillion/article_2cc7ea6c-e743-11ec-a33c-8bc749f2c315.html

Buy real estate. They can\'t print more land.

(That\'s an interesting issue too.)

They\'ll probably just nationalize it under some pretense or another. Probably this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

 

[bitrex]

On 10/23/2022 1:10 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137

Once interest rates return to sane values things must collapse. Idiot
economists encouraged criminally stupid politicians to schedule a
historic train wreck.

The only way to unwind this is to renege on the debt, namely inflate
it away and steal everyones\' savings.

31 trillion is around $100K debt per citizen, $200K per working
American, and as you note will only go up.

Buy real estate. They can\'t print more land.

(That\'s an interesting issue too.)

All the major media outlets talk about is the \"inflation is nuts and
crippling the middle-class and poor, and is the #1 thing voters care
about\"-narrative, so therefore inflation is probably somewhere around
20-25 line items down on \"things voters care about\"

 

[bitrex]

On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-17651

Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

<https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/>

 

[bitrex]

On 10/23/2022 1:10 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137

Once interest rates return to sane values things must collapse. Idiot
economists encouraged criminally stupid politicians to schedule a
historic train wreck.

Unfortunately if the usual GOP tactics of slashing corporate tax rates
and making it as easy as possible to funnel as much wealth upwards to
America\'s wealthiest people as possible, did anything to fix inflation,
inflation would\'ve been fixed a while back.

But the GOP knows this well enough. Their \"plan\" such as it is at this
point is to accelerate the decline, skim as much money as possible along
the way, and meanwhile manufacture enough fascist propaganda to convince
a sizable majority of destitute white Americans to worship the hoodlums
who robbed them.

I\'d say that plan has a decent chance of success..

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 1:10:19 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137
Once interest rates return to sane values things must collapse. Idiot
economists encouraged criminally stupid politicians to schedule a
historic train wreck.

The only way to unwind this is to renege on the debt, namely inflate
it away and steal everyones\' savings.

31 trillion is around $100K debt per citizen, $200K per working
American, and as you note will only go up.

Like I said, there is no shortage of very smart people advising the elected government.

Disagree. The economists in the Treasury and the Fed are idiotic
arsonists. Years of forced zero interest rates are a time bomb. Or
actually a set of time bombs.

The Treasury and the Fed are power hungry bunglers.

The problem is not that they don\'t listen, but they have to prioritize their donors and constituents to stay in office.

This Jonathan Williams of ALEC sounds very capable:

:

Jonathan Williams, the chief economist and executive vice president of policy for the American Legislative Exchange Council, said the first step states need to take to change course is to stop making the problem worse.

\"When you are in the hole, the first step is to stop digging it deeper,\" he said. \"Right now, states are in a historically strong position when it comes to cash flow. There\'s a lot of money sloshing around state capitals right now. One of the things that can be done with the revenue growth from the state level is to pay down current unfunded liabilities.\"

States also need to examine the structure of their pension plans and switch from defined benefit plans to 401(K)-style defined contribution plans, Williams said.
:

They need to replace SS with a 401(K) style or managed investment plan too. But watch the know-nothings scream whenever the subject comes up.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/unfunded-state-pension-liabilities-grow-to-8-28-trillion/article_2cc7ea6c-e743-11ec-a33c-8bc749f2c315.html



Buy real estate. They can\'t print more land.

(That\'s an interesting issue too.)

They\'ll probably just nationalize it under some pretense or another. Probably this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

Another lifetime politician with power issues.

One thing that Washington could do is sell a lot of Federal land.
Mostly to foreigners who would pay in dollars.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:22:58 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 1:10 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137

Once interest rates return to sane values things must collapse. Idiot
economists encouraged criminally stupid politicians to schedule a
historic train wreck.

Unfortunately if the usual GOP tactics of slashing corporate tax rates
and making it as easy as possible to funnel as much wealth upwards to
America\'s wealthiest people as possible, did anything to fix inflation,
inflation would\'ve been fixed a while back.

Having wealthy people is a rallying point for jealousy, but their
wealth doesn\'t hurt the average person. A billionaire doesn\'t drive a
hundred thousand cars or eat a million eggs every day. They don\'t
compete much for things most people need.

Rich people invest a lot more than they consume, namely divert
consumption into investment. Somebody has to do that.

If we were to take all the wealth away from our billionaires (how
would we do that? Make them sell all their stock?) and write checks to
all the people (include illegals?) it would be instantly inflationary
and net destructive.

We need more rich people, not less. And we need their wealth in the
USA.

But the GOP knows this well enough. Their \"plan\" such as it is at this
point is to accelerate the decline, skim as much money as possible along
the way, and meanwhile manufacture enough fascist propaganda to convince
a sizable majority of destitute white Americans to worship the hoodlums
who robbed them.

I\'d say that plan has a decent chance of success..

You can\'t eat money, or live in a house made of money. What people can
consume, on average, is what they produce.

Jealousy is bad policy.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-17651
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/

It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone
offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which
would you sell to?

 

[bitrex]

On 10/23/2022 5:49 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-17651
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/

It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

Some of the most egregious offenders are the four major railroads in the
US, a grossly inefficient-by-design duo-duopoly operated almost entirely
by bean counters. Not big surprise their employees have started rebelling.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone
offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which
would you sell to?

What\'s the mean Poisson-distribution-derived time (or some-such) would I
have to wait for the $9000 offer vs offers in the $60 range? Groups of
individual humans seem remarkably good at collectively knowing a rusty
VW on blocks isn\'t worth $9000, and there\'s a time value to money.

Sites like Zillow seem to have even concocted AI algorithms that can
independently speculate how fast a given home will sell when it\'s
attractively-priced and they\'re probably right more often than not, I
don\'t know of any similar algorithm that can predict how soon a fool or
lunatic will be along to pay $9000 what most others are offering $60 for.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 19:10:46 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 5:49 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-17651
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/

It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

Some of the most egregious offenders are the four major railroads in the
US, a grossly inefficient-by-design duo-duopoly operated almost entirely
by bean counters. Not big surprise their employees have started rebelling.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone
offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which
would you sell to?


What\'s the mean Poisson-distribution-derived time (or some-such) would I
have to wait for the $9000 offer vs offers in the $60 range? Groups of
individual humans seem remarkably good at collectively knowing a rusty
VW on blocks isn\'t worth $9000, and there\'s a time value to money.

Sites like Zillow seem to have even concocted AI algorithms that can
independently speculate how fast a given home will sell when it\'s
attractively-priced and they\'re probably right more often than not, I
don\'t know of any similar algorithm that can predict how soon a fool or
lunatic will be along to pay $9000 what most others are offering $60 for.

You evaded the question.

 

[bitrex]

On 10/23/2022 7:28 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 19:10:46 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 5:49 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-17651
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/

It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

Some of the most egregious offenders are the four major railroads in the
US, a grossly inefficient-by-design duo-duopoly operated almost entirely
by bean counters. Not big surprise their employees have started rebelling.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone
offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which
would you sell to?


What\'s the mean Poisson-distribution-derived time (or some-such) would I
have to wait for the $9000 offer vs offers in the $60 range? Groups of
individual humans seem remarkably good at collectively knowing a rusty
VW on blocks isn\'t worth $9000, and there\'s a time value to money.

Sites like Zillow seem to have even concocted AI algorithms that can
independently speculate how fast a given home will sell when it\'s
attractively-priced and they\'re probably right more often than not, I
don\'t know of any similar algorithm that can predict how soon a fool or
lunatic will be along to pay $9000 what most others are offering $60 for.

You evaded the question.

Yeah because it was one of those questions like \"What would you do if
Taylor Swift asked you on a date\", I don\'t get the point of speculating
on what I\'d personally do in situations that have asymptotically zero
chance of happening.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 19:38:36 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 7:28 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 19:10:46 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 5:49 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The bad news is CBO estimates the deficits to increase from here on out for the next 30 years! They expect the deficit to run 11% of GDP by 2052, it is 3.9% now, and this will be mostly due to net interest outlays for debt which will run 7.2% of GDP.

Can we say overspending? And the return on this over-expenditure is beyond words.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57971

Here\'s the monthly report. When they talk about revenues and outlays they use (fiscal) annual and monthly numbers interchangeably and freely.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58493

All of this data is \"estimated.\" It takes them forever, like 5 years, before they have actual amounts from the 100,000+1 money streams going in and out.

The national debt should be quadrillions by 2052. Guess the prefix is Q. Right now it stands at 31.23T which 0.03123Q. Not far to go at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-17651
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/

It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

Some of the most egregious offenders are the four major railroads in the
US, a grossly inefficient-by-design duo-duopoly operated almost entirely
by bean counters. Not big surprise their employees have started rebelling.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone
offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which
would you sell to?


What\'s the mean Poisson-distribution-derived time (or some-such) would I
have to wait for the $9000 offer vs offers in the $60 range? Groups of
individual humans seem remarkably good at collectively knowing a rusty
VW on blocks isn\'t worth $9000, and there\'s a time value to money.

Sites like Zillow seem to have even concocted AI algorithms that can
independently speculate how fast a given home will sell when it\'s
attractively-priced and they\'re probably right more often than not, I
don\'t know of any similar algorithm that can predict how soon a fool or
lunatic will be along to pay $9000 what most others are offering $60 for.

You evaded the question.

Yeah because it was one of those questions like \"What would you do if
Taylor Swift asked you on a date\", I don\'t get the point of speculating
on what I\'d personally do in situations that have asymptotically zero
chance of happening.

What would you do?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:44:31 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:22:58 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 10/23/2022 1:10 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Unfortunately if the usual GOP tactics of slashing corporate tax rates
and making it as easy as possible to funnel as much wealth upwards to
America\'s wealthiest people as possible, did anything to fix inflation,
inflation would\'ve been fixed a while back.

Having wealthy people is a rallying point for jealousy, but their
wealth doesn\'t hurt the average person.

The way most of them get it does.

A billionaire doesn\'t drive a hundred thousand cars or eat a million eggs every day. They don\'t
compete much for things most people need.

But when they do, they win. every time. In the US, wealth is moire heritable than height.

> Rich people invest a lot more than they consume, namely divert consumption into investment. Somebody has to do that.

The cooperative movement has been doing it for more than a century now.

If we were to take all the wealth away from our billionaires (how
would we do that? Make them sell all their stock?) and write checks to
all the people (include illegals?) it would be instantly inflationary
and net destructive.

Nobody is proposing to take away all their wealth. Collecting more of their income in taxes is what has worked in the past. Quite a few countries go in for capital levies as well.

https://taxsavers.nl/no-capital-gains-tax-in-the-netherlands/

It\'s framed as an income tax on the interest that you ought to be getting - the nominal return - but it is a levy. It hasn\'t destroyed the Netherlands yet, and it doesn\'t seem to be inflationary.

> We need more rich people, not less. And we need their wealth in the USA.

You need more capital, and it makes sense to let it get concentrated, to some extent in the hands of people who can, and will invest it wisely. The children of people who can manage wise investment aren\'t usually as good at it as their parents. Rich people aren\'t always great at picking wise investments.

But the GOP knows this well enough. Their \"plan\" such as it is at this
point is to accelerate the decline, skim as much money as possible along
the way, and meanwhile manufacture enough fascist propaganda to convince
a sizable majority of destitute white Americans to worship the hoodlums
who robbed them.

I\'d say that plan has a decent chance of success.

You can\'t eat money, or live in a house made of money. What people can consume, on average, is what they produce.

The rich aren\'t average. The Murdoch children didn\'t produce the luxury yachts they swan around in.

> Jealousy is bad policy.

Recycling Murdoch propaganda isn\'t an impressive way of constructing an argument.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/
It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

And the problem with the US is that the GOP is precisely a device to let the rich collude in setting high prices for the products they sell.

American health care costs half as much again per head as it does anywhere else because the health insurance business is run in a way that lets it cream off extravagant profits.

> If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which would you sell to?

Not really a relevant point. The $60 offer would come from somebody who would set it as scrap metal, and the $9,000 offer would come from somebody who would restore it and sell it as an antique. One hopes that it wouldn\'t be authentic antique - as Ralph Nader pointed out, the original Beetle was easy to roll.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/
It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.
And the problem with the US is that the GOP is precisely a device to let the rich collude in setting high prices for the products they sell.

American health care costs half as much again per head as it does anywhere else because the health insurance business is run in a way that lets it cream off extravagant profits.
If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which would you sell to?
Not really a relevant point. The $60 offer would come from somebody who would set it as scrap metal, and the $9,000 offer would come from somebody who would restore it and sell it as an antique. One hopes that it wouldn\'t be authentic antique - as Ralph Nader pointed out, the original Beetle was easy to roll.

--
Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, your response, as usual, is NOT relevant. The example was about the behavior of sellers, not buyers. Producers, however, have a more complex optimization problem: how to set prices to generate the maximum profit. Contrary to libtard\'s belief, this DOES NOT mean charging the maximum price. Charging a lower price increases sales and increases profits - to a point. Below this price point you can\'t increase sales enough to offset lower, or no, profits.

It is interesting that french-fry producer Ore-Ida could not sell Tater Tots, which are made from the scrap parts of the potato, because the price was TOO low and consumers regarded them as junk. Sales popped after the price was raised and consumers perceived a value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tater_tots#cite_note-Ore-Ida_Fun_Zone_-_Fun_Facts-0).

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:32:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/
It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

And the problem with the US is that the GOP is precisely a device to let the rich collude in setting high prices for the products they sell.

American health care costs half as much again per head as it does anywhere else because the health insurance business is run in a way that lets it cream off extravagant profits.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which would you sell to?

Not really a relevant point. The $60 offer would come from somebody who would set it as scrap metal, and the $9,000 offer would come from somebody who would restore it and sell it as an antique. One hopes that it wouldn\'t be authentic antique - as Ralph Nader pointed out, the original Beetle was easy to roll.

Hey Bozo, your response, as usual, is NOT relevant. The example was about the behavior of sellers, not buyers. Producers, however, have a more complex optimization problem: how to set prices to generate the maximum profit. Contrary to libtard\'s belief, this DOES NOT mean charging the maximum price.. Charging a lower price increases sales and increases profits - to a point.. Below this price point you can\'t increase sales enough to offset lower, or no, profits.

Tell us how this works for American health care. The product clearly isn\'t worth one and half times the price that you\'d pay in other advanced industrial countries - American don\'t live longer than people in countries with less expensive health care - Canada gets 80 years for males and 84 years for females. The US has to make do with 75 years for males and 80 years for females.

> It is interesting that french-fry producer Ore-Ida could not sell Tater Tots, which are made from the scrap parts of the potato, because the price was TOO low and consumers regarded them as junk. Sales popped after the price was raised and consumers perceived a value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tater_tots#cite_note-Ore-Ida_Fun_Zone_-_Fun_Facts-0).

Not all that interesting. Economic behavior is irrational, and markets have to be regulated (to some extent) to stop irrational antics creating chaos and disaster.

The American health-care system is clearly a poorly regulated disaster, and the people who make loads of money out of it\'s defects cry \"socialism\" when anybody tries to clean it up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:32:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/
It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get..
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

And the problem with the US is that the GOP is precisely a device to let the rich collude in setting high prices for the products they sell.

American health care costs half as much again per head as it does anywhere else because the health insurance business is run in a way that lets it cream off extravagant profits.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which would you sell to?

Not really a relevant point. The $60 offer would come from somebody who would set it as scrap metal, and the $9,000 offer would come from somebody who would restore it and sell it as an antique. One hopes that it wouldn\'t be authentic antique - as Ralph Nader pointed out, the original Beetle was easy to roll.

Hey Bozo, your response, as usual, is NOT relevant. The example was about the behavior of sellers, not buyers. Producers, however, have a more complex optimization problem: how to set prices to generate the maximum profit.. Contrary to libtard\'s belief, this DOES NOT mean charging the maximum price. Charging a lower price increases sales and increases profits - to a point. Below this price point you can\'t increase sales enough to offset lower, or no, profits.
Tell us how this works for American health care. The product clearly isn\'t worth one and half times the price that you\'d pay in other advanced industrial countries - American don\'t live longer than people in countries with less expensive health care - Canada gets 80 years for males and 84 years for females. The US has to make do with 75 years for males and 80 years for females.

It works just the same. If you price a healthcare procedure too high nobody will use it. Lowering the price encourages more usage which results in more economies of scale and further price reductions.

It is interesting that french-fry producer Ore-Ida could not sell Tater Tots, which are made from the scrap parts of the potato, because the price was TOO low and consumers regarded them as junk. Sales popped after the price was raised and consumers perceived a value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tater_tots#cite_note-Ore-Ida_Fun_Zone_-_Fun_Facts-0).
Not all that interesting. Economic behavior is irrational, and markets have to be regulated (to some extent) to stop irrational antics creating chaos and disaster.

A typical libtard response to a marketing issue.

The American health-care system is clearly a poorly regulated disaster, and the people who make loads of money out of it\'s defects cry \"socialism\" when anybody tries to clean it up.

Our healthcare system is HIGHLY regulated, due in large part to libtards like YOU!

--
Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 3:57:26 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:32:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/
It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get.
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

And the problem with the US is that the GOP is precisely a device to let the rich collude in setting high prices for the products they sell.

American health care costs half as much again per head as it does anywhere else because the health insurance business is run in a way that lets it cream off extravagant profits.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which would you sell to?

Not really a relevant point. The $60 offer would come from somebody who would set it as scrap metal, and the $9,000 offer would come from somebody who would restore it and sell it as an antique. One hopes that it wouldn\'t be authentic antique - as Ralph Nader pointed out, the original Beetle was easy to roll.

Hey Bozo, your response, as usual, is NOT relevant. The example was about the behavior of sellers, not buyers. Producers, however, have a more complex optimization problem: how to set prices to generate the maximum profit. Contrary to libtard\'s belief, this DOES NOT mean charging the maximum price. Charging a lower price increases sales and increases profits - to a point. Below this price point you can\'t increase sales enough to offset lower, or no, profits.

Tell us how this works for American health care. The product clearly isn\'t worth one and half times the price that you\'d pay in other advanced industrial countries - American don\'t live longer than people in countries with less expensive health care - Canada gets 80 years for males and 84 years for females. The US has to make do with 75 years for males and 80 years for females.

It works just the same. If you price a healthcare procedure too high nobody will use it. Lowering the price encourages more usage which results in more economies of scale and further price reductions.

And this isn\'t happening in the US. Lowering prices isn\'t the outcome the industry wants, so they use their political clout to make sure that it doesn\'t happen

It is interesting that french-fry producer Ore-Ida could not sell Tater Tots, which are made from the scrap parts of the potato, because the price was TOO low and consumers regarded them as junk. Sales popped after the price was raised and consumers perceived a value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tater_tots#cite_note-Ore-Ida_Fun_Zone_-_Fun_Facts-0).

Not all that interesting. Economic behavior is irrational, and markets have to be regulated (to some extent) to stop irrational antics creating chaos and disaster.

A typical libtard response to a marketing issue.

By which Gnatguy means a correct response, if one he doesn\'t like.

Keeping the consumers of medical products well informed is remarkably difficult, and the typical customer is sick and confused by the illness they want treated. It\'s an even less rational market than most.

The American health-care system is clearly a poorly regulated disaster, and the people who make loads of money out of it\'s defects cry \"socialism\" when anybody tries to clean it up.

Our healthcare system is HIGHLY regulated, due in large part to libtards like YOU!

But not well regulated, so it doesn\'t work well at keeping people healthy even through it makes a lot of money for people who offer the product. Most of the regulation is aimed at stifling competition - professional birth control - though it is touted as \"maintaining standards\".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:14:35 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:32:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 15:11:38 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2022 12:02 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
Groundwork Collaborative have documented call after call in which CEOs
brag about gouging consumers and blaming it on inflation:

https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/
It\'s responsible behavior for any seller to charge all they can get..
Collusion to set pricing is illegal.

And the problem with the US is that the GOP is precisely a device to let the rich collude in setting high prices for the products they sell.

American health care costs half as much again per head as it does anywhere else because the health insurance business is run in a way that lets it cream off extravagant profits.

If you had a rusty VW up on blocks in the back yard, and someone offered you $60 for it, and someone else offered you $9000, which would you sell to?

Not really a relevant point. The $60 offer would come from somebody who would set it as scrap metal, and the $9,000 offer would come from somebody who would restore it and sell it as an antique. One hopes that it wouldn\'t be authentic antique - as Ralph Nader pointed out, the original Beetle was easy to roll.

Hey Bozo, your response, as usual, is NOT relevant. The example was about the behavior of sellers, not buyers. Producers, however, have a more complex optimization problem: how to set prices to generate the maximum profit.. Contrary to libtard\'s belief, this DOES NOT mean charging the maximum price. Charging a lower price increases sales and increases profits - to a point. Below this price point you can\'t increase sales enough to offset lower, or no, profits.
Tell us how this works for American health care. The product clearly isn\'t worth one and half times the price that you\'d pay in other advanced industrial countries - American don\'t live longer than people in countries with less expensive health care - Canada gets 80 years for males and 84 years for females. The US has to make do with 75 years for males and 80 years for females.

American health care is superior to every other system out there with the exception of maybe Germany. American doctors, and especially the specialists, are usually appalled at the lack of diagnostics and treatment they see in patients transferred from national health systems. Canada is a bureaucratic joke, and I suspect the same applies to all the present and former Commonwealth countries. Professionals well educated in public health administration in UK do not have kind words for their NHS- damaged and broken seem to be a common refrain.

It is interesting that french-fry producer Ore-Ida could not sell Tater Tots, which are made from the scrap parts of the potato, because the price was TOO low and consumers regarded them as junk. Sales popped after the price was raised and consumers perceived a value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tater_tots#cite_note-Ore-Ida_Fun_Zone_-_Fun_Facts-0).
Not all that interesting. Economic behavior is irrational, and markets have to be regulated (to some extent) to stop irrational antics creating chaos and disaster.

The American health-care system is clearly a poorly regulated disaster, and the people who make loads of money out of it\'s defects cry \"socialism\" when anybody tries to clean it up.

America leads in sheer volume of contributions to medical science, and quite a lot, as in most, of that is spurred by profit motive. Altruism and socialized organization of any kind just don\'t work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney