Re: Refuting supply-side economics

From: William F Hummel (wfhummel_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:54:31 GMT

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:05:45 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:47:07 GMT, William F Hummel
><wfhummel@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:54:41 -0700, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And rampant hyperinflation _IS_
>>>bad. Why do you believe that the Congress would overspend and
>>>create such inflation in a representative democracy? How do you
>>>think they could remain in office?
>>
>>Look at the numbers. Annual government spending is about 100 times
>>greater than the annual increase in the monetary base. If total
>>government spending were cut by a factor of 100, the economy would
>>collapse. That amount of spending would even fall far short of
>>defense spending which you proposed be paid with "printed money."
>
>It's not clear that's what he meant by "military largess." The
>increase in base money seems comparable to the cost of the Iraq war.

Are you his defense lawyer now?
>
>>>Those who have money and are owed money will suffer and those who
>>>owe money and have no money will benefit from the ability to repay
>>>their debts in devalued dollars. We all _know_ hyperinflation is,
>>>in the long run, a bad thing to happen and that the currency will
>>>need to be replaced by some other serviceable form of money that
>>>retains its value.
>>
>>Those who have all their assets tied up in debt and cash will be wiped
>>out. So what?
>
>So that's not working people. So you were wrong.

No, you ignored the next sentence, a typical roybish maneuver.
>
>>Not many are that foolish. Those who will suffer most
>>are the millions of workers who may lose their homes on mortgage
>>foreclosures,
>
>??? ROTFL!!! How many working people have had their mortgages
>foreclosed as a result of hyperinflation? Hmmm? Can you name even
>_one_case_? They can ultimately pay off their mortgages with one
>week's labor, or one hour's. Hello?

Yes, laughing boy, I had my brain turned off for a moment.
>
>>and whose wages would badly lag price increases.
>
>I ask, for the fourth time: who do you think is _getting_ those
>increased prices? If the price of a hamburger goes up a million-fold,
>the burger flipper is going to be getting some of it, the truck
>driver, the landowner, the farmer, the rancher, the guy who works in
>the slaughterhouse, etc., etc. will all be getting some of it. The
>one guy who will _not_ be getting any more money as a result as a
>result of that price increase is the one who has money, or who lent
>money at a set interest rate.
>
>>They
>>would have serious problems putting enough bread on the table.
>
>That results from the dislocations and disruptions of production, and
>has historically been more of a problem under _de_flation.

You keep referring to the "historical record" as proof, but never
include data or cite a reference, so why should we believe you?
>
>>That
>>is suffering out of all proportion to the wealthy who can always sell
>>real assets to get by.
>
>But they have to sell real assets, and who are they selling them to,
>hmmmm? Could it be mainly the _working_people_ who are producing the
>goods the rich need to "get by"? When the hyperinflation is over,
>those real assets will belong to somebody other than their former rich
>owners, but the working people will still have their labor to sell.

So?
>
>>It's foolish to measure suffering by the monetary value of the loss.
>
>He didn't.

You did, and you also edited out my example. Hello?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: McCain wins Florida primary...
    ... price to a more realistic level. ... Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still ... that when the assessments were corrected, the town budget had to be ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: McCain wins Florida primary...
    ... price to a more realistic level. ... The real tax problem is the ... based on that artifically inflated home ... Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still ...
    (rec.boats)