Neal, If I say “You are being too picky, hence I will ignore your comment,” is that also a mathematical argument? ðŸ™‚

]]>If you use “hence,” you’re making a mathematical argument. No exceptions ðŸ™‚

]]>This fact is unavoidable: if public employees got only pay increases at inflation from 1998, they’d be making $1.2T a year, instead they are making $1.7T.

That lost $500B could be paying 20M @ $25K, and we could be forcing all of them to give us foot massages on command.

The ENTIRE problem is public employees.

Scott refuses to positively weigh the future benefits of the bashing they are taking, the lesson that is being taught.

Those benefits are HUGE.

]]>1. Gucci raises their prices.

2. The government of Turkey doesn’t fear anyone in the private sector amassing savings wealth to become powerful, so bureaucrats become less and less productive and get paid more and more. Cost of govt services goes up.

]]>I’ll take a shot at Integral’s challenge:

“@John: Show that an increase in inflation expectations leads to increased inflation today. Do so entirely verbally, with no diagrams or equations and explain all of your transmission mechanisms.”

Inflation is (by definition) a decline in the value of the medium of account. If you expect future inflation, you expect the value of the medium of account to decline. This reduces the current demand for the medium of account, and hence reduces its current value. Thus expectations of future inflation produce current inflation. Is that right?

I’m puzzled by the fact that people differentiate between “math” and “graphs.” A graphical proof is a mathematical proof, as geometry is a part of math.

]]>Thanks, Patrick. As one who’s worked professionally in the tax area for, er, mumbly mumbly years, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all week.

First just close the all the loopholes and then we can increase top tax rates as high as we want. Easy! Especially internationally!

ROTFL! ðŸ™‚

]]>